Episode 1032 Scott Adams： Why Your Vote is Irrelevant This Time, My Musical Debut, Evil Triangles, Baby Memes, Supreme Court
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 4 minutes
Words per Minute
148.87514
Summary
In this episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, host Scott Adams talks about the lack of coverage of the anti-Trump protests in the media, and what it means for the possibility of violent protesters at the upcoming pro-Trump rally in Tulsa, OK.
Transcript
00:00:28.160
racist? I'm pretty sure checkmarks, they're next. We're coming for you, checkmarks. Well, if you'd
00:00:35.500
like to enjoy today's Coffee with Scott Adams, what do you think you need to do it? Yeah, that's
00:00:41.800
right, coffee. Or a beverage of your choice. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker
00:00:48.660
chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite
00:00:54.240
liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of
00:01:02.420
the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens
00:01:07.440
now. Go. So, some days the news is funnier than other days. And I love it when I wake up to
00:01:22.680
a day of nothing but funny news. It's all funny today. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the world
00:01:30.300
there are tragedies and deaths, but the news no longer cares about that stuff. We're into the
00:01:35.540
racist baby stuff and more fun. All right. So, here's some things that are not covered in the
00:01:44.140
news today. Is anybody protesting? What exactly is going on with the coverage of the protests?
00:01:54.700
Did they stop? And if they stopped, is that news? Or are they just planning them for the weekends
00:02:01.800
because it's easier to do them on weekends? So, I guess there are plans for violent type people to
00:02:10.720
show up at the Trump rally in Tulsa. How do you think that's going to go? I've got a feeling Tulsa
00:02:17.900
is going to be pretty lit. Now, one of the things that's really tough for the anti-Trumpers
00:02:24.200
is that every time you see footage on television of Democrats destroying the world, and then you're
00:02:33.940
going to juxtapose that to the president in front of a packed stadium full of law-abiding citizens.
00:02:43.840
I'm starting to wonder if Biden even needs to run anymore. We'll talk about the polls in a little
00:02:49.480
bit. But how does anybody get their side elected if their team wants to show non-stop violence
00:03:00.260
as the alternative to Trump, basically? I mean, you could say they're happening at the same time,
00:03:05.860
so it's not the alternative. But it's going to feel like it. It's going to feel like two teams.
00:03:12.040
One is setting your business on fire, and the other team is trying to make America great again,
00:03:20.940
or whatever. It's going to be a tough one. And it makes me wonder if the networks are going to have
00:03:27.620
to not cover it. How is CNN going to cover this? Because if they show it, it's just going to be all
00:03:35.820
bad, you know, visually. It'll be just devastating. And I think that the public's, let's say the public's
00:03:45.100
flexibility or understanding in terms of protests and violence started out very flexible, because
00:03:53.720
everybody was, you know, shocked about George Floyd. And if you saw somebody acting out because of
00:04:00.820
that, you would say to yourself, well, I wish they wouldn't. But I kind of get it. You know, you sort
00:04:06.800
of understood, at least. You know, even if you wouldn't have done it, you could say, yeah, you know,
00:04:12.460
I can see how that could happen. But the longer it goes, the less credible the, you know, the protesters
00:04:20.460
are, especially since there were lots of suggestions that have been floated, and everybody seems to be
00:04:26.840
taking them seriously. So that should be good news. But it won't stop the protests in Tulsa. I would
00:04:35.120
expect a good deal of violence when that happens. Unfortunately. So I put up a little poll on Twitter
00:04:44.340
just before I got on, but there were still hundreds of responses. And I asked this question. Knowing that
00:04:51.340
all digital trails are discoverable, and that you can lose your job and your family for supporting
00:04:57.380
Trump, would you tell a pollster if you plan to vote for Trump? Now, of course, these are highly
00:05:04.560
unscientific polls. But the only thing you can really tell with a Twitter poll is, does there exist
00:05:13.120
a lot of people who have a certain opinion? You can't even really know if it's more or less,
00:05:20.580
because it's that unscientific. But you can tell if there are a lot of them. I mean, that would come
00:05:26.080
across pretty clearly. By a ratio of about two to one, last I checked, two people said they would not
00:05:35.320
talk to the pollster for every one that would. Two people said they would either lie to the pollster
00:05:44.000
or not give them an answer or not give them an answer for every one that would. Now, you might say
00:05:49.920
to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, there's been polling forever, blah, blah, blah. We had the same
00:05:54.980
problem, you know, in 2016. Trump was unpopular then. Oh, no, it's not the same. It's not even close
00:06:05.220
to the same as 2016. In 2016. Did you think you would lose your job for being a Trump supporter?
00:06:13.160
I mean, I'm sure people did. But it probably wasn't the top thing you were worrying about,
00:06:18.320
right? At the moment. In 2020, it might be the top thing you're worrying about. There may be people
00:06:26.560
all over the country who are saying, Oh, God, I hope somebody didn't see that tweet I did two years ago.
00:06:31.860
I could get fired. So at the moment, the fear is real. What have I told you is the most motivating
00:06:40.120
persuasion bar none. Nothing is more persuasive than this one thing. Fear. Yeah, fear. Fear is always
00:06:50.780
the most persuasive. Because you have to protect yourself first before you can do anything. You can't
00:06:57.740
eat if you think you're going to get killed right away. So given that a real fear, this is not
00:07:05.860
hypothetical. There is an actual real fear that you could lose everything, your friends, your job,
00:07:12.960
etc. So I don't think we've ever had a polling situation that was this, you know, rife with
00:07:20.960
possible mischief. I don't know if it's mischief so much as it is self self preservation. But here's
00:07:28.900
the other thing that changed. Four years ago, were you as aware as you are now? Of course, you were
00:07:35.880
aware. But there's a difference between knowing something is true sort of intellectually, and having
00:07:41.800
it just forced to the front of your brain, where your brain can't see anything else. That's really
00:07:47.340
different. In both cases, you knew it was the case. There's there's no new information. And I'll tell
00:07:53.800
you what I'm talking about in a moment. But there's a difference between just knowing it's true and just
00:07:57.920
having it, you know, overwhelm your brain, you'll act differently in those two cases. And what we've
00:08:04.040
watched for the last four years, especially with the Russia collusion stuff, is that absolutely no
00:08:10.940
digital trail is safe. No database can't be hacked, no server can't be hacked. And we've seen a complete
00:08:20.220
willingness of people to share and dox people. So the things that are really different, you always knew the
00:08:27.400
government could find out anything, right? You knew they could track your phone, you knew that on some level, they
00:08:33.980
might be collecting all of your digital data, etc. But it wasn't front of mind. But if you turn on the TV, and
00:08:42.120
every single day, there's a new story of somebody's email, text message, you know, data got hacked. Every
00:08:50.400
frickin day, that knowledge that used to be just something you knew, is now lighting up your whole brain. Like
00:08:57.980
your brain is on fire with the idea that there's no privacy for digital communication. And it's true,
00:09:05.320
there is no privacy. The only private, I've said this before, the only privacy that we'll have in the
00:09:10.920
future is being boring. If you're boring, nobody wants to look at your stuff anyway. So being boring is
00:09:21.760
literally the only protection you'll have that you can, you know, feel confident about that as long
00:09:27.700
as nobody cares about you. They will look at your stuff. But even then, of course, they would. I've got
00:09:34.860
a question for you. Has the Supreme Court just turned into a popularity poll? And I'll ask you this
00:09:44.680
question, because I'm not a I don't really follow the Supreme Court. You know, I just follow the headlines
00:09:50.320
when they're in it. But can somebody who knows something answer this question? When was the
00:09:56.140
last time the Supreme Court had a ruling that went against popular opinion? And let's say let's say
00:10:04.480
popular opinion had to be at least sorry, I'm having terrible allergy problems. What was and let's say
00:10:13.400
for the purposes of this, that that popular opinion had to be at least 55 percent in favor of whatever
00:10:22.740
position, whatever the topic is, doesn't matter. But when was the last time the Supreme Court voted
00:10:29.260
against the public majority? Does anybody know? Because I feel like, I feel like it stopped happening.
00:10:39.100
I'm not, I'm not entirely sure it matters. Honestly, I actually don't, I don't actually don't think it
00:10:47.620
matters. Somebody says Roe versus Wade. I doubt that's true. Could be. Brown versus Board of Education.
00:10:59.700
Yeah, you have to go back pretty far. Somebody says the travel ban. I don't know about that.
00:11:06.780
All right. Well, there's some questions. There might be some that were lesser issues that people
00:11:12.600
were too worked up about. And then maybe in those cases, the court feels safe to go against it. But I
00:11:18.440
feel like there's some kind of weird self-preservation happening with the Supreme Court. While all of our
00:11:24.680
institutions have lost their credibility, I feel like the Supreme Court might be trying to, and again,
00:11:30.760
this is mind reading. So remember, I always warn you, you can't know what people are thinking. You just
00:11:36.520
can't. You know, they can tell you, and they may or may not be telling you the truth, but you can't
00:11:41.660
know what strangers are thinking. It's just not a thing. And, but we, we can speculate. You know,
00:11:49.460
there's something that's, that makes you scratch your head and say, well, I got some questions.
00:11:54.160
Somebody says Obamacare. I'm seeing lots of examples go by. But, but let me just put this
00:12:03.140
proposition out there. The Supreme Court might need to maintain its credibility, even more importantly
00:12:12.520
than getting a decision right. Would you agree that's true? You know, if you're a chief justice or
00:12:20.000
any of the members of the Supreme Court, would your priorities be that the most important thing is to
00:12:27.460
maintain the credibility of the court itself, independent of what the actual decision is? Because I feel
00:12:35.580
like that is the priority. Meaning that if I heard that was their priority, I would say, oh, yeah, you know,
00:12:42.920
when you think about it, it probably does need to be the priority. Because the way that the court can maintain
00:12:49.920
its credibility is, of course, going with the majority. That's probably better than going with the minority,
00:12:56.020
right? If, if, if the court is sided with the minority of the public, I don't know it can last, right? It's got to,
00:13:04.320
it's got to be with the public, at least often enough on the big stuff, that the public says, oh, I don't like all
00:13:12.860
of your decisions, but usually you're with the public. So now, that's not how the public should
00:13:19.460
think, right? The public should not judge the credibility of the court by whether it agrees
00:13:25.560
with what they would have done. That's the worst way to judge them. What do we do? Because we're not
00:13:31.580
very sophisticated overall. And so we look at the court and we say, well, it disagreed with me three
00:13:37.320
end of four times. I guess they're not credible. That's exactly what you would think. You would think
00:13:43.040
that they had no value at all. If they did their job perfectly, followed the constitution, followed the
00:13:50.560
law, and just, just interpreted that law. If it didn't agree with your opinion, you'd say they weren't
00:13:56.720
credible. So I've got a feeling that the court is always balancing these two competing and very,
00:14:03.220
very important issues. Because if the Supreme Court lost its credibility below, let's say some,
00:14:10.340
there's probably some hypothetical support level beyond which the institution's in trouble,
00:14:17.060
I think they've got to stay above the line. And every now and then they might have to,
00:14:22.500
you know, nudge a decision toward keeping their own credibility if it's at all close.
00:14:28.060
Now, I'm not suggesting that they do that consciously, but I would. If I were on the
00:14:35.640
Supreme Court, I would say quite reasonably, I don't think there's anything unreasonable about
00:14:40.440
this. I would say, you know, the worst thing that can happen is to lose the trust of the public
00:14:47.720
in the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court, they end up being the tiebreaker for a lot of stuff.
00:14:55.140
If you lose your, if you lose all your credibility, you know, there's always criticism. But if you lose
00:15:00.920
all of your credibility, and you're the tiebreaker, that's pretty dangerous. It's dangerous. Because
00:15:08.700
what do you do? I mean, if you don't have that ultimate credible tiebreaker. So if I were on the
00:15:15.340
Supreme Court, I would sometimes do things just to remain credible, even if it wasn't exactly where I
00:15:21.140
think the law is pointing, because it is a greater good. I think there's a case to be made for that.
00:15:28.280
All right. I provocatively tweeted the other day that in this election, the upcoming election,
00:15:36.820
your votes won't matter. Now here's what I mean by that. These are some things we can predict with
00:15:47.240
complete certainty. We can, we know with complete certainty, that there will be allegations of vote
00:15:55.880
rigging on both the left and the right. Do you agree? So far? So far, we're all on the same page.
00:16:02.360
There's 100% chance that both the left and the right, no matter what the outcome is of the election,
00:16:08.420
independent of the outcome, both the left and the right will have examples or at least allegations
00:16:13.040
of election tampering, election, you know, suppressing the votes of black voters, for example.
00:16:22.540
Now, whether or not these are good examples, whether or not they really happen,
00:16:27.260
whether or not they're true or not doesn't matter. They will be believed. Do you, are you with me so
00:16:33.460
far? That when the Republicans have whatever allegations, you know, they're going to have,
00:16:39.100
that Republicans will think, well, that's probably true. And it might be true, because it'll be based
00:16:44.200
on anecdotes and specific stories. Could well be true. You know, the left will have their anecdotes and
00:16:51.880
stories, and they'll be able to point to things. And you know, the left will completely believe it.
00:16:57.820
Just like the right completely believes their side on pretty much everything. So we're going to have
00:17:03.540
this situation where there's a guaranteed question about the result. Probably we've had this sort of
00:17:12.760
complaint to every election from the beginning of time. Probably there's never an election, a national
00:17:19.040
election, in which there isn't at least somebody saying it was rigged, or at least somebody is
00:17:25.660
pointing at a problem pretty much universal. And we always get by it, right? It seems like it doesn't
00:17:31.320
stop the system. A little bit of complaining, but we'll live with the result anyway, because
00:17:36.940
overall the system is credible. You know, Americans do pretty much trust the voting system, even though
00:17:45.300
it's got all these irregularities. That's what it used to be. I don't think that's the case anymore.
00:17:53.140
Here's what changed. The ability of the press, the media, the manipulators behind the curtains,
00:18:00.120
the ability to ramp up people's emotions is at a super weaponized level, even way beyond where it was in
00:18:10.140
2016. I would say that we've advanced a lot, really a lot, in our ability to set people's brains on fire
00:18:19.980
and make them mad or excited or afraid or anxious or greedy or something. And so what we're going to
00:18:29.380
go into is a situation where there's a hundred percent chance that the left will feel, let's say that they
00:18:35.280
lose, they lose, let's say Trump gets elected, hypothetically. What will the left say? They'll say the vote was
00:18:43.420
rigged, of course, because the polls will say it couldn't have happened. You see where this is going? The polls
00:18:51.440
will say it's not possible. So if Trump wins, and there's widespread allegations, there always will be, of
00:19:01.540
election tampering. What will the left do? They'll stage a coup. Now, this is, again, a safe
00:19:09.600
prediction. Why? Because they already staged a coup. Several. In fact, it's nonstop coup stuff. You know,
00:19:20.680
the impeachment was a coup. The, you know, the Russia collusion stuff was a coup attempt. The 25th
00:19:28.460
amendment stuff is a coup, all of these anonymous alleged bullshit books about what really happened
00:19:35.140
in the room with Trump. They're all coup attempts. They're all coup attempts. They're just, in many
00:19:40.700
cases, completely legal. Just because I call it a coup, don't assume it's illegal. They're just using
00:19:47.960
every lever, every button, every mechanism. Just they're throwing the kitchen sink at it to take
00:19:55.160
a man of office without the benefit of a vote. Now, I'm going to use the word coup to mean removing
00:20:02.340
a president in any mechanism other than just a normal vote. So will there be a coup if, or at least
00:20:12.140
a coup attempt, if Trump wins the election? And I would say the answer is 100%. There's really no chance
00:20:19.760
it wouldn't happen. Does anybody even disagree with that? I don't see any, I can't imagine anybody
00:20:26.120
would disagree with that statement. Now, we don't know what it would look like. It could be another
00:20:31.680
massive fake news story. It could be like Russia collusion, where the British government runs an
00:20:38.080
operation against the United States, and we blame it on Russia. I didn't say that. Just ignore that last
00:20:46.220
sentence. Didn't happen. Go on with your business. Nothing to see here. So it could be something like
00:20:55.620
that. Could be completely different. But one thing that it might be is violent. In other words, the
00:21:05.260
protesters are doing this giant test run to see if you can flood the streets with people and make a
00:21:13.300
difference. And apparently it does. It works. They're willing to burn down the whole country.
00:21:18.800
So Trump will be in an interesting situation, which is if he has to use force to stop a coup,
00:21:27.840
which won't look like a coup, it'll just look like demonstrators calling him a racist.
00:21:34.960
That will be interesting. But I think that's where we're heading. So in all likelihood,
00:21:38.740
so my current estimates are 100% chance that Trump will be reelected unless something big changes
00:21:48.300
between now and election day. Will something big change between now and election day? Of course it
00:21:55.460
will. Are you kidding me? Something big will change next week and the week after the week after. So
00:22:03.420
these kinds of predictions are kind of useless because they're straight line predictions in a world that
00:22:08.200
can't go straight line. The world doesn't even know how to go in a straight line. And then I predicted
00:22:13.280
that if Trump is elected, there's a 50% chance that the coup will succeed. I think there was a 50% chance
00:22:22.600
that the Russia collusion thing or the Ukrainian thing or some other thing could have succeeded. I think
00:22:29.360
there was a good 50% chance. It just didn't go their way. All right. One of the funniest
00:22:38.180
stories is, so Carpe Dunctum did a meme video showing some footage of a toddler. I think they
00:22:47.820
might've been three years old. I can't tell the ages of little kids. But they were sort of barely
00:22:52.920
can walk kind of toddlers. And one was white, one was black, and they were best friends and they
00:22:58.940
were hugging on the sidewalk and then they happily go running down the street. Now what Carpe Dunctum did,
00:23:04.600
which was brilliant, is he showed that in reverse order with the clips, without the part where the
00:23:12.980
kids are obviously best friends, hugging each other and loving each other. Instead shows them running down
00:23:18.160
the street. But because the little black toddler had started first, it could be interpreted as if the
00:23:25.580
little white toddler is chasing the black one. See if you didn't see them hugging just before that.
00:23:30.660
Now, the funny part is that Carpe Dunctum adds a fake chyron, you know, the words at the bottom of the
00:23:39.640
screen, to make it look like it's a CNN report and that the chyron says, you know, white, white baby,
00:23:46.380
white racist baby chases black baby or something like that. And here's the funny part. I've told you this
00:23:54.220
before, the perfect prank is one that only the, the victim of the prank can't tell it's a prank.
00:24:04.220
That's what makes a joke really good, right? It's one thing just to mock people and here's a funny
00:24:10.560
picture or, you know, that's sort of one dimensional. But if you can come up with the perfect prank,
00:24:16.600
only the subject of the prank can't tell it's a prank. And the reason is they can't tell parody from
00:24:23.980
reality. And if you can find somebody who literally can't tell the difference between reality and
00:24:31.080
parody, then you do a prank that's a parody and they just can't tell. But everybody else can tell
00:24:36.620
because they're not, they're not hypnotized in the same way. So when I watched it, I, I honestly,
00:24:44.760
I couldn't even imagine how anybody would think this was true. It's so obviously not true
00:24:51.760
that I just registered as a joke and I laughed at it. I would guarantee that close to a hundred
00:24:59.920
percent of Trump supporters and Fox news watchers would look at that video and immediately,
00:25:06.100
immediately go, ha ha, it's a joke. Probably a hundred percent. But the New York times and CNN and
00:25:14.620
all the fact checkers had to fact check it for their audience.
00:25:23.300
I'll bet you there was not one conservative publication that fact checked it because they
00:25:29.980
didn't have to. Correct. Fact check this, this statement. So here's my statement. There probably
00:25:38.440
was no conservative publication that even, it didn't even occur to them to fact check it.
00:25:45.380
Why would they? Because they don't think anybody would be confused by it. Of course, they cover the
00:25:50.220
story of the others fact checking it. But I think the Washington Post, CNN, the New York times,
00:25:56.180
I don't know how many people on the left fact check this thing, but just stop and pause for a moment
00:26:02.060
that there were enough people on the left who thought it would be believable. Wait, wait for this,
00:26:09.860
who thought it would be perfectly believable that CNN would run a story, a video of two toddlers
00:26:17.360
chasing each other, one chasing the other, and call the one toddler a racist baby. Now their audience
00:26:26.340
apparently thinks that's possible, which is freaking hilarious. So of course it got pulled, you know,
00:26:34.760
it got labeled by Twitter for being misleading. Perfect. It got fact checked everywhere. Perfect. It got tweeted
00:26:45.100
by the president. Perfect. It became a national story. Perfect. And it was short and, you know,
00:26:56.340
sometimes memes can go on a little bit too long. That's my only complaint about the political
00:27:01.360
memes. I like them short. This was just the right length. Perfect visual. And part of the reason I
00:27:08.480
think they were complaining so much about it is that it was really powerful visually. When you watch
00:27:14.760
the two kids hugging, you can just feel their joy. These are two little kids who are really genuinely
00:27:23.960
happy to see each other. I mean, they really like each other. And it immediately reminds you
00:27:31.600
that that's how you started, right? Like you immediately go to your baby self and say,
00:27:38.980
oh yeah, there probably was a time, not that you remember it, right? But there probably was a time
00:27:45.180
that I couldn't even tell the difference between black people and white people.
00:27:49.620
Like I didn't even know it was important. Just, it wasn't a variable. Everybody looks different
00:27:56.860
somehow. Why was I going to pick out that one difference? It didn't occur to me. That was my
00:28:02.500
friend, Bob. So, so it's really powerful the way it works on your mind. So this isn't just a funny
00:28:11.560
meme. It's hilarious. It's well-crafted. It's the right size. Got the president's attention. Got
00:28:17.580
national news. Got a controversy about it. Got removed from a lot of places. Oh man, you can't,
00:28:24.560
you can't hit a longer long ball than that. So this one, I will elevate to masterpiece status.
00:28:32.600
If, if they were giving awards for memes, this would be your Academy Award for 2020.
00:28:39.220
So congratulations to Carpe Dunctum. And by the way, if you're not watching Carpe Dunctum's career,
00:28:47.580
how it's sort of evolved from the first election, it's really fun to watch because he, as well as
00:28:54.880
many others, are just putting together their talent stacks and just watching it come together.
00:29:00.620
It's just, it's just fun to watch. It's a great show. Speaking of art and speaking of masterpieces,
00:29:10.600
this next, this next thing I'm going to tell you is maybe the hardest thing I've ever tried to
00:29:16.740
communicate. I spent, I spent probably 30 minutes last night trying to compose a tweet
00:29:24.260
on this topic. And in the end, I sort of gave up because there's some things that by their weird
00:29:30.780
nature can't be explained by some people. In other words, it's something you could explain easily,
00:29:36.900
but I can't. Here's the situation. You've probably seen on Twitter, Akira the Don. His username is
00:29:47.980
at A-K-I-R-A-T-H-E-D-O-N. And he makes music. One of the things he's made, and there was a little clip
00:29:58.020
that he's released, is he's taken my, the audio from my periscopes, and he's taken selected clips
00:30:07.560
from audios, especially of the periscopes that are not political, so that there's nothing political
00:30:13.820
in the music. But when I talk about the user interface for reality, for example,
00:30:17.920
and he put it to music. Now, here's why I couldn't compose the tweet, because I need more time to
00:30:26.680
talk about it like I'm going to do now. If I just told you that somebody whose music you are not
00:30:33.460
familiar with necessarily had put my audio from my periscope to music, what would be your first
00:30:41.200
impression of how good that would be? Not very good, right? Wouldn't that be your assumption?
00:30:48.480
Your first assumption would be, I don't know if I want to listen to that. I mean, maybe for curiosity,
00:30:54.600
but it's not going to be like, you know, art or music, right? I mean, it doesn't make any sense.
00:31:00.400
You're going to be surprised. All right, now here's the part that I couldn't tell.
00:31:05.420
Well, when I listened to it, it actually just blew me away. But I couldn't tell if it's because I was
00:31:11.900
listening to my own voice. Because think how powerful that would be to hear yourself talking
00:31:16.800
to yourself in a way you weren't expecting, so you don't know what's going to come. You know,
00:31:21.380
it's because the order of it and the presentation was new to me as well. Even though it was my words,
00:31:27.360
it was somewhat new to me because of the way it was composed. So I wasn't sure
00:31:32.680
if what was happening is I was just having a personal experience that would not be in any
00:31:39.260
way generalized to other people. So I tweeted it out saying as little about it as possible because
00:31:44.800
I couldn't describe it. And I wanted to see what the comments were. It turns out people really like
00:31:51.680
it. People really like it. And I was trying to figure out why. And I'll take my best crack at it.
00:32:02.680
You know, you've seen the popularity of mashups where you'll have, let's say, a rapper be doing,
00:32:10.800
you know, some kind of rap part of a song. And then maybe Rihanna or somebody would come in and do
00:32:16.860
a more musically, I don't know, I don't have the musical terms, but you know what I'm talking about.
00:32:22.240
So you'd have somebody on a completely different style, a rapper style, mix them with somebody who
00:32:26.460
was more classically, you know, a singer. And somehow it's better. I don't know why.
00:32:32.940
Like, I've thought about it for a long time. It's like, why is this better when you put two
00:32:38.340
completely different things together? It doesn't quite make sense, but it is. I mean, I listened
00:32:43.980
to it, I go, okay, that's better. I don't know why. No, I think it has something to do with,
00:32:48.420
in that case, you're waiting for the part you're waiting for. There might be some anticipation
00:32:53.200
about it. I don't know. Maybe there's some context or contrast that makes it a thing.
00:33:00.040
But when I listened to this, here's my best guess about why it had an effect on me.
00:33:06.900
As you know, I'm a trained hypnotist and a very experienced communicator. So when you hear my
00:33:18.840
words, they tend to carry more weight than an untrained communicator. So if you said to yourself,
00:33:26.380
it's just somebody talking and they put it to music, it wouldn't be this. Because even when I
00:33:32.100
hear myself, sometimes I play back my periscopes, just to see if I can learn anything to improve
00:33:38.540
them. And when I'm playing back my own periscopes, I see the density in them that I didn't know I had
00:33:49.740
when I started. So when I was doing it, I wasn't aware of it. But when I watch it, I can watch it
00:33:54.160
like a spectator. And I'll think, well, that's pretty dense. But also, I realize that I'm using
00:33:59.680
massively, and I don't even do it consciously, the techniques of hypnosis. So while I don't think
00:34:08.480
that was his intention, to make a hypnosis slash musical product, because everything I do is sort of
00:34:17.140
infused with persuasion, that the little clips of my voice, you know, forget about them musically,
00:34:25.740
they just activate a different part of your brain. And so what you're feeling is that the text is
00:34:31.400
activating one part of your brain, while the music is activating another. And there's two parts of your
00:34:36.980
brain that you just don't activate at the same time. And that's why it has a weird effect on you.
00:34:43.280
Because you haven't had those two parts of your brain simultaneously activated. It's not the same,
00:34:49.980
it's just hearing somebody talk. Because again, I've infused it with, without trying, I infuse it
00:34:56.900
with a lot more weight than normal words. And it's just because of training and technique. Anybody,
00:35:04.240
you know, Tony Robbins would do the same thing without trying. So I recommend it. At the same time,
00:35:10.480
I just don't know how to describe it, because it's, it's just not like anything else.
00:35:18.180
Scott speaks perfectly. That's a callback to, I told you the story when I'd lost my voice for
00:35:25.400
three and a half years, and I literally couldn't communicate. At least, you know, I could make
00:35:30.240
noise, but I couldn't make full sentences and stuff. And my affirmation at the time was that
00:35:35.240
I would speak perfectly. Now, I don't speak perfectly, because perfect is a standard you can't
00:35:42.320
really achieve. But nonetheless, it is true that my voice is on a work of art that's music.
00:35:55.160
Now, I can't tell if he enhanced my voice, or he just edited out anything that was weak sounding.
00:36:01.240
But it does sound better than my normal voice. I don't know how he did that. So there might be
00:36:05.880
some digital magic about that. He might have auto-tuned it. Possibly. If you listen to it,
00:36:12.760
is there somebody smart enough to know that my voice was auto-tuned, or even a little bit? I can't tell.
00:36:19.420
But there does seem to be a little more character in my voice than what I would normally hear if I
00:36:24.360
just played it back. Could be in my imagination. So I don't know. Yes. So it's on Spotify. So you can
00:36:32.000
look for it. The single is called, It Feels Like It Works. So look for Akira the Don, A-K-I-R-A,
00:36:43.120
the D-O-N. And that should pop up with your Google searches. And there's a whole album coming
00:36:50.740
that I haven't heard yet, but impressive. All right. Amy Klobuchar said she was dropping out of
00:36:58.020
the running to be the vice presidential pick, because she thinks that Biden should pick a woman
00:37:05.720
of color. So throwing Elizabeth Warren under the bus at the same time. Now, because you are a seasoned
00:37:13.520
political observer, what do you make of the story that Amy Klobuchar withdrew from consideration to be
00:37:24.340
the vice presidential pick? What does it mean that she withdrew and in withdrawing said that she sports
00:37:32.760
a woman of color? Let me read between the lines. The choice is already made. Do you think Amy
00:37:42.280
Klobuchar gives up? I don't think so. I don't know. Maybe. Maybe. But there's nothing about her
00:37:49.460
vibe or anything that I've seen about her. I have actually a very positive, very positive overall
00:37:57.100
opinion of Amy Klobuchar and have since the beginning. Although on day one, I didn't think
00:38:02.080
she had the charisma. So she's wanting in charisma. But that's, you know, I'm not sure you can fix
00:38:10.600
charisma. But in terms of being a serious, capable, you know, highest level politician, I always thought
00:38:20.160
she was very good. And she's certainly smart enough to know that if the selection had already been made,
00:38:27.540
the smartest thing she could do is act as though the selection had not already been made. And then
00:38:34.460
drop out by recommending a person of color. Biden presumably has already picked Kamala Harris and
00:38:42.100
everybody knows it. Then when he does pick her, people are going to say, oh, that's exactly what Amy
00:38:47.840
Klobuchar advised him to do. She wins. So in other words, she already knows she lost the race to be
00:38:55.200
vice president. It's obvious to me she already knows that's over. The best thing she could salvage
00:39:01.620
from this is to predict or advise or suggest the thing that's already happened. Because you're not
00:39:09.280
going to be wrong if you suggest something that's already happened. And I'm sure that Kamala Harris has
00:39:14.060
been selected at this point. Now anything could change. She could be deselected. I don't think
00:39:19.780
that would be the first time a vice presidential pick, you know, got altered at the last minute.
00:39:25.600
But at the moment, it looks like looks like she's the pick. And here's something that Harris did today,
00:39:34.300
which reminded me of Trump. I've told you before that I think her advisors are now the world class type.
00:39:41.920
When she was running just as a candidate in the primaries, she was a hot mess in terms of her messaging,
00:39:50.520
her body language, or her unconfident laugh. It was just a mess. And all of that just suddenly changed.
00:39:58.940
And even her strategy, I thought, was weak. But even her strategy is better. So I always tell you that
00:40:03.700
Trump picks up free money. I use that as an analogy. Free money meaning that Trump will do the thing
00:40:10.640
that is all upside, no downside. And for some reason, nobody else thought to do it. It was just
00:40:18.300
right there. It was just obvious. It's just right here. Pick up the free money. Anybody? Anybody?
00:40:23.460
So that's why Harris did. She's planning to introduce a bill that declares Juneteenth a national holiday.
00:40:29.520
Now, your first question should be, why her? Did nobody else think of that? If President Trump
00:40:41.220
had suggested this first, to make Juneteenth a national holiday, I don't know if there's any
00:40:48.220
resistance from Republicans. I haven't heard of any. I don't know if there would be. But I would consider
00:40:54.220
this under the condition that Republicans would generally support this. And I don't know if that's
00:41:00.300
the case yet. I haven't seen any opinions. But I would say that in this case, if that's true,
00:41:07.320
and if, let's say, Harris introduces it, let's say it gets passed, especially because the, you know,
00:41:13.720
the mood of the country, maybe it just sails through. I would say that would be an error
00:41:19.380
on the president's part. It would be an error because he didn't do it. I mean, if this thing
00:41:26.300
is going to get passed, the president should have done it. That was just free money. But if it doesn't
00:41:31.840
get passed, then I would know why he didn't do it, right? So we'll wait to see if it gets passed.
00:41:36.760
But the fact that she saw the free money and picked it up tells me that maybe Democrats sort of got out
00:41:43.680
of the way and said, all right, we're going to, you know, we want to help the future ticket.
00:41:47.560
So the rest of us will just back up, let Harris go forward, get the attention, free money.
00:41:55.780
So whoever is advising Harris, you are nailing it, my friends. You are nailing it.
00:42:04.180
You know how much I've mocked her for her laugh, her subconscious laugh or self-conscious laugh?
00:42:12.100
There's a video in which, I forget who was interviewing her, and the question they asked
00:42:19.900
is, how could she be potentially, well, how could she support Biden or even be in consideration
00:42:26.420
as a VP choice when she was so savage to him at the debates? Now, that's going to be the big
00:42:33.720
question, right? You know, everybody's going to ask Kamala Harris about her prosecution background,
00:42:39.200
and they're going to ask her about throwing Biden under the bus as being a, you know, racist.
00:42:45.340
Obviously, he's not. And that'll be the question. So, you know, she prepared for the question.
00:42:52.420
And, you know, I believe she has now the highest level advisors who would have given her the right
00:42:58.700
answer. And so the question is asked, and she just starts laughing because it's so ridiculous.
00:43:05.660
And, but she's laughing at her own answer. And she goes, it was a debate. And then she laughs.
00:43:13.260
And then she says, a debate. And laughs some more. She goes, it was scheduled debate. We were debating
00:43:22.340
because that's what you do when you debate. And then she laughed again. But here's what's different.
00:43:29.000
The laugh didn't look like the old laugh. If she fixed her laugh, which I wasn't even sure it could
00:43:38.100
be done. I thought it maybe could be done. But I think she fixed it. Because this was not a self
00:43:45.140
conscious laugh. It was a confident laugh. She was so confident, rightly so, because her answer was a
00:43:55.680
home run. The correct answer is, it was a debate. Follow up, it was a debate. Want me to add some
00:44:04.380
detail to the answer? It was a debate. Can you go deeper? Yes, it was a debate. And laugh every time.
00:44:12.220
You can't beat that. You could not beat that for a perfect way to handle that situation. Laugh and call it
00:44:22.620
a debate. Never go deeper. Period. End of story. I should not say period. End of story. I mock that.
00:44:30.280
It's too easy. It's in your brain. And then it just comes out. And then when it comes out, you go,
00:44:34.260
ah, I wish I hadn't done that. So watching her go from a self conscious, nervous looking laugh,
00:44:43.740
to a laugh that is so confident, she won't even stop doing it in public. Like she just laughed and
00:44:51.280
called it. It's a debate. You're silly. It's a debate. Let me remind you because I know this is
00:45:01.160
going to happen. When I say good things about any female politician, somebody in the comments will
00:45:07.520
always say, it doesn't matter who it is. Oh, you have a crush on her. You love her. Oh, you have such a,
00:45:13.840
you know, you want to, you want to be with her. So I'm going to block anybody who does that.
00:45:20.000
It's just, it's doesn't add anything. All right. Um, Brian Stelter, you all know him. CNN had one of
00:45:29.980
the funniest tweets accidentally. He said, uh, Dr. Fauci, uh, diagnosing an American problem. Quote,
00:45:37.360
this is from Fauci. There's a combination of an anti-science bias that people are for reasons that
00:45:44.740
sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable. They just don't believe science
00:45:50.740
and they, they don't believe authority. Well, is there anything that could have happened
00:45:58.640
in the last, I don't know, last 12 months or so? Anything that would make the public less trusting
00:46:09.340
of experts and authority and science? I'm trying, I'm racking my brain now. Anybody, can anybody think
00:46:18.800
of anything? An example of some time that the, the experts were not exactly right? Uh, I'm coming up blank.
00:46:28.640
I got nothing. Now recall my earlier story about Carpe Dunctum's meme. The reason it worked
00:46:38.180
is that CNN literally can't tell the difference between parody and reality because they deal with
00:46:45.060
so much fake news. The fake news is sort of the, the hybrid of, of parody and reality. Like it looks so
00:46:56.220
similar. So Brian Stelter tweeted this maybe like it wasn't a joke. You know, like, like the rest of
00:47:07.240
the country wouldn't laugh at this out loud. You can't read this. You can't read this and not laugh
00:47:12.820
at it. But I don't think Brian Stelter knew that half of the country would laugh out loud because his
00:47:20.220
network has been feeding us a nonstop diet of fake news from experts. Every one of the experts who lied
00:47:30.360
to us or got things wrong was featured on CNN. Every one of them, every one of them often. So I mean,
00:47:40.740
this is parody and reality merging again. All right. Uh, here's the funniest, uh, comment in a tweet that
00:47:49.500
I've seen in a while. And I have to warn you that, uh, I have a very, uh, low brow sense of humor.
00:47:56.820
So this was some low brow humor. Uh, that's actually kind of clever that made me laugh.
00:48:03.320
So I, I, I'm doing this cartoon. Most of you have seen it called robots read news. And I put most of
00:48:10.240
them, uh, behind a subscription wall on the locals platform. So if you want to see all of them,
00:48:15.980
especially the edgier ones that I don't put on Twitter, uh, you can see them by being a subscriber
00:48:21.160
on locals, L O C A L S. And you can see the link in my profile on Twitter. Uh, but anyway, the,
00:48:29.580
the comic, uh, I did a comic mocking the claims in the John Bolton book. And the, the essence of the
00:48:35.840
comic was that the robot was reading the news and he reported that the book says that, uh, President
00:48:42.120
Trump, uh, was taking a shit on the resolute desk while asking questions about nuking the moon.
00:48:48.820
Now it's funny because the Bolton book is so ridiculous and so filled with obvious lies,
00:48:56.020
at least obvious to me, uh, that there's nothing that you couldn't expect would be in it. I mean,
00:49:03.360
so, so I, so I said, uh, that he was shitting on the resolute desk while asking about nuking the
00:49:11.260
moon. And here's the comment I got from unstumpable Chuck Testa, who's a Trump supporter. He says,
00:49:18.280
that's it. I baked desk shitting into the cake when I voted for the guy. I've been laughing for two
00:49:25.260
days at that. I baked cake. No, I baked desk shitting into the cake when I voted for the guy.
00:49:42.220
Because again, the reason it's funny is because if you were CNN, if you were CNN and you read this
00:49:51.280
comment, you wouldn't know he was joking. You actually wouldn't know he was joking. If you
00:49:58.220
were Brian Stelter, you'd look at this and say, I think they would vote for him if he shit on the
00:50:03.620
resolute desk. And maybe they would. Well, so we also in the news, uh, here's a tweet by
00:50:20.380
president Trump. Uh, let's see if you can see the foreshadowing of this tweet. Now, I think the
00:50:26.540
president does this a lot. He sort of, he broadcasts or he, he suggests where things are going
00:50:33.380
before the decisions are made, you know, sort of testing them in advance. And here's, I think this
00:50:39.800
is a test balloon. So Trump tweeted, it was not Ambassador Lighthizer's, Lighthizer's. It was
00:50:47.040
not Ambassador Lighthizer's fault yesterday in committee. And that perhaps I didn't make myself
00:50:53.000
clear that the U.S. certainly does maintain a policy option under various conditions of
00:51:00.320
a complete decoupling from China. Thank you. The president just tweeted that we're keeping
00:51:13.440
open the option under various conditions of a complete decoupling from China.
00:51:23.820
Do you see that news on any of the, the, any of the front pages? It's the biggest news of
00:51:31.440
last 50 years. Here's what I think. I think the president is, uh, has been so rightly embarrassed
00:51:43.800
by China's unwillingness to be a good negotiating partner. And I think the president gave them every
00:51:51.280
opportunity to be friends, which is exactly the right way to do it. All right. I don't think the
00:51:57.320
president should have gone hard at China, should never have used the word decoupling. Never. The
00:52:03.600
president never should have used the word decoupling in a, in the sense of maybe it's an option two
00:52:10.780
years ago. If he had said it two years ago, I would have been, whoa, that's crazy. You're negotiating
00:52:18.240
with them. We don't know if it's going to work out yet. Maybe it'll work out. Maybe you can get
00:52:23.320
something done. It'll be hard, but maybe it can be done. Um, so you certainly wouldn't say decoupling
00:52:28.560
two years ago. You, you, you go in with friend, friend, friend, you're my friend, president, she,
00:52:34.180
I respect you. And then you see what you can do. Now, what was, what was the net effect
00:52:39.420
of the president's completely smart, strategic, original approach, which is if you can get it to,
00:52:47.480
if you can get something done as friends, well, that's always going to be the first choice,
00:52:51.660
right? First choice always didn't work. Not only did it not work, but China doesn't even look like
00:52:58.780
it was serious about any of it. It looks like he was, they were just playing him. Now he has more
00:53:04.680
options because now that he's, he's completely, um, drained any, any options of them being good
00:53:12.860
players and responsible and, you know, good world, um, citizens, that's all gone now. So now he can just
00:53:20.360
put it on the table, give us what we fucking want or go die, which is what this tweet said.
00:53:29.740
You have to read between the lines, but let, let me read it to you. And then I'll, then I'll,
00:53:34.320
I'll read between the lines. Uh, so he's saying that the U S certainly does maintain a policy option
00:53:39.000
under various conditions of a complete decoupling from China under various conditions. Do you know
00:53:45.660
what the various condition is? Give us what we need or go fucking die. We're decoupling.
00:53:53.660
That's it. It's no longer a negotiation people. Now it's an ultimatum. He's putting it in the form of,
00:54:01.040
you know, diplomatic talk. Well, if you do this, we'll do this, but it's now an ultimatum. He just
00:54:06.040
put decoupling on the table and China, if you're listening, China, I think you are listening.
00:54:13.760
And one of the questions you might be having China, because I'm pretty sure they have people who
00:54:20.000
monitor, you know, most of the political talk in the United States. I don't know if they watch me
00:54:26.000
in particular, but let's say they do China. You're probably wondering, is that a bluff?
00:54:33.260
Would the president actually decouple from China? I mean, I know it's something that people say on
00:54:39.440
Twitter, but the president just used that word. Is he bluffing? Well, let me say it to you as
00:54:48.300
clearly as I possibly can, China. Nope. Nope. Zero percent chance he's bluffing. Zero. There's no chance.
00:54:59.400
If you think he's bluffing about decoupling, you're wrong. You're fucking wrong. This is real.
00:55:09.280
Now, of course, it depends, like he says, on various conditions, because so China can always,
00:55:13.560
you know, offer concessions and take decoupling off the table. They have an option, but it's pretty
00:55:20.320
clear that they don't have any intention of doing that, would you say? It's pretty clear that they're
00:55:26.260
just going to push and take advantage anywhere they can, and you can't really do business with
00:55:31.440
somebody who has that strategic attitude. You can't do business with somebody who only wants
00:55:38.320
to screw you and is looking for every opening to do it. That's just not somebody you can do business
00:55:43.200
with. So you have to decouple if you're dealing with something like that. So yeah, the president
00:55:49.100
doesn't tweet this unless he means it. That he's absolutely serious, China, that when you don't give
00:55:57.740
us what we want, and you won't, you won't, you know you won't, he's going to decouple. And it will be
00:56:04.220
the greatest thing that ever happened to this country, because China has been dragging us down for a long
00:56:09.420
time, took 40% of our manufacturing. Well, we're getting it back. We're going to take it back, China. You've got
00:56:18.220
problems, they're your problems now. Let's see, the John Bolton bombshell is that, according to John Bolton,
00:56:30.300
who is a mind reader, I don't know if you knew this, but the, but John Bolton, among his many qualities, can read the
00:56:37.540
inner thoughts of the president. I can't do it. Maybe you can't, but John Bolton can. And he wrote
00:56:44.680
a whole book about his mind reading of the president's inner intentions. And here's what he
00:56:48.980
found. He made a bombshell claim in his book that President Trump, he wanted to do good things for
00:56:56.440
the country, but only for his own selfish purposes. Yeah. Yeah, the president was trying to get a good
00:57:03.700
trade deal with China, just to get elected. I don't know. You know, this is almost as bad as a,
00:57:13.560
like a store selling you a product, and they say it's good for you. They say you'll like the product,
00:57:21.700
and it will have advantages and solve your problems. That's what they say when they sell you things.
00:57:26.640
But I have a suspicion that stores sell things for selfish purposes. It's really not about the
00:57:36.600
customer. I hate to tell you that. Because you're, people you buy things from probably, they say, hey,
00:57:42.620
this will be good for you. I think you'll be happy if you buy this. If you have this car, you're going
00:57:47.600
to enjoy it. I'm starting to think that's not why they do it. I feel like people don't sell things for
00:57:55.560
your benefit. It's almost like there's some kind of selfish thing they're trying to do. Do they make
00:58:03.200
money somehow by selling you stuff instead of just doing it for your benefit? I'm confused by capitalism
00:58:10.620
and in politics too. Because according to John Bolton, there are people that we've elected
00:58:16.680
completely unknowingly. You know, we thought we were electing good people, but I'm shocked.
00:58:24.460
There are people in the government who do things in public that are good for the public,
00:58:30.020
but not for us. It's not for us. It's for themselves. Bastards.
00:58:40.200
Well, the NBA has a new plan for getting back to games. Two interesting features of this.
00:58:47.720
One, of course, is that they won't have a crowd. And it looks like they're looking to pipe in
00:58:55.620
artificial crowd noise, maybe from a video game or something. So this is a real plan. They've got
00:59:01.600
artificial crowd noise. And it looks like they're just going to, you know, sample it over top of
00:59:07.700
the game. Now, I am not in favor of that. I would recommend, and I think they could probably do it
00:59:15.440
quickly, an app or some kind of a model where the people working at home can actually cheer
00:59:23.420
at home. And then if you're watching the game on TV and you go, yay, that your yay goes into your
00:59:31.980
phone or whatever device you're using. It gets summed up with all the other people who are,
00:59:37.020
you know, chanting and clapping. And then nobody hears your specific voice. It just gets summed up
00:59:42.780
as crowd noise and presented in real time. Would there be a delay? There might be a lag. That could
00:59:49.020
be a problem because you do need instant noise. I think you could do it without the delay.
00:59:54.360
Probably, yeah. Or at least without much. So I would like to see real crowd noise as from your
01:00:02.700
living rooms summed up into crowd noise. That would actually be cool. But if you were in a game and you
01:00:09.100
knew that there was a guy with a button and he was just pushing the cheering button every time there
01:00:14.780
was a basket, how quickly will that bother you? Now, it might not bother you because you watch,
01:00:21.760
if you've watched sitcoms forever, they have the laugh track and you, it seems to work.
01:00:29.300
Now, Seinfeld famously did not have a laugh track. Did you know that? Seinfeld famously did
01:00:35.620
not have a laugh track, nor do movies back when funny movies were being made. I don't know when
01:00:41.300
the last funny movie was made, but back when movies were funny, of course, a movie doesn't have a laugh
01:00:45.980
track. So you don't need one, but it's definitely true that it's been tested.
01:00:51.760
And for some segment of the population, for some kinds of content, it does seem to help,
01:00:57.920
you know, the scripted half hour comedies on TV, but those are dying out. So, and I think the
01:01:03.560
laugh track might be part of why they were less popular.
01:01:08.640
Talk about free money. Here's one that Trump did. He was asked about Colin Kaepernick and if he
01:01:15.520
should get his job back, he should get his job back. Now, you all remember the story. He called
01:01:19.040
the, the people who were kneeling and disrespecting the flag in Trump's opinion. He thought they're
01:01:26.000
all bastards. Was that? No, sons of bitches. They're all sons of bitches, which of course was interpreted
01:01:32.600
as racist, which it wasn't because I'm pretty sure sons of bitches come in every flavor.
01:01:40.880
But Trump said that he thinks that Kaepernick should get a job if, you know, if he's still good
01:01:46.120
enough. So, you know, he didn't have an opinion on his skills, but he said, yeah, I think a team
01:01:51.860
should hire him. That was exactly the right answer. Because President Trump is what kind of
01:01:59.600
president? What kind of president is President Trump? Jobs. He's the jobs president. If you ask
01:02:07.560
the jobs president, hey, should this black guy, I'm just going to say black guy because that's the
01:02:14.340
context of the story. Should this black guy get a job? What should the jobs president say? There's
01:02:23.920
only one right answer. Yup. If he's qualified, yup. Unambiguously. Now, that has nothing to do with
01:02:32.680
his disagreement with kneeling. But to separate the question of should Kaepernick get a job? You're the
01:02:40.080
jobs fucking president. If he had said that Kaepernick should not get a job because he disagrees
01:02:46.980
with the kneeling, I don't know if I could have supported this president. Because you know what
01:02:52.580
I want? I want people to have jobs, Kaepernick or not. I've been pro-Kaepernick since the beginning,
01:02:59.680
much to your displeasure. I will reiterate that just because I'm talking about it. Being pro-Kaepernick
01:03:05.720
means not necessarily agreeing with all of his political points or even the way he did it.
01:03:11.120
I'm just saying that he was effective. He seems to be the real deal because you don't see him,
01:03:18.600
I don't know, he's still on point, on message. He seems genuine. He seems passionate. It's a cause
01:03:25.880
that has real concern. I like him as a patriot, honestly. I like him as a rebel. I like him as a
01:03:33.920
patriot. I don't really follow football, don't care about his athletic abilities. But I agree
01:03:40.120
with the president. Absolutely. If he's qualified for the job, he should absolutely get a job.
01:03:47.800
Very much so. And in fact, I think it would be good for the game. I would watch, I think I'd watch a
01:03:53.960
Kaepernick game even if I don't watch football because I'd kind of be curious how it would go.
01:03:58.720
So you don't have to like him personally. I don't know him personally. I'm just saying
01:04:03.200
that as a protester, as a patriot, I like it. Even if you disagree with some of the details.
01:04:15.200
Let's see, what else we got going on here? Make sure I didn't miss anything because it's
01:04:19.240
all so terribly important. No, I think I had it all. All right. Triangles are Nazi. That's all you
01:04:31.920
need to know. That's all I got for now. People are saying he's not a good quarterback. I don't know.