Episode 1842 Scott Adams: Republicans Might Have Trouble In The Midterms, The Big Bang Might Be Fake
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Big Bang debunked by Webb telescope
Daughter of Putin close advisor assassinated
Mitch McConnell warns Senate may be toss-up
Cringe Victory Laps over COVID topics
Is Twitter going after the internet Dads?
Taking top influencers off the board, pre-election
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's the greatest thing since the big ba- Oops.
We're going to talk about that.
But before we do that, would you like to take it up a level?
Would you like to take your energy up to places that nobody's ever been before?
Yeah, you do. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
And if you're new to the locals' platform, be sure you don't oversip.
No overdosing. But for the rest of you, please join me in the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go. Yeah, that's the stuff.
That is the stuff.
All my systems are coming online.
Does it feel as good to you as it does to me?
Do you feel a tingle yet?
Oh, you will. Because the show is just getting started.
That tingle will hit you any minute now.
So, it turns out the Big Bang has been debunked.
I talked about this in my livestream last night from my man cave, which only the locals people watched.
But it turns out that the Hubble telescope can look so far into the universe, we can find out that everything we know is wrong.
Everything we know is wrong.
Oh, it's the web.
Not the Hubble, it's the web.
Sorry. Wrong telescope.
James Webb, okay.
Okay, James Webb. We're now corrected.
But it turns out everything we thought we knew about the universe was wrong.
And here's the dumb guy's explanation of the smart people's realization.
If you look to the farthest parts of the galaxy, the one thing you should definitely expect to see Is that they look younger.
That the furthest galaxies would look the youngest because they were the original ones that have been expanding the furthest.
But they're not younger.
Or they're not as young as they need to be.
In other words, when you look at the universe, the Big Bang Theory just collapses.
It collapses.
So whatever is true about the universe...
The Big Bang probably isn't true.
And all the people who've been working in that field forever are being kind of quiet about it.
But apparently, according to at least one report in hot air, but reportedly they're all pretty nervous about the fact that the most basic thing that we thought we knew about reality, that's not true.
Not even true. So, what would be a way to explain how everything got here Without the Big Bang.
Huh. Well, looks like we're back to intelligent design, maybe?
Maybe a little God hypothesis back in the mix.
Maybe. Maybe.
But whether it's God or some species that created another simulation and it's us, We don't know.
Or it could be just that there's another scientific explanation that we just don't know yet.
But if you had guessed that both evolution and the Big Bang would be debunked in your lifetime, well, you would have been right, I think.
Alright. And I say both of those are debunked because the simulation theory is far more likely an explanation of how we're here.
And it doesn't require either evolution, either evolution or the Big Bang are not required if we're a simulation.
Because software can just make things any way it wants.
So the big news is that the daughter of one of Putin's closer allies just got murdered in a car bomb in Russia.
Now, reportedly, and this is not reliable yet, reportedly the father was supposed to be in the car also, but at the last minute they may have taken different cars.
But the car that was supposed to have Putin's close advisor in it blew up.
But the close advisor's daughter was in it.
Yeah, so Alexander Dugin.
Now, there's some disagreement about how close he was or how influential he was to Putin, but it feels to me like maybe Ukraine just sent him a message.
What do you think? Did Ukraine just send a message?
If you were Ukraine, wouldn't you try to take out the leadership in Moscow if you could?
Because Russia tried to decapitation strike on Ukraine.
If you're trying to take out the leader of one country, doesn't that country have the right to try to take out your leader?
I mean, forget about whether it's a right, because war is not about what's right.
Certainly, it's a free punch.
It's a free punch.
Now, of course, you're all going to say it's some kind of weird false flag and China or the United States or Great Britain did it.
There's no evidence of any of that.
There's one candidate who looks really likely.
I don't think it's the CIA. I mean, I suppose if the CIA killed a top Russian and then got caught, that could never be worth the risk.
There's no way the CIA would think it's worth the risk to take out a civilian who's just an advisor.
Let me say that that sounds personal.
It sounds personal.
Because apparently this guy was also a super pro-nationalist.
So that's exactly who the Ukrainians would want to take.
Everything about this feels personal.
It doesn't feel...
If the CIA did it, it would be professional.
And it would have, like, a clear strategic benefit.
This doesn't look exactly like it has a strategic benefit.
It looks personal. I think they're just going to kill as many people close to Putin as they can.
I would. You know, if I were Zelensky, I would try to...
And I knew that Putin was trying to kill me and people I loved.
I would kill as many people around him as I could get to.
So I assume it's him.
But you've got to be careful about your assumptions.
Speaking of assumptions...
Mitch McConnell warns us, and I think he's right about this, that don't get too cocky about some big red wave coming for the midterms.
The House might in fact turn Republican.
But you should be warned that Senate races are different.
And even if one party is more popular than the other, Senate races tend to turn on the quality of the candidate.
So the Senate is way more about the individual differences between the candidates.
The House races are a little bit more, do you like to be a Republican or do you like to be a Democrat today?
So don't get comfortable that there's going to be a red wave that takes both houses.
The Senate is probably a toss-up.
The Senate is probably a toss-up.
Now, of course, Mitch would want to say that, Mitch McConnell, to make sure that Republicans go and vote.
So this is the phase where both sides are going to tell you, well, it's really close.
You better vote.
We don't know which way it goes.
If you stay home, it could be up to you.
So there's a little of that going on, too.
But I do buy that theory that the Senate is more about the candidate than the House is.
Does that sound right to you? Sounds right to me.
Alright, there's a new thing happening that I'm seeing so much, and I absolutely hate it, and I call it the cringe victory lap.
The cringe victory lap.
It's people who had a position during the pandemic who believed that the science has now proven that they were right, but it didn't.
And so people are doing victory laps on stuff that really isn't proven.
It might be a little evidence, you know, that looks like it's in your favor, but a lot of stuff isn't proven.
And one of those things that's happening is, you know, I talked about the vitamin D study that's highly correlated with COVID outcomes.
Highly, highly correlated.
Study after study.
And therefore, you should have taken vitamin D, and you didn't need those vaccinations, say a number of people on social media.
But this study doesn't say anything like that.
Not even close.
The study says there's a correlation.
That's it. Somebody told me just before I got on here, so it's just something I saw on Twitter, maybe if there's a doctor here you can confirm or debunk this.
I think there are enough doctors watching this that we can get an answer pretty soon.
Somebody said that vitamin D, low vitamin D levels, are highly correlated with heart disease.
True or false? Low vitamin D highly correlated with heart disease.
True? True or false?
Let's see. If you're a doctor, say you're a doctor before you give me the answer.
I think the answer is yes.
But if you see something different there, tell me.
So, low vitamin D, highly correlated with heart problems.
So therefore, you should give everybody who has heart problems vitamin D supplements, right?
Doesn't that make sense?
Highly, highly correlated.
But they don't do that.
They don't do that.
Do you know why? Because they have not proven that vitamin D supplements help your heart disease.
They just know it's correlated.
So be careful.
The COVID thing could be that.
Now, every time you find another study that's in the same direction, well, maybe it's telling you more.
But it seems to me that if you did 100 randomized controlled trials and every one of them confirmed that vitamin D is highly correlated with good outcomes, it still would tell you nothing about whether you should take more vitamin D. It feels like it does, but it doesn't matter how many of those tests you do.
It's just telling you the correlation exists.
But the correlation should exist.
Somebody said to me, but Scott, Scott, Scott, if you have a hypothesis, that's how you know that the study is valid.
Because the hypothesis is better vitamin D gives better outcomes.
But there are two hypotheses.
One hypothesis is that people in poor health have bad outcomes and people in bad health have low vitamin D. So, I don't want to beat this to death, but if you're doing a cringe victory lap based on some science that does not support your point of view, it doesn't conflict with it,
it just doesn't support it. Now, Somebody pointed out that I'm a hypocrite because I have a tweet from long ago saying that vitamin D tests could be used to end the pandemic.
And somebody said, Scott, why do you say vitamin D is only correlated and yet at the same time you're saying a vitamin D test would be useful to end the pandemic?
How do you explain that total inconsistency, Scott?
Does anybody know how I explain that?
How do I explain the total inconsistency that I believe a vitamin D test would be very useful to have ended the pandemic sooner?
But I also don't think that the causation is demonstrated.
It's not inconsistent at all.
I'm saying that correlation is demonstrated and causation might be true, but it hasn't been demonstrated.
Correlation is all you need for the test.
You don't need causation To test to see if somebody's vulnerable.
If there's a correlation, that's all you need.
Oh, these people are vulnerable.
There's no inconsistency between those opinions.
All right, now just to make everything complicated.
So now I've done my impassioned, overly repeated statement that correlation is not causation.
And then CNN has a report that says obesity might not make you unhealthy.
Do you know what their argument is?
That obesity might not be an indicator of bad health.
Do you know why? Because it's a correlation and the causation's not been proven.
Does that sound right to you?
Do you think that obesity is just a correlation?
It's not a causation?
Are we really at a point where that has not been demonstrated?
Well, let's switch over to Fox News.
Let's see what Fox News says.
Let's see, Fox News has a story about, oh, okay, a story about a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model who's a plus-sized woman, and she wants you to know that she can be healthy, too.
So both the left and the right media are telling stories that are telling us not to be so harsh with those who have extra weight because you're just assuming that they're unhealthy and that's unfair.
Now, it's really tough for me to go from my impassioned argument that correlation does not equal causation and then have this story slap me in the face because even I think correlation equals it's really tough for me to go from my impassioned argument that correlation does not equal Ha, ha, ha.
Do we really not know that?
Now, let me accept, I do accept the notion that there are people carrying extra weight who are not especially unhealthy.
We all agree on that, right?
There are people who have some extra pounds who are probably healthier than the average person.
That's got to be true, because there are so many people in the world.
We have all types. So, you know, any kind of person you hypothesize exists, it probably does.
It probably exists. But I'm pretty sure that extra weight is not doing you any favors.
I mean, I can't believe that it's good for you, or that it's even neutral.
But, okay. Yeah.
So, I asked this question and got shot down today, because I was watching the news, let's say the social media news, what is trending, and it seemed to me that everything trending lately is about a man behaving badly.
A man behaving badly.
And I asked the question, are there any women being canceled, or is it all men?
And then, of course, I immediately learned that, yes, there were many women who got canceled.
So there was Roseanne, Gina Carano, Laura Loomer, JK Rowling, Naomi Wolf, the list goes on.
But at the moment, Yeah, Amber Heard, somebody says, I guess she got cancelled.
Liz Cheney, maybe she got cancelled.
She-Hulk got cancelled.
Paula Deen, yeah, okay.
However, at the moment, there's something else going on.
So at the moment, these are the names that keep showing up in trending Twitter.
And they're showing up in terms of being criticized.
So you've got your Jordan Peterson, your Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Elon Musk, Andrew Taint, Sam Harris, Brett Weinstein.
And at various times, Brett is not in the news at the moment.
But at various times, they've all been taken on.
And here's the one I'm wondering about.
Does it feel like they're going after the Internet dads?
It's not T-A-I-N-T. It's Andrew Tate.
T-A-T-E. Tate.
If you're hearing a difference, that's one of those Laurel Yanni things.
You hear what you want to say?
Because what I'm saying is T-A-T-E. Tate.
How does it sound to you?
See, if you think it's the other one, you hear it that way.
Taint. So here's my question.
Do you think there's something about masculinity that maybe people are afraid of?
Oh, my God, a lot of you hear it with an N.
You're hearing it that way?
That's funny. Interesting.
Alright. I guess that wasn't interesting.
Is anything else happening?
You know, August is such a slow month.
So Jordan Peterson is getting a lot of heat lately.
What do you think about that?
Has Jordan Peterson said anything that hurts anybody?
Because he's getting so much heat.
Now, a lot of it is because he's gotten emotional during interviews.
And I do wonder what's up with that.
To me, that looks like health-related.
Possibly some meds or something's going on.
Makes him a little more emotional.
But I hate judging him for that.
Are we going to judge Jordan Peterson for being emotional?
Does that feel fair?
Who else are you going to judge for being emotional?
What about me? I've shown you some different looks here, because this is live, so you get whatever you get.
I don't know. It feels like a little bit unfair, doesn't it, to accuse him of being emotional, when in fact everything he does is based on emotion?
Now, when I say everything he does is based on emotion, I don't mean that he's irrational.
He's very rational.
He's highly pragmatic and rational.
But you can see that he's driven by some kind of emotional impulses just like everybody else.
Just like everybody else.
So here's what it feels like.
Here's what it feels like to me.
It feels like the people on the left, or the people who, maybe the grand manipulators, whoever they are, have decided that there are certain internet personalities who have too much influence.
So what it looks to me is that the People coming after everybody from Joe Rogan to Andrew Taint.
T-A-T, Taint.
They're all trying to reduce their influence.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to go after Alex Jones.
He gives you legitimate reasons, but I don't think that's the reason.
Obviously, the Sandy Hook people have a good reason.
But for the people who are piling on, I don't think it's so much about Sandy Hook.
Obviously, some of it is.
But I feel like it's reducing influence.
Because if you're a Democrat, the last thing you want is for Joe Rogan to have influence.
And you want to make sure he has less influence before the actual voting starts for 2022 and 2024.
So I feel like a lot of this is to take players off the board for election reasons going forward.
That's what it feels like.
It feels like players being taken off the board.
And you know they're coming from me, right?
Are you all waiting for that?
Because I feel like a number of people have taken a run at it, but nothing organized or professional yet.
So, so far it's like individuals and smaller publications and stuff.
But you won't know that they came after me until you see something in the Wall Street Journal, probably more likely there than the Washington Post.
Do you know why the Washington Post is less likely to write a hit piece on me?
Guess. Why is the Washington Post the least likely to write a hit piece on me?
Because they run Dilbert.
They run Dilbert.
It's one of their biggest comics.
Now, it doesn't stop me from criticizing them.
And do you know why I don't get kicked out of the Washington Post even though I criticize them?
Guess why? Why does Dilbert not get kicked out of the Washington Post even though I viciously criticize them?
Well, you're going to be surprised at my answer.
It's because newspaper editors have balls.
Both the men and the women, we're speaking hypothetical or metaphorical balls here.
Newspapers are the last bastion of free speech.
Even though they have their issues.
Newspapers will run unpopular stuff.
So a newspaper will let you be content at the same time you are criticizing them.
Free speech. Believe it or not, it's a good reason.
There is something about the newspapers that will allow you a little bit more leeway.
And I appreciate that.
I think that's worth calling out.
But the New York Times does not run Dilbert.
Bloomberg does not run Dilbert.
So Bloomberg tried to take me out during the 2016 election run.
They did a big hit piece on me.
And I'm expecting another one because that one's kind of aged.
And it can't be a small publication because that wouldn't make enough difference.
So it's got to be something national and something that Dilbert is not a client of or vice versa.
Yeah, Business Insider would be sort of the little attack dog of Bezos.
Newspapers are less sensitive to clicks.
Well, most of the newspapers are online as well.
CNN? I don't think CNN will do it because it doesn't...
I don't know if CNN would have enough kick.
The Atlantic. Maybe The Atlantic.
Yeah. Possibly the Atlantic.
But the odds that there's nobody assigned to write a hit piece on me right now are very low.
What do you think? What are the odds that no one anywhere at a major publication has been assigned or has volunteered to do a hit piece on me?
It's pretty low.
Yeah, somebody's coming for me.
And the reason would be that if they think I have any influence over anything, you're not worthy.
Maybe not. Maybe not.
That's right, I'm the rogue cartoonist.
So my comics about ESG are in the pipeline.
So you're not going to see those until later in September.
But remember, I have until the end of the year I promised you to get rid of ESG. Do I have a dead man switch?
Is that where I release all the good secrets?
Now that would be a good idea.
Wouldn't that be a good idea?
Do you have any idea how much stuff I know that would be a bad idea if it ever became public?
It's quite a bit.
But nothing that I need to get out, especially.
Better release it to locals first, yeah.
Yeah, McAfee said he had a dead man switch, but nothing happened.
Or did it? Maybe McAfee's dead man switch is not one that you're supposed to know is happening.
Maybe just something is happening.
You never know. Yeah, most dead man switches don't work.
Hoover blackmail JFK, allegedly.
What's the most harmful thing you know?
That's a good question.
What's the most harmful thing I know that you don't know?
I don't know that any of it's harmful.
Probably none of it makes any...
If it were harmful, I probably would have told you by now.
A lot of it is just how you understand the world.
There are a lot of things that you just think are one way that really, really isn't.
How many people do you think know the truth of Epstein's death?
How many people alive do you think know the truth?
Now that one I don't know.
But I can tell you I've heard theories that you haven't heard.
But I don't know. I have no way to know what's credible in that.
But I've definitely heard things you haven't heard.
So that's all I know.
But I wouldn't repeat them because I have no way to validate them.
Yeah, there's got to be...
I think there are at least 100 people who know exactly what happened with Epstein.
Because if only two or three or whatever knew at some point, that two or three are definitely talking.
You can't wait to die because you have such a good dead man's witch.
The theory on why no prosecutions, it's obvious.
It's obvious. There are important people who would be prosecuted.
I would say that's obvious.
It's exactly what it looks like.
Sometimes things are exactly what they look like.
And it looks like powerful people are being protected.
It's probably exactly that.
Yeah, and what difference does it make?
I don't know. All right.
NATO shape. What's that mean?
Milo Yiannopoulos has been going a long time?
Yes, he has. But with 100, could there be a whistleblower?
Well, you know, I think it's going to come out eventually, don't you?
Why did Epstein not have a kill switch?
A dead man switch?
I think Epstein's dead man switch worked.
Didn't it?
Because the fact that those names didn't come out tells me that something happened behind the scenes.
Yeah, well, I don't know.
Do we know the Jimmy Hoffa thing yet or no?
Yeah.
Ghislaine got convicted of transporting children to no one, effectively.
Obama had affairs, somebody's asking?
I don't know about any of that.
But I do think some Obama surprises are in the future.
This is where you come for the best and the worst takes.
All right, let me ask you this.
What's the worst take you've ever seen me take?
The worst take I've ever had.
Good. And I think it'll be different on...
What's my worst take?
Vaccinations. Now, you do know that on vaccinations I have not been proven wrong, right?
So my worst take, I have not been proven wrong.
Because my take is that the vaccinations would not prevent.
I was right.
That therapeutics would be important.
I was right. And that if I personally got the vaccination, I could travel, but chances are I wouldn't have an adverse effect.
And I traveled, and I did not have an adverse effect.
I would say that everything I did was right for me, in the sense that I did not encounter a problem yet.
Now, if you're going to say, but Scott...
What about that risk of the vaccination will kill you later?
Well, then you'd be right.
Then you would be right.
Wait and see. The slaughter meter?
Well, the slaughter meter, if you're talking about 2020, you've made a big assumption that the election went the way a normal election should go.
I don't think anything like that happened.
I think that what happened was, at the very least, the rules were gamed in a legal way, so that any prediction could not have really taken that into account.
The Sam Harris defense?
No, that's not my worst take.
All right.
The simulation, well, it's a trillion to one.
You want him right about that.
Zelensky wins with the drones.
I think I was right on Ukraine.
Do you think I was wrong on Ukraine?
I feel like I had the most right prediction on Ukraine of anybody in public.
Because I said that Russia could not conquer Ukraine.
And that if Ukraine had enough weapons, they could even push Russia back to some other...
And at the moment, Russia is deadlocked.
Weapons depots are being destroyed.
I don't know. I would say that even being slightly wrong, I had the rightest prediction that Ukraine would do a better job of defending than the experts said.
I would say that's one of my best takes.
Release the Kraken.
The release the Kraken thing was clearly wrong.
And let me say, I was going to talk about that, actually, because I think in my wrongness there's something to learn there.
Do you remember there was a time when Sidney Powell got involved in the election stuff, and she was coming off her good reputation with General Flynn?
And people were talking about her, at least people on the right, were talking about Sidney Powell as sort of a godlike legal figure, a very high-level operating legal person.
Now, I believed that because I didn't hear anybody say the opposite.
There was nobody saying, well, you know, she's not really a real lawyer.
She got her law degree in the mail.
Nothing like that.
So if you take the assumption that this is a real high-level lawyer, and that real high-level lawyer says, I have the goods, and I'm going to show it to you, and it's really, really important, you do expect that they have the goods.
But here's where I was completely wrong.
Sidney Powell's reputation seems to be not exactly matching her actual reality.
And I got that completely wrong.
Now, that was surprising.
That was surprising.
Because when I heard the Venezuelan hacking stuff, I knew that was fake the minute I heard it.
Do you remember that?
So, to my slight credit, and let's see if you can handle this nuance, I was 100% wrong that the Kraken would be a real thing.
But I was 100% right when I heard what the Kraken was that I called bullshit on it.
As soon as I heard the Venezuelan general stuff, I said, oh, no, no, I'm out, I'm out.
That's not true. That's not true.
Now, I'm guessing that Sidney Powell got conned, as somebody just said.
I think that somebody who was good at conning got to her.
But still, I don't think I would have believed it if I'd been in that situation.
I might have played it differently and said something like, well, we've got some really interesting leads, but we don't want to tell you about it until we track them down.
So I did not know that she was not operating at the high level, and so I was completely wrong.
So I did trust that she would be able to vet information, but that was easy to vet.
That one was easy.
You could just hear it and go, no, no, that's not true.
So, yes. If I were to make my own list of things that I was most wrong about, I would put the Kraken at the top of my list.
Similar to how I got conned by Peter Thiel.
What would be an example of that?
In what way did Peter Thiel con me?
I don't even know what the topic is.
What did Peter Thiel say that I bought into?
You'd be hunted.
You'd be hunted.
Well, I think most people accept that "Hunted" has actually happened.
Well, remember you're adding the "literally".
I said Republicans would be hunted, and Republicans say that that's happened.
You added a new word, literally, to make it look like they're wearing hunting outfits and rifles.
So you had to add a word to make me wrong.
You see that if you had to add a word to what I said, and it's the added word that makes me wrong, That's not really my problem.
If you thought hunted meant literally like that rascally wabbit, you know, Elmer Fudd, and he'd have like a shotgun, if that's what you thought the tweet meant, I'm not sure that's my responsibility, is it?
If you took that literally?
But it's been totally true, yeah, in a metaphorical sense.
Well, you don't have too many...
So, so far your criticisms of me are either misinformed or the ones I agree with.
So I think we're largely on the same page, except for the things you were imagining.
You suggested that the Kraken was irrefutable data analysis.
Yes.
Yes. Well, I didn't say irrefutable, but again, you're adding, you had to add a word, didn't you?
Do you notice how people have to add words to make me wrong?
I never would have said irrefutable.
If I'd said that, I would be wrong.
But the data analysis did show great irregularities.
In my opinion, those irregularities do, in fact, make the case.
But, since I don't want to be banned from social media, I will say, unambiguously, no court has found any fraud this big enough.
The parts that worry me are the places that were reliably voted one way and then they went a different way.
To me, those are convincing signals that something was up that we don't understand.
Doesn't mean the election was rigged.
Doesn't mean that. And there's no proof of that.
But those irregularities to me are unexplained, even now.
You literally said literally.
I think I'd have to see that.
Give me my exact proof so I may be talking about two different things.
Tell me my exact statement and then I'll tell you if we're talking about the same thing.
Because it's not the way I talk.
I wouldn't use literally in that context, the one you're talking about.
but I may have used it in some other context.
Covington kids being a-holes, Yeah, I was wrong about that for 24 hours.
I don't know. Do you think that if somebody's wrong for 24 hours and they immediately correct, is that a bad take?
Because we're all wrong in the first 48 hours.
Pretty much everybody's wrong on day one because nobody knows anything.
So I would agree that's wrong, but if you were to rank the Covington kids' wrongness, that'd be like a 1 out of 10.
But definitely wrong. Like, I'm not saying it was right.
right, it was completely wrong.
But in terms of its importance, one out of ten.
If you listen to the change with new information, which is good.
All right. Sam Harris about the Hunter laptop.
Yeah, Sam Harris gets 48 hours to clarify.
Everybody gets 48 hours.
Oh, you said Kamala was one of the most effective public speakers.
Yeah, I was definitely wrong about Kamala Harris being capable.
I still don't know what went wrong.
Can anybody explain why she seemed capable in Senate hearings before she ran for office, but clearly is not capable?
How did she win so many elections that she became senator when When we observe that she doesn't have any qualities that would suggest she could have made it that far.
I know what you're going to say.
She slept with people, blah, blah, blah.
But I don't think it's that.
I mean, she won the elections.
Yeah.
So the weird thing about my Kamala Harris prediction is it was the most accurate prediction that was totally wrong.
It was totally wrong, so she did not become the presidential candidate, but she did become president for two hours.
It's the weirdest wrong prediction I ever made.
I've never been more right on a prediction that was completely wrong.
But still, even in California, she had to run against people who could talk.
I just don't understand.
Maybe something happened to her.
Maybe, did she hit her head?
Oh, you know what? That would be an interesting question.
Has Kamala Harris ever had an accident where she banged her head, like in the last several years?
That's a serious question, by the way.
Because what we observe doesn't look like she could have always been this way.
Somebody says it's the vaccination.
Let's tie it all together.
You know, I think she doesn't have enough vitamin D. I think the Kraken got her.
I think the Kraken.
Hurt her brain. But quite seriously, she doesn't look like the same person.
So it looks like something happened.
And if I found out she had banged her head, could somebody look that up?
It's a serious question.
Did she have any kind of accident where she had a head injury?
Because it looks like it. It really does look like she had a head injury.
Headboard. Alright, that is the inappropriate joke of the day.
The inappropriate joke of the day is that Kamala Harris' head injury came from the headboard of the bed.
I do not approve of such jokes.
They are sexist, probably racist, so you should be ashamed of yourself for making me laugh like that.
Now, here's one thing I'm never going to apologize for.
I'd like to just put it out there.
I'm never going to apologize for laughing at an inappropriate joke.
Because it's the inappropriate part that makes me laugh.
If the joke were not inappropriate, it wouldn't even be anything.
It's the fact that it's completely socially unacceptable that makes it funny in the first place.
I'm not going to apologize for laughing at something that's socially unacceptable.
That always makes me laugh.
Even if it were about me, like even if I'm the target of the joke, funny is funny.
If it's inappropriate, it's inappropriate.
It makes me laugh. So I'm going to laugh at anything I think is funny, and I'm going to associate in any way with anybody I want, and none of those are your business.
I'd like to just re-emphasize that as often as possible.
All right.
What's on the bottom shelf behind me?
OK.
that I'm not using.
Kamala can dish out the criticism, Sure. Heinlein says all humor is meant to hurt someone.
Is that true, that all humor is meant to hurt someone?
It's pretty close to the true.
She came back looking different.
Yeah, she did.
I assumed that was just some cosmetic work.
Not dad jokes?
Yeah, dad jokes don't have any target, that's true.
Guy walks into a bar and says, ouch.
Okay. Alright, well I don't have anything else to say, so I won't keep you.
August is a slow news month, for all the obvious reasons.
As soon as we get into the August doldrums, well then we'll have some fun.
Because the election's going to really heat up September going forward.
