Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1156 Scott Adams： Why Trump deserves to lose. Why Biden deserves to lose.

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, good morning. Good to see you all. Today it's time for an exciting and provocative

00:00:19.020 episode of Coffee with Scott Adams. Yes, exciting and provocative, just the way you like them.

00:00:26.020 And in order to have the maximum amount of pleasure, and to make sure that this is the

00:00:33.040 launch of your day, the part that makes all of it better, you don't need much. It's really easy.

00:00:40.540 All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask,

00:00:45.540 a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the

00:00:52.180 dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous

00:00:59.340 sip. It's going to happen right now. Go.

00:01:06.520 Yes, I feel the civil discourse in this country improving 1%. And that was just one sip. Imagine

00:01:18.120 if I finished that whole cup. It's hard to imagine, isn't it? Well, let's talk about all the news.

00:01:27.300 Let's see. First, we have the Trump administration has rejected a California request for disaster

00:01:35.900 declaration. Now, so California asked for some financial help from the federal government because

00:01:41.940 there's all the forest fires and that was rejected. And so I looked for the reason and I thought, well,

00:01:48.960 certainly a story about a major thing being rejected. There's going to be a reason, but I didn't see a

00:01:58.540 reason. Now, maybe there will be a reason. It could be that a reason will be forthcoming. But if there is

00:02:05.520 no reason given, what would you have to assume? What would be the default assumption if no reason is given

00:02:13.080 in the news? The default assumption is that it's political. If it's political, then I certainly could

00:02:21.720 not support President Trump anymore. Now, if we don't hear what the reason was, you have to just assume it

00:02:28.700 was political. And then you end up in the same place. I do, just specifically me. Because an attack on

00:02:35.540 California would be an attack on me, because I live in California. Let me tell you a story just so you can get

00:02:42.860 some context. During the Obama administration, I had been, you know, a silent but supportive person of

00:02:52.820 President Obama. I don't know if many of you knew that, but if you're finding out for the first time,

00:02:58.700 I was perfectly happy with President Obama until, until he changed his opinion on going after

00:03:07.800 marijuana dispensaries in California. Now, California said that the dispensaries were okay.

00:03:14.680 Obama had run for office saying he wasn't going to bother the states. Whatever they wanted to do was

00:03:19.600 fine. And then he reversed himself, which would have put a California resident who started a dispensary,

00:03:26.140 would have put him in jail for 10 years for doing something that the government told him would be

00:03:31.720 okay. Obama said it would be okay. We're not going to go after you. The state said it's legal. He started

00:03:38.780 up his, what he believed to be a perfectly sanctioned business. And then Obama changed the law, and it

00:03:46.760 looked like he was going to go to jail for 10 years. At that point, I said, I'm out. I'm out.

00:03:52.900 If Obama had given a reason for changing his opinion, I would have said, well, listen to the

00:03:59.700 reason. And then if the reason had been a good one, I'd say, ah, okay, I hate the fact that he

00:04:06.420 changed his opinion. I hate the fact that puts this guy in jeopardy when he was following the rules as

00:04:12.220 he understood them. But at least I understand the reasoning. President Obama never offered that

00:04:18.660 reason. And so the default assumption is it was for political reasons, or there was some funding

00:04:25.340 involved. You know, maybe there was a backer of some type. Maybe the alcohol industry didn't want

00:04:31.800 marijuana to be legal. I don't know what it was. But by not giving a reason, he was completely

00:04:38.360 disqualified for office. And that was an argument I made at the time. The way that was interpreted is

00:04:45.460 that I endorsed Romney for president over Obama. But it wasn't so much that I loved Romney. I didn't

00:04:53.220 know much about him. Just that he wasn't Obama. And Obama had done something that was just disqualifying.

00:05:00.100 It doesn't matter what other good things you do. It doesn't matter. If you go after a citizen

00:05:05.920 and put a citizen in jail for political or monetary reasons while you're president, you're as disqualified

00:05:13.680 as you can be. You can't get more disqualified than that. And so I will say I'll put the same

00:05:21.420 standard on this story. If it turns out that there's a reason, could be that California didn't

00:05:27.360 apply for it correctly, or they just don't have the money or something, I'll listen to the reason.

00:05:32.520 But if there's no reason, it's just rejected, you have to assume it's political. And that's

00:05:40.720 targeted at me, because I live in California. If that's the case, then I would say the president

00:05:46.360 would not be qualified for office, just based on that alone. And I'm not even done.

00:05:53.160 So do you remember when immigration was a big issue? Doesn't that feel like a long time ago now?

00:05:59.900 What happened? Where is the reporting? Where is the reporting on immigration? Did immigration

00:06:09.980 stop? Did it become less of an issue? Or did we just stop reporting it? It makes you wonder about

00:06:19.700 the nature of news, doesn't it? How can something be the biggest news, immigration, and then just

00:06:27.460 sort of stop being the biggest news? Is it because it stopped? Because that would be news too, right?

00:06:33.920 If the amount of immigration went way down for some reason, either because they're doing a better job

00:06:40.460 at the border, or because of coronavirus, or something. It's big news, no matter what's happening,

00:06:48.080 but it just disappeared. And so the question I have to ask is, did it disappear? Because whatever the

00:06:55.860 news is, and I don't know, because it's not reported, is it because that would have been

00:07:00.400 positive for Trump? Is that why it disappeared? Because you didn't at least expect Fox News to

00:07:08.260 be reporting it, if it's good news for Trump. But it just disappeared. I don't know, I just have an

00:07:14.380 open question on that. There's a horrible story about a man who lost his father to coronavirus,

00:07:24.440 but also seven other family members, the same family. And two of them were young kids. Young,

00:07:31.960 I saw a picture, it looked like they were 10 or 11 years old, maybe 9, 10, 11. Now, if you lose

00:07:37.900 two kids in your family that are young, and they're in that age group that basically nobody should be

00:07:44.560 dying from coronavirus, and you lose seven members of your entire family, doesn't that tell you there's

00:07:51.700 a genetic element we don't yet understand? I'm not the statistics expert, but what are the odds of

00:08:00.760 this family having that many problems from coronavirus? It's not an accident that the entire family gets

00:08:07.200 infected. That would be normal. But to lose seven members of the family, and two of them are

00:08:13.180 children? That is such a strong indication, I would think, or, you know, certainly not proof of anything,

00:08:21.020 because, as I've told you before, statistics can cluster. It's possible, not possible, it's guaranteed

00:08:29.400 that you always get little weird, unexplained clusters of things. And when you look at it,

00:08:35.660 the big picture, they sort of disappear in importance, because statistics allows that

00:08:42.080 sometimes, just by chance, things cluster up. Is that what happened with this family? Did they just

00:08:47.960 have the worst luck in the world? I don't think so. You know, they looked like they had some,

00:08:53.920 maybe some weight issues in the family, but not the two children. The two children didn't have

00:08:59.220 any special weight issues. So I'd love to know more about the DNA elements there. If you're not

00:09:08.080 following Jake Novak on Twitter, you should be, Novak, N-O-V-A-K, because he has the best tweets on

00:09:16.580 anything that's happening in the Middle East that would also be relative to the United States,

00:09:21.960 and to politics in particular. And one of the things he tweeted, which I don't know if you saw

00:09:26.740 anywhere else. Tell me if you saw this news anywhere else. But Zogby did a poll and found

00:09:35.460 that in Saudi Arabia, 80% of Saudis are in favor of working toward normalizing ties with Israel

00:09:41.940 within the next five years. 71% even thinking it likely that other Arab nations will normalize

00:09:50.100 ties with Israel and the Palestinians. Think about that. 80% of Saudis want to just get along with

00:10:00.560 Israel. That is gigantic news, because it largely guarantees it's going to happen, given that there's

00:10:08.260 some momentum in that direction. Now, I was kind of thinking that this might be one of the October

00:10:14.880 surprises, because it would just be some amazing good news for Trump. And if ever there was a country

00:10:22.020 that owed Trump a favor, name the country that owes Trump a favor beyond all other countries. You might

00:10:31.880 say Israel. Israel would be a good guess. But that's more about long-term, you know, good allies working

00:10:40.680 together well. But Saudi Arabia owes President Trump, specifically the crown prince, owes President

00:10:50.540 Trump more than anybody ever owed any other leader, because Trump did give him cover on the whole

00:10:58.460 Khashoggi affair. And I said at the time, I said at the time, this is creating a situation that might have

00:11:08.780 a payback later. Because Trump played it to get the chip. That's what it looked like. It looked like he

00:11:15.600 was playing the game to get this favor, to create an asset out of nothing. If Trump had simply condemned

00:11:23.460 Saudi Arabia like everybody else did, he would have not had a free favor. But given that nobody's

00:11:31.240 opinion about Saudi Arabia was changed in any way, based on what Trump said, I don't think there's a

00:11:37.820 person in the world who listened to Trump's opinion on Khashoggi in Saudi Arabia and said, yeah, I think

00:11:44.120 I'll take that opinion. I don't think anybody did that. So it didn't change anybody's opinion, which is

00:11:51.740 good. But he got a free asset, which is what Trump does. He carves a free asset out of nothing. He got a

00:11:58.520 favor out of it. Future favor. If this turns out to be the future favor, the Saudi Arabia maybe, you

00:12:06.300 know, accelerates their timeline for making good with Israel, that would be a gigantic favor. So I

00:12:14.480 wouldn't rule it out. But I also think we might have heard about it by now. So certainly not guaranteed.

00:12:22.380 I tweeted that I'm looking to do a recorded interview before election with somebody who's an

00:12:32.080 anti-Trumper. I just want to do a citizen who's got serious TDS, not necessarily a professional. A

00:12:41.200 lot of people were suggesting to me names. How about this person? How about this person? Why don't you

00:12:47.000 talk to Sam Harris, etc.? But I'd rather talk to just a voter, somebody who wouldn't mind going in

00:12:54.740 public and just giving me their full best argument about Trump and just see how it goes. Now,

00:13:01.800 unfortunately, I asked on Twitter and I got over a thousand responses of which everyone that I looked

00:13:08.360 at was the wrong kind. They were suggesting people as opposed to people suggesting themselves,

00:13:13.880 which is what I was hoping for. So I don't know if I'll be able to pour through all thousand.

00:13:19.100 But if there's somebody who wants to do that, doesn't mind a little public attention, I'd like

00:13:24.960 to do that. But a non-professional would be ideal. You could be a professional lawyer or professional

00:13:30.820 something else, but not a public pundit. So in news that just sort of slipped under the radar a little

00:13:42.740 bit. The World Health Organization has just announced that remdesivir doesn't work. Did you see that coming?

00:13:53.800 Who had a bet on the World Health Organization declaring that remdesivir doesn't work?

00:14:00.500 Now, of course, the company that makes remdesivir is pushing back in that Gilead. And so I guess it was

00:14:12.320 some big trial. And the result of it was that they didn't see any benefit of remdesivir. And

00:14:20.560 remdesivir responded by saying, well, we're not sure that new study is so robust, because we have these other

00:14:31.920 studies that say it does work. So what does that do to remdesivir? First of all, does anybody believe the

00:14:39.360 World Health Organization about anything anymore? You know, is there anybody who said, oh, the World Health

00:14:45.400 Organization says remdesivir doesn't work based on the study? But what does that do? I mean, the World

00:14:54.320 Health Organization is not exactly credible. And the question I'd ask is, does China have anything that

00:15:02.440 competes with remdesivir? You see where I'm going? See where I'm going with this? It could be that there's

00:15:10.160 a Chinese pharmaceutical that is the competitor to remdesivir. And their pet, the World Health

00:15:18.100 Organization is just helping China sell their drug instead of remdesivir. Do we live in a world where

00:15:24.940 something like that could actually happen, like right in front of us? You know, are we in the kind

00:15:30.100 of a world where the World Health Organization could just blatantly ignore science and facts and reason

00:15:37.220 and just back China because China will make more money from a pharmaceutical? Yeah, yeah, that's exactly the

00:15:44.880 world we live in. I'm not saying that that happened. I'm not making that claim. I'm just saying that it's the

00:15:51.520 first place I'd look. I mean, based on past behavior, the very first thing I'd look at is, does China have a

00:15:59.620 remdesivir competitor? Just asking. All right. So Trump has made the claim that some, I don't know how he

00:16:12.000 words it, but it sounds something like 85% of people who got coronavirus were wearing masks, which he says

00:16:19.660 to put doubt into the question of whether masks work. Now, Tucker Carlson also did an episode on that.

00:16:25.900 And I also tried to debunk it when Tucker Carlson did it, because it doesn't say what you think it

00:16:35.300 says. So there's nobody, the study did not indicate that masks don't work. And that's the way it was

00:16:43.160 being used or suggested that that was the implication by Tucker Carlson. Probably that's where Trump saw it.

00:16:51.180 So Trump was echoing the doubt about masks based on this 85% study. But without getting into the

00:17:00.580 details, the study doesn't say that. So the study is silent on whether masks work. You can't determine

00:17:07.660 from this study whether masks are good or bad. It's not that kind of a study. And Jake Tapper called

00:17:15.040 them out quite aggressively on CNN. Appropriately, I would say. And I'll go further and say, I don't

00:17:24.560 know if the polls are accurate. You know, they're showing this gigantic lead for Biden. And I have

00:17:31.000 some questions about the accuracy of the polls. But I will say this. If Trump loses the election,

00:17:37.160 he earned it. He earned it. I think that if you're president of the United States, and it's yesterday,

00:17:46.120 and you're still in public, casting doubt on the efficacy of masks, and you're publicly modeling

00:17:54.460 a lack of social distancing, you deserve to lose the election. You know, I hate to say it. I said this

00:18:04.440 before. People have said to me, Scott, you're going to feel so bad when, you know, the people believe

00:18:10.860 that Trump is going to lose. They say, you're going to feel so bad. I can't wait to come back and gloat.

00:18:15.720 And I'm not going to have that feeling at all. Honestly, if Trump loses this thing,

00:18:23.420 he earned the loss. And he earned it doing this. Now, I would have a personal problem with him about

00:18:30.460 that California wildfire funding thing. But we might find out that there was actually a good

00:18:36.640 reason that that was rejected. I could think of lots of good reasons to reject it. I just haven't

00:18:41.360 heard one. But on this issue, there's nothing that's going to change my mind. At this point in

00:18:48.560 the coronavirus, having the president, you know, actively and aggressively, I would say,

00:18:54.920 question the efficacy of masks and the efficacy of large gatherings is completely disqualifying.

00:19:03.640 Yeah, you just can't stay on this train anymore. I'm sorry. I mean, I know that you will. And I know

00:19:09.580 you'll be mad at me for falling off it. But this is completely disqualifying. I would guess that Trump's

00:19:17.480 statement about masks and this 85% of people, if I had to put a number on it, it probably killed 50,000

00:19:23.040 people. There you have it. If I had to guess how many people extra will die because of the president's

00:19:33.640 fuck up, probably 50,000 people. If you doubt that, it's because you doubt social distancing works or

00:19:43.660 matters, and you doubt that masks are effective. I will allow you to maintain that doubt. But someday,

00:19:52.040 we're going to know. Someday, we're going to know. Now, I can't guarantee that I could estimate in any

00:20:00.200 way, you know, any difference in death toll based on masks or social distancing. I don't have the skill

00:20:06.020 to estimate that. But we all have to make a decision based on our best judgment with the incomplete

00:20:12.100 knowledge we have, the incomplete understanding of science that we all have. We're just sort of doing

00:20:17.800 our best with the bad information we have. And my best judgment is that masks make a difference.

00:20:28.060 And I'll boil down my argument to this. Virus doesn't travel by itself. You all agree with this part.

00:20:36.120 The virus has to be on a water particle, right? A virus could easily get through a mask. A water particle,

00:20:43.920 some of them can. Even most of them, I think. Water particles also travel in the air. So you need the

00:20:53.160 virus, you need the water, and you need the air. If you don't have all three of those things, the virus

00:21:00.480 isn't going anywhere. You all agree with that so far, right? So if you agree it takes all three things,

00:21:06.760 a virus, you need the water droplets, and you need the air as the carrier. If all those things are

00:21:14.680 necessary, I want you to do this experiment. Put on your mask, hold the lit candle in front of you,

00:21:22.100 and try to blow it out. If you can blow out the candle, masks don't work. They don't work. Because

00:21:30.800 if you can blow out the candle, no problem, it means that there's virus, water, and air coming

00:21:38.600 right through the front of the mask in such force that it would be equivalent to if you had no mask

00:21:43.640 on at all. If you can't blow out the candle, would you at least feel there's a little more chance

00:21:52.320 that masks that masks might work? Now, the entire medical community, when I say entire, I'd say

00:22:02.040 probably 95% of it, and all the experts are on the same side, that masks are essential and work.

00:22:11.020 Probably 95%. Could they be wrong? Is it possible that someday in the future, there'll be some way we

00:22:18.480 find out for sure, if the coronavirus situation was the one weird situation where the masks don't

00:22:25.880 make any difference? Could we find that out? We could. Anything's possible. But if you're playing

00:22:31.520 the odds, and you're doing your best job to decide what's right, the odds are just overwhelmingly

00:22:39.680 in favor of masks making some difference, as well as social distancing. Because the outbreaks that we

00:22:47.260 see are so clearly related to social distancing, and now they're becoming increasingly clearly

00:22:52.920 related to not wearing masks. I feel the president may have killed 50,000 people by his interpretation

00:23:05.160 of mask efficacy. That's my guess. Probably 50,000 people. And I would say, you know, I said in the

00:23:13.880 beginning of this pandemic, that all of the leaders, all of the experts are going to make some pretty

00:23:18.660 bad mistakes. But we should be forgiving, because everybody's guessing. In the beginning, everybody

00:23:24.980 was just guessing. And I'm quite forgiving about those particular mistakes. However, it's not the

00:23:33.180 beginning anymore. At this point, we're well into it. Somebody says, concentrate on the recovery rate.

00:23:42.840 Well, we'll see. We'll find out in the next few months whether everything gets worse or better.

00:23:50.280 And then the other thing that is disqualifying is that Trump, still at this late date, has not

00:23:56.880 presented a health care plan, per se. So there's nothing with a branded name that you could say,

00:24:04.180 this is Trump's plan. And at the same time, he doesn't have anything like a package or a branded

00:24:10.540 health care plan. He is not doing a good job of removing people's fear that if Obamacare gets

00:24:19.680 overthrown by the courts, that they won't just lose their coverage. Now, Trump has said,

00:24:28.080 it is my policy, you're not going to lose your coverage because of conditions you already had,

00:24:35.620 so pre-existing conditions. Now, he has said that. And he said it clearly. He's even done an

00:24:41.200 executive order. And still, he has not said it persuasively. Now, do I believe that the president

00:24:48.520 has the ability to be persuasive? Yes. Yes, he does. See that book behind me? I wrote a whole book

00:24:56.660 on how persuasive the president is. And why is it that he can't persuade the public

00:25:02.300 that he really means to give them real health care that's better, and that he won't get rid of the

00:25:09.180 health care until he's got something that's better? It's a very simple message. People, I know you're

00:25:15.780 afraid, but let me tell you one thing for sure. I'm not going to get rid of the health care that exists,

00:25:21.540 the Obamacare. I'm not going to touch it until we've got something that's better, and that it

00:25:28.040 doesn't leave anybody uncovered, and that there are no pre-existing condition people who get screwed

00:25:34.480 because of this. So this is what I promise you, and you can hold me to it. I will not, will not

00:25:41.720 introduce new health care, you know, I'm sorry, I will not get rid of what you have until you

00:25:49.340 absolutely can move to something better without any risk. Did you hear how clearly I said that?

00:25:56.200 Did it sound convincing? You know, if I'd been president, yeah. Yeah, that would have sounded

00:26:00.400 convincing, because we know the president can hit a message and keep it simple all day long.

00:26:07.880 There's nobody who's ever been better at simplifying and repeating and just making sure,

00:26:12.880 you know, I mean to build a wall. Is there anybody here who wondered, does Trump intend to build a

00:26:20.760 wall? Nope. There's nobody who has any doubt about his intentions to build a wall. No doubt at all.

00:26:30.040 You might like it, you might not like it, but you don't doubt it. But in health care, why is it that

00:26:36.600 with health care? He can't sell that simple message. You're not going to lose anything until,

00:26:43.280 and only under this condition, we have something you can move to seamlessly that's just better.

00:26:50.000 Just better. Cost you less, give you just as much or a better protection, period. If I can't give you

00:26:56.460 that, I'm not getting rid of anything, because we're only interested in improving. Nobody has an

00:27:03.620 interest in anybody losing their health care. That's the last thing I want. So if I can tell

00:27:08.520 you one thing for sure, you're not going to lose any health care. You're only going to maybe get

00:27:14.020 better health care, period. That's the only thing that could happen. Now listen to what I just said.

00:27:19.580 You tell me that that's not easy to do? That's easy. Trump isn't doing it. Times run out. You know,

00:27:28.580 I was kind of waiting, oh, maybe in that last month he'll put something together. Nope.

00:27:34.440 Nope. It's pretty obvious there's not going to be any kind of a Trump health care plan,

00:27:40.600 and it is now completely obvious that he's not going to even try very hard to convince you you're

00:27:46.400 not going to lose your fucking health care. All right? That's not even really trying. All right?

00:27:51.940 I don't even know if Trump wants to win at this point, because it's so obvious what he would need

00:27:56.960 to do to win. It's like he's not even playing to win. And then last night, you know, he gets asked

00:28:03.620 the softball question of all softball questions, and he whiffs. He whiffs on a softball.

00:28:11.700 And it goes like this. How come you won't? Why are you hesitant? Basically, I'm paraphrasing

00:28:20.860 Savannah Guthrie. You've been hesitant to denounce white supremacy. And again, he blew it.

00:28:31.480 I don't know how many times you can miss that softball before even your supporters start saying,

00:28:39.180 I don't believe you're a white supremacist, and I don't believe that you're sending them

00:28:44.460 any kind of a racist whistle. That's my view. I don't believe anything like that's happening.

00:28:51.080 But it's the world's easiest question, and there's one way to do it right,

00:28:55.520 and there's every other way to do it which is wrong. Let me explain the right way to do it.

00:29:01.800 Why are you so hesitant to denounce white supremacists? I'm not hesitant at all. I

00:29:08.180 denounce it completely. I denounce the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists. I denounce all forms of

00:29:15.200 racism, and I'll even go further. I denounce Antifa. I got some issues with Black Lives Matter.

00:29:20.660 Any kind of hate like that, I'm absolutely out. And if there's anything I've ever said in

00:29:25.440 the past, it was more because of the way the question was asked. I just didn't like to get

00:29:29.540 pushed into repeating somebody's claim. But I want to tell you, no doubt about it, 100%.

00:29:37.080 Let's never even talk about it again. I disavow the hell out of those guys. I can't disavow them

00:29:43.600 any more than I have. But instead, now you heard my answer, right? Did my answer sound like I was

00:29:50.520 equivocating? No, it didn't. Because I wasn't. You can tell when somebody's equivocating. What does

00:29:58.660 Trump do? Well, you know, you keep trying this trick. And immediately the flag goes up. Why don't

00:30:06.540 you first answer the question? And then he gets into that he's said it many times before. True. And it's

00:30:14.600 a good defense. I've, you know, debunked them many times before. But once you get a little whiny

00:30:20.640 about that, it's still taking away from the main thing, which is, why wasn't the first freaking

00:30:27.360 thing you said, I denounce them all in the clearest possible language. Now let me tell you why, you

00:30:33.480 know, this is fake news in the first place. You can get to the fake news part and the part that you've

00:30:38.140 done it many times. But you don't want to lead off with that. Because that's defensive. Sounds like

00:30:43.260 you're making a case. Sounds like you're trying to be a lawyer a little bit. Don't be a lawyer.

00:30:49.240 Don't be a lawyer on the question of, do you denounce white supremacists? That's not something

00:30:54.840 that you equivocate on. It's not something you beat around the bush. It's not something you, you know,

00:31:00.300 trim the hedges on. You've got to go right down the middle on that every time. Now again, let me be

00:31:06.120 clear. I don't think there's any chance that Trump is supporting the white supremacists. He never said

00:31:11.540 they were fine people. That's fake news. You know, I don't believe he's sending any kind of a whistle

00:31:16.540 to them. I think that's nonsense. But man, talk about not being able to answer a question. Well,

00:31:22.940 that's, that's really disappointing, you got to say. And then he does the same thing with QAnon.

00:31:30.360 Now, uh, so he was asked if he supports them. And Savannah Guthrie says that they believe that

00:31:37.320 Democrats are a bunch of pedophile, uh, organized pedophile ring or something. And, and then Trump

00:31:44.960 says, I don't know anything about them. And then Savannah Guthrie says, uh, I just told you they

00:31:51.320 believe there's this big pedophile ring. Do you denounce that? And he wouldn't do it. How hard would

00:31:59.100 it be to say, you know, I, I'm not signing on to any of that stuff, but I, I certainly appreciate

00:32:05.940 the fact that they're so anti pedophile. Now he did say he appreciated the anti pedophilia part.

00:32:13.440 That was right. But it would have been so easy to say, you know, I haven't really looked into the

00:32:19.480 details. If what you say is true, that's not something I believe in, but I can't speak to it in

00:32:25.100 any detail, but what you've said, obviously that's not something that I endorse. How hard would it be

00:32:31.040 to do that? How hard would it be? Would he lose QAnon if he did that? Would he? I doubt it. I don't

00:32:40.700 think he would lose their votes, but he would at least make everybody else feel he was, you know,

00:32:45.400 handling that question a little bit better. All right. I've got some bad things to say about Biden

00:32:50.140 too, in case, in case you're disappointed. Um, so Biden, uh, said that, uh, he would give the

00:33:02.860 voters his opinion on court packing, uh, before the election, but not now. So he's going to base

00:33:09.840 his opinion on court packing on how the, uh, Amy Coney Barrett thing is handled. Now, even Van

00:33:18.100 Jones gave him a D minus, give him a D minus for that answer. That answer is disqualifying. It is,

00:33:28.100 uh, it is disrespectful to voters. It's dismissive of voters because we do want to know this question.

00:33:36.360 He does have an opinion. He does owe us the answer. And finally, he admitted that, that he owes voters an

00:33:43.860 answer. He said the other day that, you know, they don't deserve an answer, which was a really bad

00:33:48.800 answer. And amazingly, that was his answer. I would say that that displays a level of, uh,

00:34:01.780 disrespect for voters as well as lack of competence that is disqualifying. So in the same way that I

00:34:10.240 think Trump, uh, disqualified himself, uh, recently on the coronavirus stuff, I would say that Biden has

00:34:17.560 disqualified himself as just being competent. Now I believe that Trump is largely very competent

00:34:24.980 on a whole bunch of areas. I think he's probably the best president we've ever had on economics

00:34:30.820 and international affairs. So I would, I would be able to support that very easily. So on those two

00:34:38.360 really, really big things, international affairs and, and domestic economics, I don't think you

00:34:44.520 could beat Trump. And if those were the things you cared about the most, he'd, he'd be your candidate

00:34:50.280 for sure. But Biden is just generally incompetent and not even being able to answer the simple

00:34:55.860 question that clearly the public wants to know about, because this court packing thing isn't a small

00:35:01.680 issue. If court packing happens, it is the end of the Republic. And that's pretty easy to

00:35:08.140 predict because the core system would no longer be an independent body. They would be a captive of

00:35:14.440 the executive and, and Congress if they were the same party. Um, so, so that's disqualifying.

00:35:23.060 Uh, by the way, Trump did say he would peacefully leave office if he lost, but he, he fought a little

00:35:31.020 bit before he gave the direct answer. So that was terrible. Uh, and then he gave an answer on debt.

00:35:37.360 So Savannah Guthrie asked Trump about, uh, do you owe this 400, whatever a million? And he answered

00:35:44.060 the question correctly. And he answered it in a way that if you understood finance, you would know

00:35:49.960 what exactly what he meant. And you would realize that the issue was a non-issue. If you understand

00:35:55.020 economics and finance, you know that it doesn't matter if the president has debt, that would be

00:36:00.760 pretty much everybody in the real estate business. People have debt. It doesn't mean he owes more than

00:36:07.420 he's worth. It means that if he has this much net value, he probably has some fraction of that

00:36:14.360 that's debt, just like anybody who has a mortgage. Now he did throw in that mortgage example at one

00:36:21.160 point, but it was muddled. He needs a clean answer for that debt thing. And I think that he did not

00:36:28.960 give one. I would guess that people who didn't understand finance and economics were still left to

00:36:35.040 think he owed somebody a lot of money and they don't know who, and it's, and it bothers them. So I think

00:36:41.280 he botched that answer. Then Biden went back and forth on fracking. He was against it. He's for it.

00:36:52.520 Now he's, now he doesn't support a ban on it, but does that mean he wouldn't stop giving licenses to

00:36:59.280 new applications? Or is it only on government land? So fracking, again, one of the biggest issues

00:37:07.280 issues in the country for certainly in a lot of the States, Biden won't give you an answer that you

00:37:14.680 can even know what he means. So again, Biden doesn't give you a court packing answer. He doesn't give

00:37:21.420 you a fracking answer that you can depend on. He gives an answer, but it's, he's all over the place.

00:37:28.180 How do you elect a president who won't even tell you his opinion on the most important issues?

00:37:33.880 That's completely disqualifying, completely. I would rather have somebody tell me an opinion

00:37:39.660 that I didn't like than to say, well, I'm not going to tell you or, you know, change my opinion every

00:37:45.380 day. Um, and in a way, if you look at what Biden is becoming, he's becoming almost a Trump light

00:37:54.840 because if Trump, if, if Biden is not against fracking and he said, he's also not against defunding

00:38:02.980 the police and then he doesn't see a need for another coronavirus lockdown. Who is he? Who is

00:38:11.560 he? Cause those three things just described Trump, right? When you say all of these, Trump doesn't

00:38:18.600 support a ban on fracking. He doesn't support defunding the police and he doesn't see a need

00:38:23.940 for another coronavirus lockdown. That's just Trump is our, uh, and he's not in favor of court

00:38:33.160 packing like Trump. So do we really think that Biden is going to be, uh, you know, AOC friendly?

00:38:44.000 It's not looking like it unless he's doing a whole Trojan horse thing where he's really going to be

00:38:49.240 super progressive if he gets elected and lives. Um, all right. So there's also, uh, let me call

00:38:59.140 out in the interest of fairness. You know, uh, I, I spend a tremendous amount of time debunking the

00:39:05.020 fine people hoax, but there's a Biden version of that. In other words, there's a hoax on the Biden

00:39:11.780 side that's as big. And it goes like this, um, that Joe Biden forced the firing of the Ukrainian

00:39:20.940 prosecutor because he was investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden. As far as I can tell, that news

00:39:30.340 is as fake or that story is as fake as the fine people hoax. I don't think there's any difference.

00:39:36.180 I think they're both completely untrue and demonstrably so. Now, what is missing from the

00:39:42.620 Ukrainian prosecutor story? Every time you see the debunk and somebody says, no, that didn't happen.

00:39:49.160 Uh, Europe and other diplomats appraised this and that prosecutor was actually not going against

00:39:56.420 any, uh, any, uh, any bad guys. What do you call it? Uh, corruption. Uh, and it's actually the

00:40:04.960 opposite. So he was fired for not going after a corruption and not going after Burisma. He wasn't

00:40:10.660 fired for going after Burisma. Now, everybody who makes that claim does it without a source.

00:40:17.320 So there is still a possibility that there's no source for that, which does, which I don't know

00:40:23.620 what I'd do with that, but why is it nobody ever shows the source? I think they showed one source to

00:40:29.300 one, uh, one, uh, diplomat who agreed with firing this guy. But I would say preliminarily that it is

00:40:37.360 very unlikely that the, the most prominent claim that you'll see on Fox news about Biden, it's very

00:40:45.100 unlikely that that's true. I would call that fake news. Now, I don't know, you know, where that ranks

00:40:53.760 in terms of the fake news, uh, list of worseness, but it's pretty bad if it's fake news and it looks

00:41:01.060 like it to me. So if you're, if you're assuming that's true, maybe, maybe lower your confidence

00:41:08.380 that that was really happening. Now, apparently, uh, Biden was not even asked about Hunter Biden's

00:41:15.240 emails. The biggest story on the right, completely ignored and wasn't even asked. What does that tell

00:41:23.160 you? I mean, we're, we're definitely in a world where, uh, the human voting is irrelevant. It's

00:41:30.700 just, you know, who gets hypnotized better. So if, if the mainstream media has more people watching it,

00:41:38.460 that's who wins the election. That's it. Politico is trying to say that the Hunter, uh, emails, uh,

00:41:48.160 may not be real and that they might be a Russian plot, Russian mischief, might be a Russian plot

00:41:55.240 to, uh, give disinformation to Rudy because he would then give it to Trump. So that's Politico

00:42:04.860 trying to turn this into a non-story. But if those emails are real, they're real. Well,

00:42:13.840 was that the narrator? I think I heard the narrator. So if it turns out that Hunter Biden's emails are

00:42:20.300 real, they're real. Um, then the most problem, the biggest problem in there, I don't want to say

00:42:28.440 problematic. I hate that word is that one of the emails says that he has been required to give 50%

00:42:34.740 of his income to pop. What? If that's real, if it's true that Hunter Biden is saying to his other

00:42:43.860 family members, I think that's who he was talking to, that he's been giving 50% of his income to pop

00:42:50.240 for a while, what would that tell you is happening? What that would tell me is that Joe Biden has found

00:42:58.760 a way to legally make lots of money swampily, which is to have Hunter Biden do a whole bunch of

00:43:07.440 stuff, which individually is legal. Was it legal for Hunter Biden to accept a board position with

00:43:14.520 Burisma? Yup. It was legal. Was it legal for Burisma to pay him way more than people think he's worth?

00:43:22.980 Yeah. Totally legal. Would it be legal for Hunter Biden to make a whole bunch of money in these totally

00:43:30.000 legal ways and then share half of it with another family member? Yes, that would be legal. It's all

00:43:39.120 legal. So the indication is that Joe Biden found a way to basically be a gigantic criminal and monetize

00:43:51.040 his office completely legally. And all the evidence that we have this email, plus his lifestyle that

00:44:00.600 doesn't match, you know, what we imagine is his real income. And, and it's looking a whole lot

00:44:08.640 like the Biden operation was a lot like, you know, the, the Clinton foundation, meaning completely legal,

00:44:17.660 well, but maybe it shouldn't have been. So Democrats seem to be really good at finding legal ways to

00:44:25.620 monetize their elected positions. And, uh, we don't know for sure what's true at this point, but it looks

00:44:34.180 exactly like that. And, and if the Biden family is not denying the emails are real, and here's the trick.

00:44:43.040 If, if the, if the Bidens deny the emails are real, they will be caught in a lie, because it's almost a

00:44:50.400 guarantee that we'll find out some of them are real. There's probably ways you can find out they're real or

00:44:55.220 not. So they know they can't go with the direct lie, because they'll be uncovered later, later. So they're

00:45:00.960 going to have to just pretend it doesn't exist, and see if they can make half of the country never hear about the

00:45:07.860 story. And they're succeeding. They're actually succeeding in figuring out how to just completely

00:45:15.940 keep the news from half of the country. And that's all they need. They only need half the country, and

00:45:21.040 then he's president. They don't need the other half. As, as Trump taught us. So this is just an amazing

00:45:30.400 story. It does look like a smoking gun. It does look like the Bidens are completely corrupt. If this,

00:45:38.380 if this evidence is true, still have to put that if on there. And it looks like they got caught.

00:45:45.960 That's what it looks like. So let's talk about the Twitter policy. So I want to compliment

00:45:54.120 Jack Dorsey for some of his communication on this. And what I'm complimenting is that I like that Jack

00:46:05.840 starts in two different tweets, in which he starts by just saying they made a mistake. That is very

00:46:13.220 disarming and very good technique. Because if everybody's blaming you for doing something,

00:46:19.240 and the very first thing out of your mouth is, total mistake. What do you do after that?

00:46:26.300 That's your complaint. Your complaint is, I need you to hear that you made a mistake. And then the

00:46:31.860 person you're complaining to says, quote, first sentence out of him is, our communication around

00:46:38.480 our actions on the New York Post article was not great. That's a direct statement of a problem,

00:46:46.980 problem. And I appreciate that. And then likewise, when he followed up, and I think this might have

00:46:52.660 been yesterday, his first sentence in this tweet was, straight blocking of URLs was wrong. That's it.

00:47:00.400 Straight blocking of URLs was wrong. Period. That's all you need to say. Now, who does this remind you of?

00:47:08.540 Who can you think of who once had a corporate controversy, who solved it the same way, with a

00:47:19.060 simple direct statement, of which the very first statement acknowledged the problem? Steve Jobs.

00:47:27.240 Steve Jobs and AntennaGate. Steve Jobs and AntennaGate showed us the gold standard for handling

00:47:35.220 this kind of an issue. You first say directly and cleanly, this is a mistake. And then you say you

00:47:43.720 want to make people happy. And you say what you're going to do about it. That's the formula. It was a

00:47:49.600 flat mistake. Sorry about that. Here's what we're going to do about it. And that's the model that

00:47:57.960 Jack took. Now, you could argue that you don't like his solution. And we'll talk about that in a

00:48:05.200 method of communication, the persuasion of it. He hit the form just right. And I appreciated

00:48:12.380 that. Now, let's talk about the actual solution. So apparently, the new changes are that they will

00:48:20.060 no longer remove hacked content unless it comes directly from the hackers or from somebody working

00:48:28.440 with them directly. But apparently, if it goes through a news source or some other individual

00:48:35.080 who's not part of the hacking, then it will still be there. Now, does this apply to the New York Post

00:48:41.720 story? Well, this is a gray area because there is no claim of hacking. Right? But you could argue

00:48:49.620 that somehow they got into the hard drive. If getting into the hard drive of somebody who did not want

00:48:57.000 you to get into their hard drive, presumably, you have to assume nobody wants you to get into their

00:49:01.440 hard drive, would you call that hacking? Would you say that the store owner who had a legal right to

00:49:08.760 the computer, would you say that he hacked? I would say yes. That feels like hacking, isn't it? If you

00:49:16.880 get into the data of somebody's hard drive, and they didn't want you to do it, and obviously nobody

00:49:23.420 wants that. That's kind of hacking. I've heard people say they're thinking of it in terms of

00:49:29.340 remote hacking, you know, over the internet. It wasn't that. Or, you know, Politico thinks maybe

00:49:35.580 it might have been some Russian plot. But I think I would call it a hacking.

00:49:43.940 And even though he had a legal right to do it in that case. So that's a good change.

00:49:48.920 So what do you think of that Twitter policy? That's pretty good, wouldn't you say? I feel like,

00:49:57.380 you know, insofar as you're talking about hacked material, they now have a consistent policy that

00:50:03.280 I think could work. So that part's good. But it sounds like they were still not going to run the

00:50:10.360 New York Post story. At least Twitter is resisting those tweets, because it was personal. So it was

00:50:18.180 Hunter Biden's personal information. And that's different than, say, political information. So if I

00:50:28.920 interpret the Twitter policy correctly, if it had been the subject of a hacking, and it came into the

00:50:35.980 news, not through the hackers themselves directly, but it was about politics, then that would still be

00:50:42.500 fine. But since it's about his personal life, Twitter is making a call that that's, you know,

00:50:49.540 not appropriate, apparently. But that's a gray area again. Because Hunter Biden's personal information

00:50:58.080 on that hard drive looks like it was very much connected to his father and very much connected to

00:51:04.920 politics, if it's true. So it's sort of impossible for the social media companies to have a standard

00:51:15.140 that just works all the time. So their other standard, of course, is that they're going to put

00:51:19.580 a warning label on things that are fake and known to be inaccurate. And so I did a little test by

00:51:27.420 doing a tweet that says that the fine people hoax is a hoax. And if it doesn't get a warning label,

00:51:34.600 it would mean that, at least according to Twitter, it is a non-controversial statement to say that it's

00:51:41.720 a hoax. So I'm going to see. I assume, because I've said it a million times before, I'm assuming it

00:51:47.900 will not get any kind of a label. But that should tell you something, right? If Twitter fact checkers

00:51:54.420 believed it was untrue, would it not be subject to at least a label that says, oh, I'd take a look at

00:52:01.860 this source over here if you think that's true. I think they would be within the right to do that

00:52:07.380 according to their policy, if they thought it wasn't true. All right. So we'll see about that.

00:52:16.760 Did you see the story that the former Mexican defense secretary got arrested for drug trafficking?

00:52:24.200 What? This is the guy who was the head of the military in Mexico until 2018. From 2012 to 2018,

00:52:35.160 not very long time ago, 2018, the head of the Mexican military, at least in 2020, he was arrested for

00:52:45.140 drug trafficking and money laundering. So they got him in Los Angeles. Does that indicate that maybe

00:52:51.840 the Mexican military, the Mexican military was in the pocket of the cartels back in 2018? Yeah.

00:53:01.000 Obviously. Obviously. All right. Another big story is that President Trump retweeted a Babylon Bee

00:53:11.280 tweet. Now, Babylon Bee, of course, is a satirical site like The Onion. And the way Trump dealt with the

00:53:21.420 retweet, people are left to believing that he thought the story was a real one. The claim in

00:53:28.000 the Babylon Bee's satire was that Twitter shut down all of the internet or something to prevent people

00:53:35.980 from hearing bad stuff about Biden. Now, of course, that didn't happen. But what might have happened,

00:53:42.860 I still haven't heard what the problem was with Twitter's network. I think they had an early

00:53:48.220 statement that they didn't think it was hacking. But I wonder if it was the power problems in

00:53:54.560 California. So I don't know where Twitter's physical resources are. I don't know where all of their

00:54:01.500 data centers are. I don't know where their technical people live exactly. But we had massive power outages

00:54:08.840 in California at about the same time that Twitter was having its outage. Are they related? Because

00:54:15.720 it could be that California's power outages knocked Twitter out. And it wouldn't have to necessarily

00:54:23.840 knock out their data center. They might have backup power at the data center. But suppose there was a

00:54:30.440 bug in the system, and the only person who could fix it, or the people who need to talk to each other

00:54:35.480 to fix it, had a power problem. And they just couldn't get in, and they couldn't do what they needed to do

00:54:41.140 to fix it. I'm just speculating. I don't know anything about what caused the problem. But I don't

00:54:47.260 know if it's a coincidence that California lost power, and a California company lost its network

00:54:53.560 at the same time. So waiting to hear about that. Apparently, Trump is losing to Biden among women

00:55:04.500 at a rate of 60% to 34%. So Trump is just getting killed on women voters. And women care about health

00:55:15.900 care more. So there again, I would reiterate, Trump's handling of health care and handling of the

00:55:22.500 pandemic, he deserves to lose. He deserves to lose about the way he's handled that. And I would say

00:55:30.880 women control the country now. If Biden wins, it will be because women wanted him to win. Wouldn't you

00:55:37.900 agree? That is the big difference is the women voters. So it's going to feel as though women are running

00:55:47.560 the country, because they are, and they would be the deciding vote. So you can take that as anything you

00:55:58.320 like in terms of good news or bad news. If you're a woman, you probably think it's good news.

00:56:03.960 And if you're a man, maybe, maybe you don't care. Maybe you just say, oh, it's time for women to be in

00:56:08.840 charge. In fact, I would go so far as to say, in the same way that people used to say that Bill Clinton

00:56:15.540 was the first black president, I think Joe Biden might be the first female president. Because Biden is

00:56:24.460 so favored by women, and his policies do seem to have a female leaning bias to them, good or bad,

00:56:32.300 I'm just saying that he does, his policies are female friendly. He's sort of the first female

00:56:39.220 president, you might say, in a good way, not a bad way. Somebody says, I hate to break it to you,

00:56:49.120 but women love Trump. Well, not according to the polls. And I would certainly believe polls could

00:56:55.460 be off by, you know, five or six percent. But the difference, the difference is 60 percent support

00:57:03.180 to 34. The polls are not off by that much. There is clearly a gigantic difference in how women see

00:57:12.080 Trump. And he's earned that. I mean, you know, he knows what it takes to be attractive to women

00:57:21.080 and what it doesn't take. Somebody says, Scott needs to get laid. You are apparently not up to date on

00:57:30.660 on my life.

00:57:36.640 In the comments, somebody in the comments is saying women destroy civilization. Well, I wouldn't say that.

00:57:43.700 I would go exactly the opposite. And I would say that women are the primary source of civilization.

00:57:50.520 Meaning that civilization takes form to protect the reproductive process. In other words,

00:57:58.780 humans' greatest interest is reproduction, just like everybody else's biological imperative. And so

00:58:06.560 it makes sense that society would evolve over time to favor anything that allows, you know, women to be

00:58:14.600 safe when they're having kids. So it makes sense that society is largely a female invention for the

00:58:22.640 benefit of men as well. I'm not saying it's only for women. All right.

00:58:28.780 So we have two people running for president who, in my opinion, both deserve to lose. Biden for being

00:58:35.320 generally incompetent and disrespecting the voters and not even telling us his opinion and being

00:58:42.540 generally too old and lame to do the job. And Trump, because of his handling of health care and

00:58:48.700 coronavirus is disqualifying, I think. So I'm being asked on YouTube if I'm high right now.

00:58:57.820 No, I'm not. Sorry. You probably wish I would. You probably wish I were. All right. That's it for now.

00:59:04.420 I'll talk to you later.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 16, 2020

Episode 1156 Scott Adams： Why Trump deserves to lose. Why Biden deserves to lose.

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript