Episode 1168 Scott Adams: The Biden News Not Covered, Condemning Racism, Polls That Surprise and More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Compilation clip, 38 times President Trump denounced racism
Honest FULL opinions aren't allowed
General Flynn's tweet today
Tony Bobulinski interviewed by Tucker Carlson
Election result, civil war concerns
NXIVM, Keith Raniere verdict, brainwashing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Hey everybody good morning Now a lot of you were saying yesterday that YouTube did not go live when Periscope did.
But it did go live because there were people on it and I was looking at comments and sure enough it posted like everything else.
So if there's anybody who sees some issue with that, let me know.
But Let me tell you, it's looking good today.
It's looking good. And by that I mean everything's starting to turn positive.
The economy going up.
Oh yeah, everything.
But it's going to get better with a simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a cider, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called The Simultaneous.
If it happens now, go. I see in the comments somebody's asking about Dilbert and masks.
So I draw the Dilbert comic strip A month or two ahead, depending on whether it's the Sunday or the dailies.
The Sundays are more of a lead time.
And I had to decide if we would still be wearing masks, you know, in X days in the future.
And so I jumped the gun a little bit.
It looks like we'll probably be wearing masks well into 2021.
But the Dilbert Crew will be doing lots of working at home, lots of zooming.
Not a lot of tubing, tubing, but a lot of zooming.
And I took their masks off, but I think I took them off a little too early.
So we'll see. Now, there's a little bit of a business problem if I take their masks off or I leave them on.
Leaving them on is more of a problem.
And here's the problem. The way my business model works is that first the Dilbert cartoon is published in newspapers and websites around the world, and they get first crack at it.
But after that, we turn them into calendars and books.
But the calendars and books are meant to come well after the fact, and those masks aren't going to make any sense in 2025.
So I've got a whole bunch of comics that Probably we won't be able to use again, which is the first time that's ever happened.
Because if you look at any Dilbert comic from 10 years ago, it probably works just as well today.
But that's a whole period.
It'll be like a year out of the Dilbert universe that I can't use for reprints or books because they just would look out of place.
So, that's all that.
Let's talk about some fun things.
I'm going to start with a feel-good story.
Feel-good story, okay?
There's a woman who goes into a, I guess there are these stores called Wawa stores, some kind of grocery store that's not where I live.
And she was somewhere in the United States, I think, and she went into a Wawa store, and there was a man in line ahead of her who was having trouble paying.
There was some trouble with his credit card.
So he didn't really have a way to buy his stuff.
So this woman in line...
Had a sort of a custom with her husband where they would sometimes pay for people's purchases.
So if they saw a veteran, for example, somebody in the service, sometimes they would just buy that person's groceries.
And so she sees this poor guy, kind of looks a little bedraggled, and maybe doesn't look like he has a lot of money.
And he's having trouble paying, so she just steps up and says, I'll pay for it.
So she pays for it.
And she's looking at this guy, and she's like, you know, you look familiar.
You know, has anybody ever told you you look like Keith Urban?
And he says, I am Keith Urban.
And it was. So it turns out that she ended up paying for Keith Urban's groceries.
Somebody's telling me that a Wawa is more like a 7-Eleven.
So that's just a cool little feel-good story.
You never know who you're...
You know, if you do a favor for somebody...
And I swear this is the secret of the universe.
It really is.
That... And I think there are real differences in how people are raised to understand this little phenomenon, which is the good part of life, the part that's really meaningful, is the part where you're giving something.
It's not the part where you're getting something.
and people who realize that the more they give, the more they get back, really have an advantage in life.
The people who think that life will serve up little delights, as long as they're just good people.
This was a cool example of that.
All right, the Trump campaign has quite wisely, very wisely, done a little ad in which they count off the 38 times that President Trump has condemned racism and white supremacy.
Now, you've seen the compilation clips before, right?
You've seen a clip where seven or eight times, or whatever the number is, you'll see a clip of him denouncing racism.
But what they did here was they put a counter up in the corner so that you would have to sit there for all 38 and watch the counter click, and they're all modern.
Well, I think a few of them go back a few years, but most of them are modern people.
Times that he said he denounced these.
And what makes this better than the other compilation clips is that putting a specific number on it, and a big number, because 38 is a lot of times to say anything, it completely changes the persuasive power of it.
So just knowing that there exists a compilation clip is good.
But compare these two thoughts.
Which one is stickier? There exists a compilation clip of the president denouncing racism.
That's one. Now here's the second one, and compare.
There are 38 instances on one video of President Trump denouncing racism and white supremacy.
You see? Not even close.
You put that number on it, especially when it's a big number, and the other compilation clips tended to be half a dozen clips or whatever, but 38 times?
I mean, seriously?
Have you ever denounced anything 38 times?
So I sent that clip off to my somewhat infamous Democrat friend that I talk about all the time anonymously, who is very smart, But is in a complete vacuum of information about anything that the conservative part of the country sees.
He just doesn't see it.
And so I've been trying to fill in the blanks with some of this stuff.
I'd asked him earlier if he'd ever seen anything about the Tony Bobulinski laptop story.
And he said, well, no, I don't see much about that.
I just saw some reference to it being completely baseless.
So that's the kind of news that he's getting.
So I sent him the 38 times that the president has denounced racism because that was one of his biggest issues.
It was right at the top of the list.
Why can't this guy denounce racism?
Well, he did 38 times.
Why can't you see the news?
It's because they don't let you.
You're trapped in your little news bubble.
Dare I call it a cult?
Because you can't get out, and you're not allowed to talk to the outside world.
What do you call that?
Let's see, you're in an organization, you can't get out of it, and you can't communicate with the outside world.
Huh. Sounds like a cult.
Compare that to the Republicans...
Who can easily leave?
How easy would it be, socially, let's say, socially and economically, how easy would it be for you to leave the Republican Party, if you're in it, and become a Democrat?
Not only is it easy, you would be rewarded.
People would pat you on the back, and they'd invite you over and say, finally, I'm so glad, and you would just be rewarded.
And what would the Republicans do to punish you?
To punish you for changing your mind?
Nothing. A couple of mean tweets.
That's it. No penalty.
Now, suppose you went the other way.
You were a Democrat and you tried to quit the Democrat Party and come out as a supporter of President Trump.
Well, we've seen a few people who have even, you know, slightly, slightly leaned in his direction.
You know, Kanye, Ice Cube, and in the case of Ice Cube, he's not a pro-Trump guy, but even having a conversation with them.
Big penalty, right?
Economically, socially, and everything else.
So I would say one of them is a cult.
Now, what about the information?
So one of them is easy to leave, and one of them is not.
What about information? Well, I'd say the conservatives tend to see CNN's news even if they don't think it's true.
Whereas the people who watch CNN primarily don't see Fox News because they don't need to.
So which one's a cult?
All right. Have you seen any polls?
Because I know they exist, but it's strange that I can't think of one, so I don't know the answer to this question.
Are the polls about American opinions about wearing masks and about reopening the economy and about how frightened we should be of the coronavirus and how aggressive we should be to battle the virus versus keeping the economy open, have you seen any polls that would tell you whether President Trump is closer to the public's opinion or is Biden?
Does anybody know that?
Because why do I not know that?
Why do you not know that?
Isn't that conspicuously missing?
Because the biggest thing we're talking about before we go into the election is that Biden has a view on coronavirus and Trump has a view on coronavirus and they're very different.
Which one matches the public?
And why do I know that?
Because I'm sure there have been, there must have been polls that get to that, but why isn't that reported every time the news talks about their differing views on the coronavirus?
It seems like they would say, and President Trump has a view that is totally at odds with the public.
Because if it were, wouldn't that be the headline?
Because this is life and death, right?
Literally, life and death.
Lots of times you say that and it's not exactly true.
But this is life and death.
Real people really dying, real tragedies.
Whichever way you go, you have to choose your bad path.
It's just two bad paths.
But, you know, I'm not sure that in this case...
I don't want to make the case that the president, whoever the president is, should just follow the public's opinion on coronavirus.
Because that doesn't make sense, right?
Because the public, they are not experts, etc.
So I wouldn't say that it is automatically smart that if President Trump matches the public opinion, that that's the best way to go.
Because the whole point of leadership is to get you to do something you didn't want to do.
Right? You don't need leadership to tell people to eat candy because they kind of want to eat candy.
They're going to do it anyway. You don't need leadership to tell people to, I don't know, wear clothes every day.
You don't need to tell anybody.
They're just going to sort of do it anyway.
But you do need leadership if you want somebody to, let's say, an army to charge into danger.
Maybe those soldiers didn't so much want to get shot at But you need to tell them to do it because you're the leader and it's for the greater good.
So I'm not going to say that matching the public in this case is necessarily the best leadership decision, but shouldn't you know?
I mean, it's just this gigantic gap of something terribly important.
You should at least know and then you can decide what you think about the leadership.
I'll tell you my gut feeling.
My gut feeling is that there might be a little difficulty getting an accurate poll on this from the public.
Because if you call somebody at home and say, do you think people should wear their masks all the time?
I feel like people are going to give you the answer that you're looking for.
Right? Because pollsters have to adjust for that.
They've got to figure out a way to tease out the real opinion when people are likely to lie and say what they think you want them to say.
So I think people would say, oh yeah, masks.
Wear those masks.
Because it sounds good.
I don't know if they would actually live their life that way.
Here's what I feel. I feel like the American public is very close to Trump's opinion.
Do you feel that? Now, you might be biased, because a lot of you are Trump supporters, if you're watching this Periscope or this live stream.
So, I don't know if we can ever know who's closer to the public, but I really feel like Trump is closer to the public.
Again, that doesn't mean it's the right way to go, you know, just matching the public, because the public is not a bunch of geniuses, right?
It doesn't mean it's right. It just means that it matches.
And In terms of guessing who is going to do better in the election, I feel like whoever is closer to the public matches their opinion is going to have an election advantage.
And I think that a lot of us have the following opinion that we're not allowed to say out loud.
And that's really one of the problems here.
One of the problems with the coronavirus topic is you're not really allowed to say in public or out loud an honest opinion.
Because if you did, it would make you sound like a monster.
Any honest opinion.
Take, for example, you wanted to give an honest opinion that matched Joe Biden.
So you would say, yes, I think we should put maximum opinion.
Attention on wearing our masks and closing down businesses.
So sort of matching the Biden opinion.
But you can't really say the whole opinion out loud, right?
Because the whole opinion is, yeah, I think this will probably ruin 85,000 small businesses that will never recover.
And the families associated with those businesses will never be the same.
But I still think, on balance, it's better that we do this now and take that pain because it might be better in the long run.
That would be the Biden opinion. So you can't say that out loud.
All you can say is pretend that the mask part is the only thing you're talking about.
You can't say, but I think if we do this, 85,000 businesses will be destroyed, or whatever the number is.
I'm just making that up. Likewise, you can't say the other opinion out loud, which is, I think we need to really protect the economy because it's the engine that allows all of us to thrive.
It's what pays for our health care.
It pays for our defense.
It feeds us.
You can't ignore the economy.
So I want to open up the economy, but I recognize that this will cause 1,000 to 2,000 Americans per day to die between now and vaccine time, or something like that, right?
Can you say that in public?
You cannot. You can't say Trump's full opinion in public, and you can't say Joe Biden's full opinion in public.
You have to leave out the other half of the story, or you're not allowed to talk.
You can't say what I just said and act like it's your opinion because you would just be a monster.
Oh, you're a monster. You don't care about 85,000, whatever the number is.
Small businesses going out of business?
You don't care? Or you don't care that 1,000 people or 2,000 people a day are going to die early?
So, we can't be honest about this stuff.
I think the best you can do is, if you're lucky, the president that matches your opinion gets elected.
There's a second night of looting in Philadelphia, Black Lives Matter protesters, because of the fatal shooting of a man who had mental issues and came at police with a knife.
You know, I want to give advice to the black community, but it's obnoxious.
You can't really do that either, can you?
Because how would that be received?
I mean, just think about it.
Would you want somebody outside of your community, whatever you think your community is, to be giving you advice?
Not really. I mean, you might want resources.
You might want support.
You might want a lot of things.
But I'll tell you one thing you don't want, usually.
It's just the way we're wired.
You don't want advice, right?
If you're a woman...
And it's, say, some woman-related issue.
You don't really want to hear from men, do you?
And so on and so forth for every group.
But if I were to give obnoxious advice to the black community, it would be very similar to what Candace Owens gives, which is stop treating the people that you don't want as your role models as role models.
Stop treating the police as the bad actors in this, because the police are not happy that they shot this guy.
You know that, right?
The police officers involved who had to shoot this guy, and then, you know, especially when they find out that he has mental problems, do you think any of them are happy?
Do you think any of them got what they wanted?
No. Nobody's happy.
This is just a tragedy.
Definitely one we should pay attention to.
Definitely one that we should put our best efforts into making sure it doesn't happen.
I'm no genius, so I can't figure out what they should have done.
If somebody is dangerous and has a knife, is it really a mistake that the police showed up before the social workers?
Can we really call that a mistake?
Because it's a dangerous person with a knife.
I don't know, if the social workers showed up first, would that have been better?
So I think if I could give obnoxious advice to people who probably don't want any bit of it, if you take a loser strategy, don't blame me if it loses, because you know it's a loser strategy, right? You know that. You know that Putting your backing behind the criminals and the mentally insane is a losing strategy.
It doesn't make you look good to anybody else.
It doesn't get your support from anybody else.
It doesn't make Black Lives Matter look good.
It's just a bad strategy.
And And I mean it's a bad strategy for you to get what you want.
So I don't think anything bothers me about the whole Black Lives Matter protests, Antifa.
I don't think anything bothers me more than the fact that the strategy is not good for getting what they want.
You know, it's not even a conversation of should you have this or should you not or what's a good plan, what's a bad plan.
But just the strategy is just so broken.
And I feel like it's a gift to say that out loud because people gotta hear it.
People with good strategies generally end up okay.
People with terrible strategies generally end up poorly.
And if you see a whole group of people who are rallying around an obviously bad strategy, obviously bad, It's worth it to point it out.
All right. Trump is saying on the campaign trail that the coronavirus infections look bad because we're testing more.
And the more you test, the more you find.
And then his critics say, but, but, but, but, that's not the story because hospitalizations and deaths are also going up, which is true.
But they're still sort of hovering in the same range, right?
They might pop up a little percentage, and we should certainly be worried that yesterday's pop might be the beginning of a trend, but we're not at the beginning of a trend.
It might be, but we don't know that yet.
So I feel like this one, the claim that the only reason we're seeing this spike is because of testing is clearly untrue.
Would you agree with that?
Two things can be true at the same time.
One is that the more testing you do, the more infections you'll find.
So Trump says that, and that is clearly and unambiguously true, that if you're not testing, you don't find it.
If you are testing, you do find it.
That's just true, right?
If you're arguing against testing finds more virus, I don't know how that makes sense.
But to say that that's a reason to not be worried about the virus, that's a stretch.
The deaths and hospitalizations are what matters.
And I would say the deaths, of course, matter more than hospitalizations, but they're related.
Here's my prediction.
I believe that through the winter, although the number of deaths may spike and fall in smaller ways, I feel like the deaths will continue on average to trend down because our medical people are just really good and they've gotten a lot closer to figuring out what to do.
But the other factor that I think the Trump administration has failed at, just flat out failed at.
And I say this for the benefit of all those who say, Scott, Scott, Scott, you only say good things about Trump.
You never criticize anything he does, which is not true, because I do all the time.
So I'll do it again. Here's what I would like to see.
The President has made great claims about Regeneron.
I think he's probably right.
I'm no expert, but it feels like he's probably on to something.
The Regeneron seems to have scientific backing, etc.
So we're not going to judge just on his anecdotal experience, but it seems like the science is there.
And then the second thing we know about the Regeneron is that it's not universally available.
There's a quantity issue.
There's someone watching this live stream or maybe recorded right now who has been keeping me informed about her and her husband going through the coronavirus infection.
And in their experience, the husband did get hospitalized, did have a little detectable lung impact that showed up on x-rays, I guess.
And he did not get Regeneron.
So imagine a senior citizen who went into a hospital in the United States within the last week, had enough of an infection that he had to be hospitalized, and it showed up on the When I say hospitalized, I mean he went in to the emergency room to get treatment.
I don't know how long he stayed if he did.
But his lungs showed a little bit of impact, and that wasn't enough to get Regeneron.
And I think the reason is because of the supply.
My guess is that somebody like him, they're saying, ah...
99.9% chance you're going to be alright.
But this one over here, a little less chance.
We don't have much Regeneron.
We'll give it to this one. But how far away are we from giving it to everybody?
How far away are we for that person I just mentioned gets a little Regeneron just in case?
Because I don't think it's unsafe.
And that person might have worsened quickly.
And may have turned into a bad case.
So here's what I would like from my administration as a show of competence in managing the coronavirus.
And it looks like this. You as a citizen should be able to very easily Google a timeline that shows how much Regeneron we have and how long it will take to make it universally available to anybody who needs it in the United States.
Is that one month away?
Or is that six months away?
Or is that we can never get there between now and the time that the coronavirus is gone for other reasons?
Wouldn't you like to know that?
Isn't that like maybe one of the most important questions in the world?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Tell me something that is more important in terms of information that you need to know Which is completely available.
You don't think that we could go to the company that makes Regeneron, and I believe there's another company making something that has similar effect.
Are you telling me we can't go to those companies and say, we need your timeline when you can have enough for everybody, and maybe also some in-between steps so we'll know where we are?
Somebody says it's on the web.
Can you tweet it at me?
Because if it's on the web, and it's...
Let me just give you a for instance.
If we knew when everybody would have Regeneron, and let's say it was a month from now, how would you feel in terms of your total worry about coronavirus versus if they told you, you know, we're just not going to have more than enough for 20% of our hospitals All the way through next year.
It's completely different, right?
How much you worry about the coronavirus would be completely different based on the availability of that therapeutic.
And mostly because the president has talked it up so much that your mental model of, you know, your risk has that big component now because the president did that.
He put that in your head. A real big part of the conversation is this drug.
You don't know if you could even get it.
I need to know.
And let me tell you how I would act differently.
I would act differently if I knew that I could get that drug tomorrow.
If I could get it tomorrow, I might say to myself, you know...
I'll wear my mask in all the obvious times when you need it, but I might play a little loose with it in those less risky situations.
Because, well, you know, I got my Regeneron.
But if I don't, if I don't have Regeneron, if I went to a local hospital and I had a little lung impact and I'm a certain age and I've got asthma, I don't know if I'm coming home.
And I'd like to at least know if I could get Regeneron.
That's a big question, and I don't know the answer to it, and that's just wrong.
And I would say that that's a clear and obvious failure of the administration to get that information and get it to the public.
Easy to fix, though.
General Flynn tweeted today, and this had a big impact on me.
I want to see if it does to you.
So this is from General Flynn's Twitter account.
And he tweets the following, quote, And then he has a Bible quote, Isaiah 43, 1, quote, Now, President Trump used this exact phrase, and he said that his strategy, and he used the exact phrase, was to leave it all on the field.
Now, when the president says it, I like to hear it, right?
Because I made a big deal yesterday about how when you see your leaders working hard, that means something.
It triggers your feeling of reciprocity.
Oh, he's working hard, I feel like I can at least vote, right?
It inspires you to do a little.
But when General Flynn says, over the next seven days, leave it all on the field, who's he talking to?
When Trump says, I'm going to leave it all on the field, he's talking to himself.
He's talking to his campaign, right?
Leave it all on the field. But when General Flynn says it, I feel like he's talking to me.
I feel like he's talking to voters.
He's talking to the base, primarily.
And when a general tells you to leave it all in the field, it feels different, doesn't it?
Doesn't it feel different? And I feel like Because of his unique situation, not only because he's a three-star general, I believe, or was, retired, but the fact that he has been, I would say, doing the same.
General Flynn is leaving it all in the field in his own life, too.
I mean, he's balls to the walls defending his family and defending, I would say, the United States at the same time.
Because the United States does not benefit if his family is victimized by our own government.
So he's fighting for the country.
Ideally, he's fighting for his family, fighting for his own sense of life.
So his credibility is very high with us at the moment.
And when he tells you to leave it all in the field...
You better vote. You better vote.
You got your orders.
All right. Of course, we're going to talk about Tony Bobulinski, the business associate of the Bidens who gave an extended interview on Tucker Carlson's show.
So, of course, if it was on a major news network, on Fox News, and it was a major piece in primetime, Well, that's big news, so that'll be on all the networks now.
They're going to have to cover it.
Nope, nope, they're not.
Here are the things that the other networks have considered not really newsworthy, nothing like that.
One is the brother of Joe Biden saying that they had plausible deniability.
That's Meaning that their activities with foreign companies, especially China, certainly the implication is that they look pretty bad.
Or when you say plausible deniability, you're not just talking about the way it looks, right?
Plausible deniability, assuming that Tony Bobulinski is accurately relaying those exact words from Joe Biden's brother, Plausible deniability says you know you're doing a crime or something that you don't want to get caught at, and you just have a way to deny it.
Now, hearing that report from an actual eyewitness who is willing to talk to you, that doesn't get your attention?
So that's not news?
Okay. How about the fact that One of the emails that the Bidens do not deny is real talks about holding money from the big guy, and Tony Bobulinski has identified with total certainty, his certainty, That the big guy is Joe Biden.
And if somebody is holding money for him, in this case it would be Hunter, that he would be implicated in a pay-for-play influence scheme.
Might not be illegal, because he was not in office.
But isn't that news?
That's not news? Nothing?
Nothing there? Okay.
How about... How about...
What was the other thing?
Oh, the fact that Hunter Biden referred to their business partner, the person they're actually doing deals with, Hunter referred to him in an email that, again, is not being denied as real as a China spy chief.
So the potential next president of the United States, his son, was doing business with somebody that the son himself called a China spy chief, And of course, apparently there is a connection to China's government, so he's not necessarily wrong about that.
There's evidence that was an accurate enough characterization.
Nothing? No interest there whatsoever?
So if you want to have a good laugh, and I tweeted this, go over to Ground News.
Just tweet it, it'll pop right up.
Ground, like the ground you're standing on, news.
And what they do is they show how each of the media outlets is covering a story, so you can click on each outlet and see their take on the same story.
And one of their primary graphic will show you that the entire middle and left of the news industry, completely blank.
This story just doesn't exist.
And of course everyone on the right is covering it.
So I sent that to my Democrat friend to show him the hole in his news coverage.
So today my Democrat friend received the video of the 38 denials or disavowing of racism from Trump and the ground news link That shows that all the news sources that he uses ignored the story while all of the news on the right covered it.
I feel as though that's going to mean something.
I feel as though he's going to look at that and say, maybe I'm not getting all the news.
Maybe not. We'll see.
Now, the funniest part about this story is how the left...
The story that they're using to ignore it.
And it's just laughable.
They're just saying that there's no financial records to show that Joe Biden was attached to any of those deals.
Now, that wasn't the claim.
The claim was never that there would be financial records that Joe Biden is attached to a deal.
Was there anybody who ever made that claim?
So they've debunked a claim that nobody ever made.
The claim is very specific that it would not be on the financial records because they got their plausible deniability and you've got Hunter Biden holding a share for the big guy.
Right? So they managed to debunk a claim that was never made and then they just walk away.
And that's happening right in front of us.
And it's just sort of wild.
It's sort of wild, yeah. As somebody saying in the comments, the lack of a record is the story.
The story is that if you look at the financial records, you won't find it.
That's the story. So they looked at the financial records and didn't find it, and then said the story is false.
Because they found exactly what the story says you will find, which is no financial record.
Of course, there's the other part, which is verifying that there was anything sketchy going on.
Now, here's the thing. I am certainly willing to believe that nothing technically illegal happened here.
Would you sign on to that?
Now, that's not to say nothing illegal happened.
There might be a question about the FARA stuff, registering as a foreign agent.
So there might be some technical thing going on here.
But as others have said, it's so widespread a crime of not registering as a foreign agent that it would be sort of a tic-tac thing to pick one person and go after them for something that everybody's doing.
So there might be a small technical crime, one that the country hasn't cared about too much.
Yeah, the Logan Act, nobody's going to care.
Technical violation.
So I'm completely open to the idea that there's no technical real crime that anybody cares about crime-wise.
But how do we ignore the fact that the sun would have potentially large...
Chinese connections and is doing things that make him very blackmailable.
That's got to be a story.
The blackmailable part, the good judgment part, the connections part, just the swampiness of it all.
All right. I'm preaching to the choir here.
Rasmussen had a poll on most likely voters, and they're asking about who knows about this story or what they think about the Joe Biden stories with Hunter.
And most of the likely voters actually know about the story.
So the story is actually getting out.
But I think it's getting out At least in many cases, it's getting out, but it's paired with the denial.
So I think a lot of people have heard it.
If they heard it at CNN, they heard it as a fake news story.
So the fact that they've heard it doesn't tell you as much as you think it does, because they may have heard it paired with it's not true.
But here's the part that I found fascinating.
As with most polls, different demographic groups have different opinions.
And here's the part that really caught my eye.
Among the ethnic groups who most believe there's something wrong with this Biden story, meaning that there's something to worry about with the connection of Hunter, the people who think that there's a problem here, black Americans.
By far, black Americans believe that the Bidens are up to something no good compared to white Americans.
Now, would you have seen that coming?
What demographic group is least believing that the Biden family was up to something no good, whether illegal or just swampy?
What demographic group was most trusting Guess.
Young people.
Young people.
So, you can see how your experience influences things.
If you are young, you have seen, you know, almost by definition, you've seen less of life, and you've seen less examples of bad behavior by, you know, important people.
You might even think that the news is legitimate.
So young people prove once again that they're the dumbest demographic, and I can say that because I was once young and I was dumber than I am now.
So it's the one group that you shouldn't feel bad about mocking because everybody was young and everybody got smarter.
So you can mock yourself, you just shouldn't mock other people and we've all been young, so I think that's fair.
So young people, sure enough, the ones who have seen the least of life are the most gullible in the sense they're most trusting of the Biden's innocence.
Black people, who one could say as a general statement that I don't think anybody would argue with, right?
Black people have seen more shit.
Am I right? They've seen more bad behavior by more people than Including the police, right?
That would be high on their list of groups that, in their opinions, have bad behavior.
So the people who have the most experience of people acting badly in life, in many cases against them, as they would see it, are the least trusting of the Bidens.
So you can see how your filter on life has a pretty big impact on your political opinions, and should.
Why wouldn't it? Alright, and I think that that might predict where we're going here.
How are you all feeling about how the election's going to turn out?
Somebody in the comments is saying, blacks have a powerful bullshit detector, bullshit meter.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying with classier language, because I'm so classy.
You know, if you want classiness, that's why you come here.
Alright, how are you feeling about the election?
What do you think is going to happen?
I can't explain this, but it feels like Trump just has it.
And I don't, you know, if my rational brain Says, yeah, anything could happen.
You could be wrong. Polls could be wrong.
Your gut feeling could be wrong.
You got it right in 2016.
That doesn't mean you're going to get it right again.
You're not magic. You might have gotten lucky.
So that's my conscious brain.
That's saying all those things. But everything below the conscious part of the brain, wherever that is in the brain, everything below that says Trump already won.
My body...
Feels like it's over.
My head is still asking all the right questions.
You know, it's like, well, what about this?
What about that? And that's what it's supposed to do.
But I gotta tell you, you know, if you monitor your brain and your body, you find that there are lots of situations in life where they go in different directions.
Your brain is saying everything's all right, but your body is scared to death.
Very common, right? Or your body is okay, but your brain is worried.
You're not sure what the hell's up with that.
Like, why isn't my body worried?
My brain is worried. So this is one of those.
So all of my instincts, all of my gut reactions, everything I know about life, the sum of my experience over my lifetime, my view from my skill stack, every bit of that...
says Trump has this locked up.
Like, locked up.
But my conscious brain says, well, maybe not.
You know, never know. So that's where I'm at.
I just wondered how many of you...
So I'm looking at your comments.
Yeah, Nate Silver still thinks it's Biden's to lose.
Somebody says, are you overestimating how smart the American people are?
I don't know if I have an opinion about their smartness.
I just have a feeling.
I'm certainly not basing my opinion on the intelligence of the American voter.
I wouldn't do that. I'm basing my opinion on how everything feels.
I suppose there's some knowledge and information and experience that's informing the feeling, but I can't put my finger on it.
Somebody says it's not over, vote.
Yes, certainly there's nothing I'm saying in my periscope that's going to cause anybody to not vote.
And if you don't vote, obviously that changes the outcome.
All right. So it's looking good to me.
And when I see the people on the left who act just as confident that it's over the other way, somebody's in for a surprise.
A big surprise. Now, and I'll say again, if it turns out that I'm wrong, it's not going to rock my world.
I'll just say, oh, I guess the polls, they adjusted after 2016, and the polls were just more accurate than I thought.
That's all. And, you know, I'll just go on with life.
But the Democrats are going to have some serious mental problems if this doesn't go their way.
It looks like it's headed that way.
Now let's talk about the revolution some of you are expecting.
There are very few things that I am this comfortable saying with certainty.
And I'm going to say this with complete certainty.
And in this case, my body and my brain are completely on the same side.
We're not going to have a revolution.
We will have our arguments and our disagreements.
We might get the Supreme Court involved.
There certainly will be, let's say, if Trump wins, there certainly will be unrest in the streets, small businesses will be destroyed, but it will be sort of an increase of just our baseline, you know, this baseline protesting stuff.
But it's not going to be a civil war.
And the reason it's not going to be a civil war is there just are not enough people who want one.
In order to have a civil war, you kind of want to have some core group of people who want a civil war, who have a desire for that to happen.
We just don't have anything like that.
There are lots of people who might want to go out and protest, but even those people, even the protesters, most of them don't want a civil war.
And if it happened, it would be squashed pretty easily.
Now the other thing is that rich people do not want a civil war.
That's the worst thing that could happen to rich people, right?
Because they could lose everything.
They kind of like things the way they are.
And rich people probably Have a lot more control over the system than we even understand, and we understand they have a lot.
So, as long as the rich people are solidly against a civil war, and they are, there are no rich Democrats who want a civil war, there are no rich Republicans who want a civil war, and they have the power.
Now, even if you imagine, okay, it's not the rich people who are going to hit the streets and all that, I feel like they control the communication.
So there will be billionaires who control the news on the left.
There will be billionaires and other people who control the news on the right.
And none of those people who control the message are going to be saying, grab your gun and hit the street.
None of them. There won't be any.
The only place it will be coming from is some leftists and some Antifa people who are like, ah, it's our time.
It's our time. We'll strike while the mood of the country...
It's all negative.
This is our time to strike.
How many will there be?
In the whole country, how many of those people will there be?
10,000? Spread across different cities?
You know, a few hundred in each?
Absolutely nothing.
If you add it all up, Doesn't add up to a drop in the ocean.
So there will be no civil war.
There will be no civil war.
If Trump wins, there will be no civil war.
If Biden wins, there will be no civil war because he won.
Nobody's going to go to the street just because the election went for Biden.
But if he were to be over-influenced by his progressives, And he actually came door to door trying to take your gun away.
Okay, that would be a civil war.
That would be a civil war if Biden tried to take your guns away.
No doubt about that one.
But, you know, there won't be a civil war after the election.
There just isn't enough reason.
There's a verdict in the NXIVM trial.
NXIVM, which the press calls a cult.
The members do not.
And he got 120 years.
Ouch. Now, of course, you and I don't get to see all the evidence of the trial, so we can't really judge.
Was it a fair trial?
The people who support the NXIVM leader, Keith Ranieri, They would say that the evidence is sketchy on some of the claims, etc.
I did read the statement from the 15-year-old who alleges that she was groomed and forced into a variety of sexual and other things by Keith Ranieri.
And I would say that the statement is pretty brutal.
Pretty brutal.
And... Certainly, if any of this stuff in that statement is true, then Keith has to answer for that.
But the other part about whether the other members in the subgroup, the DOS subgroup, who had some kind of a slave master fraternal situation going on there, the question is whether there was some kind of real brainwashing or if they have free will.
And I'll tell you, this question is vitally important because we're a very unscientific people, meaning that we believe there is a thing called free will.
Science can't find it, right?
If you believe in science, you can't believe in free will, at least the way I define it.
You can certainly say we don't know what we'll be doing.
You know, there's some uncertainty about how people will act because we're not good at predicting the complexity of the human mind.
But Cause and effect and the rules of physics did not stop at the outside of your skull.
It also applies to anything happening inside your brain, cause and effect.
So this issue of what is free will and what is not is just really important because people will go to jail for stuff that may have been just an illusion.
And one of the illusions is that...
People who agree to do things that you would not agree to do must have been brainwashed or they wouldn't have done it.
And that's just not true.
Turns out that there are people who do all kinds of things you wouldn't do.
And they don't need to be brainwashed, because they're just different people.
So the fact that a number of these people voluntarily went into a situation that involved giving personal information that could be used for blackmail, they went into a situation where they were going to call somebody else their master, etc.
The fact that you wouldn't have done it doesn't say anything about brainwashing, because these are people who had their reasons, You don't have to know their reasons.
They had their preferences.
You don't need to know their preferences.
So to me, this is a little bit, gets close to the LGBTQ kind of philosophical argument, which is, you know, does society have a right to discriminate against people because of any sexual, I'll say, orientation and or preference?
Because those get used differently.
So I would say we shouldn't discriminate for that reason.
But, of course, the trial had, you know, they were talking about actual crimes as well.
So keep an eye on that.
And then, of course, tomorrow there's going to be the testimony of the big social media heads.
So we're going to see the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter...
Talking to the Senate Commerce Committee about allegations that they're moderating content, especially against conservatives.
This is what CNN says about the allegation that the social networks are not favoring conservatives or they're biasing against conservatives.
CNN says, and I quote on their website, What?
But the executives clearly expect to be pressed on the matter.
I did not look at all of their sources for this claim that independent studies have found that social media is not biased against right-wing.
That is so ridiculous on the surface that I don't even know what to say about it.
I mean, really, it's just mind-boggling that CNN could put such disinformation on their page.
I don't think there's anything that has more evidence for it, does it?
Show me the list of left-wing people banned by Twitter.
It's kind of ridiculous.
I can't even believe CNN would have the guts to print that on their website.
But I also have not seen any study that would be credible that shows there's some difference there.
Alright, so...
I'm just going to look at some of your comments as they go by.
Somebody says, quote, independent studies.
How independent would any study be of this topic?
Not at all. There's no such thing as an independent study on whether the left or the right are being treated the same.
You can't have an independent study because everybody in this country is either left or right.
There's no middle left.
All right. Somebody says it makes you want to swear.
The slaughter meter is still at 100%.
I used to say greater than 100% because it was fun, but I'll just say 100%.
It's maxed out.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that suggests Biden could win is the polls that we don't trust, the ones that were wrong last time.
That's it. Everything else is Seems to lean toward Trump in terms of enthusiasm, you name it.
All right. So that's where my gut says.
My gut says it's all Trump.
I would give you the...
I will give you the caution that I gave in 2016.
Some of you who have been with me since then, when I first started periscoping, you might remember that as soon as the election was called for Trump in 2016, I got on a live stream and I tried to appeal to Trump supporters to tone down the gloating.
Because it doesn't make for a better country, right?
It just causes trouble. So we don't know yet who's going to win.
I think it'll be Trump.
If it is Trump, keep your gloating to a minimum.
Sure, you've got to enjoy yourself.
I know you're going to have fun.
But you don't have to be a dick about it.
You don't have to be.
Because people's emotions are going to be frayed.
And it's going to be a little bit like that...
The gentleman who got shot by police who was running at them with a knife.
You know, even though the police were protecting themselves, there has to be a better situation than shooting people who are crazy.
And you're going to see, if Trump wins, and it's looking like that to me, you're going to see a lot of crazy people.
Like, seriously crazy, and I'm not joking.
I mean crazy not in the, oh, your uncle is crazy.
I mean, it's going to be flat-out mental disease, and it's going to be pretty bad.
You don't want to make that worse by over-gloating.
And I would say if you could find a way to, let's say, be kind, do it.
So if there's somebody in your circle who didn't get their way, and you know they're flipping out, maybe just say, Hope we can work together.
Or just say something that doesn't sound dickish.
Because you don't have to be a dick.
Oh, you can enjoy it.
And if you see more of those memes of the woman screaming at the sky, I will forward those too.
I'm not going to say we're not going to enjoy it, certainly among each other.
But just don't be a dick.
You don't need to be a dick about it.
And if it goes the other way, Do not expect that the left will not be a dick about it.
This doesn't work both ways.
You should have no expectation that anybody will be kind to you if you're a Trump supporter and it doesn't go your way.