Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1166 Scott Adams： Giggling Harris, President George, 60 Minutes, NXIVM, Slaughter Meter Update

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in. Good morning. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.

00:00:15.200 People are saying that this one will be the best one ever. Yeah, people are saying that all over

00:00:22.840 the globe. I can't give you any specific names. A lot of them are anonymous sources, but they are

00:00:28.840 saying this will be the best coffee with Scott Adams. And all you need to make it a peak experience,

00:00:35.880 you don't need much. All you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein,

00:00:40.700 a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:00:49.060 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes

00:00:55.000 everything better except for Hunter's laptop. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens

00:01:01.560 now. Go. Yes, I feel the images on that laptop are now all over 18 years old. So I guess the

00:01:17.560 simultaneous sip can fix just about everything. All right. Before we start, you should see my

00:01:27.420 new video that I just put up on YouTube. It's in my usual place that my other videos are, but you can

00:01:33.340 see it pinned on my Twitter feed as well. An interview with Nikki Klein, member of NXIVM,

00:01:42.760 which you would call a cult. She would call something else, maybe an organization, a company,

00:01:50.560 which they were associated with. And let me tell you that the story you get from a person who was

00:01:59.180 central to the entire situation, this is how central Nikki is and was. So she's actually still

00:02:08.700 married to Alison Mack. So Alison Mack was sort of the, you know, people called her like the second 1.00

00:02:16.520 in command at NXIVM under Keith Ranieri, rhymes with canary, I'm told. And she's got a story,

00:02:27.340 a version of the story that is not exactly what you've heard. And there's a twist here and I'll,

00:02:33.860 you know, a little bit of a spoiler. There is some concern that the trial of Keith Ranieri

00:02:41.800 has a big irregularity. And, you know, as I've said before, two years ago, if you told me,

00:02:51.860 hey, I think the justice system is not operating the way it should, I would have said, well, that's

00:02:59.000 what everybody says. You know, if you, if you get sucked into the legal system, of course you think

00:03:05.260 it's railroading an innocent person. Everybody says that. But listen to the story and you're going

00:03:12.400 to walk away scratching your head and saying, um, I got some real questions about how this is being

00:03:18.800 handled. Some real questions. And they ought to be answered soon because the sentencing happens

00:03:24.960 tomorrow. So Keith Ranieri was found guilty on several counts, sentencing tomorrow. It was delayed

00:03:35.180 because of coronavirus, I guess. And here's the thing. I still haven't seen anything that

00:03:42.380 I could determine as a crime. And when the press talks about the conviction, they don't really

00:03:49.900 pair anything that happened with those crimes. So there's some real questions about what's going

00:03:59.880 on there. And I would be concerned about whether justice has been served. Now, of course, everybody

00:04:05.740 gets to tell their story the way they get to tell it. So I can't fact check anybody's story. But when

00:04:13.640 you see how different this version is, and as you've experienced, you know, the political news,

00:04:20.060 two movies on, uh, on one screen, you're going to see two movies on one screen again in a different

00:04:26.700 context. And I think you're going to enjoy it. So check that out. All right. Uh, Mike Pence continues

00:04:34.120 to campaign, despite the fact that five of his close aides, including his body man, uh, have coronavirus,

00:04:43.500 but Pence does not, or at least the tests do not show it yet. It can take, you know, I think up to a

00:04:50.680 week to test positive if you're infected, which I don't quite understand. Do you? Uh, I'm trying to

00:04:59.200 understand the following. Uh, my understanding is that you could go several days of being infected,

00:05:06.760 but the test will not detect it. But now help me with this next part. If the test can't detect that

00:05:15.840 you're infected, can you spread it? Because the whole point of spreading it is that there's virus

00:05:23.800 coming out of your pores, right? Or at least it's coming out of your mouth. And if the test

00:05:29.920 tests your mouth or, you know, your nose area or whatever the testing, and there's no virus that

00:05:35.960 the test can detect, can you give it to somebody? Is the test so, uh, insensitive that you could have

00:05:46.200 a bunch of virus enough to transmit it and the test won't pick it up? And I'm talking about whatever

00:05:52.780 test a vice president would get, right? He's not getting the cheap test. I'm assuming the vice

00:06:00.100 president gets a good test, you know, one that they rely on. Now that still would open up the

00:06:06.780 possibility that he, he becomes, uh, you know, virally, uh, let's say measurably viral in between

00:06:15.460 the test that he probably gets in the morning and the test that he probably gets in the evening.

00:06:20.700 Because you know, they're testing him twice a day, right? I mean, I don't know that, but it feels

00:06:27.780 somewhat obvious and I don't know how you could imagine it could be anything else. So I would

00:06:33.180 imagine that Pence is just getting so tested that his nose is raw. Um, but does that create a little

00:06:40.620 extra risk for the people he is with? Yes. Yes, it does. Creates a little extra risk, probably not

00:06:49.460 nearly as much as CNN would like you to believe because they, they do what I call angry reporting.

00:06:56.740 Let me show you the difference between reporting and angry reporting. Reporting would look like this.

00:07:05.480 Vice President Pence, although people around him have tested positive, has continued to, uh, campaign.

00:07:13.740 Some people are concerned that he could spread it, but of course he's being tested every several hours.

00:07:18.920 So the risk is being minimized. So that that's what it would look like if you were just to report the

00:07:25.000 news. Now I would like to do Jake Tapper reporting the same news. Mike Pence is, he's campaigning.

00:07:34.900 With positive, uh, infecting people. It's like the same news, except you, you do something with your

00:07:45.740 eyebrows, you furl them, you get really angry, and then you report that news. Something's going on here

00:07:55.380 and I don't like it. Um, but I believe that this is yet another case where the president,

00:08:04.900 and vice president have, have, have read the room correctly. If you listen to the news, it's like,

00:08:12.240 ah, it's the end of the world. This vice president is causing a bad role model, but you know what else

00:08:19.560 he's doing? He's acting like you would act, right? So this is the thing that the president gets right

00:08:29.660 just a lot, right? The, and you assume that Pence's decision is really the president's decision in this

00:08:38.240 case. I'm sure they work together on it, but you know, you know that president Trump wants him to keep,

00:08:44.160 keep going. Here's the thing. Every single person who is watching the news has bent the rules a little

00:08:54.300 bit, right? Do you think there's anybody that you know who has not bent the coronavirus, you know,

00:09:03.440 rules about social distancing, et cetera? Is there anybody who hasn't bent them a little bit?

00:09:08.780 Now, I think if we do mostly what we're supposed to do most of the time, you can get a pretty good

00:09:16.800 result. But we all bend, we bend a little bit, a little bit of bending. And so when you watch your

00:09:23.020 leaders doing the same thing, which is Pence's, he's, uh, he's playing a little fast and loose with

00:09:30.340 that rule. He's saying he's an essential employee. I guess you could say he is, but, but really,

00:09:36.680 you know, he's just bending the rule. How do you feel when you've bent that rule a thousand times,

00:09:44.320 or let's say a few times, and you watch somebody else bend it? Well, you don't get that judgy,

00:09:50.620 do you? If you watch CNN, they, they report it like all of the people on CNN never bend those rules.

00:09:59.140 They've never done anything that would cause a little extra risk. But of course they have,

00:10:06.340 because they're human beings in a complex situation. We're doing the best we can, but we're bending the

00:10:13.080 rules a little bit. So when you see Pence do that, part of you might say, hey, maybe that's a bad role

00:10:20.020 model. You know, you could make that argument. But there's another part of you that says, he's a

00:10:26.240 warrior, right? He, he's wounded in a sense. He may not have the coronavirus, but he's wounded

00:10:34.560 in a conceptual sense. And he's still on the field. He didn't leave the field. He took a hit.

00:10:43.820 He didn't take a time out. He just kept fighting. There's some part of you that likes that because

00:10:50.600 he's not just fighting for himself, right? They're, they're fighting to be the leaders of the,

00:10:56.220 of the country and to fight for us. Do you want the person who surrenders

00:11:01.580 with a flesh wound? Kamala Harris was in a similar situation. Her staff

00:11:08.200 had a positive result and she went into quarantine.

00:11:11.860 Good role model, right? Good role model. Went into quarantine, just like the experts say.

00:11:20.580 Warrior? Nope. Nope. She got off, as soon as she got a, a small neck, you know, a flesh wound, 0.99

00:11:30.060 she left the field. She did what she was told. Is that what leaders do? So you have this weird

00:11:38.600 situation where there's, there's something that's the right thing to do and you know what it is and

00:11:43.100 it's to follow the experts and, you know, try to reduce the risk wherever you can. But then there's

00:11:47.980 the other part of you that says, I don't want my leader to be a giant pussy, right? I mean, there's 1.00

00:11:56.700 some part of you that says, eh, I'll be cautious, but I'm not sure you should be. And I think the

00:12:04.520 president gets that right, by the way, now, obviously there's people who have different

00:12:08.900 opinions on that, but for his voters and for the purpose of getting reelected, I think, I think

00:12:15.120 Trump is reading the room, right? That's what it feels like to me.

00:12:22.580 There have been more photos, uh, on that, uh, the Hunter Biden laptop and the latest ones are,

00:12:31.920 are more shocking than really I had imagined. I don't know if you've heard the news yet, but

00:12:37.800 there's a new photo going around and, uh, you don't want to look at it, trust me. So I'll describe

00:12:44.980 it, but don't, don't look at it. It's a, it's a photo of, uh, Hunter Biden. Apparently he was, uh,

00:12:52.300 vacationing in Wuhan in 2019 and there's some video of him having sex with a bat. 0.97

00:12:58.100 You don't want to see it. Anyway, uh, so I'll let that sink in a little bit before I go to the next 0.90

00:13:08.240 story. Um, on his father, Joe Biden was out doing his, uh, speaking yesterday before, I guess, before

00:13:19.340 the lid was put on, he's got a nine day lid before the, he put a lid on all the rest of his campaign,

00:13:26.700 but this might be a reason why it happened. I'm just going to put this out there that, uh,

00:13:34.180 Joe Biden forgot who he was running against for president and referred to Trump as George twice.

00:13:42.680 He goes, quote, four more years of George, uh, uh, George, uh, he, uh, Biden said, uh, gonna find

00:13:53.220 ourselves in a position where Trump gets elected. And then he found his, found his footing there,

00:13:58.380 called him Trump. But I still think he thinks it's George Trump. So could be better. That could be

00:14:06.320 better. Um, so right after, uh, Joe Biden, I think I have the timing, right? Correct me if I don't,

00:14:18.500 but he called a lid so that for the next nine days until the election, you won't see any more Joe Biden.

00:14:25.060 Now, what does that tell you? Well, here's what it tells me. If, if Joe Biden thinks that the country

00:14:35.260 is better off with less Joe Biden for the next nine days, because that's what he's doing, right?

00:14:41.900 If his point is to be running for office for the benefit of the country, then what we're observing

00:14:49.120 him doing during this phase, in theory, should be for the benefit of the country. Why would he do

00:14:56.000 something that's not for the benefit of the country while he's running for president for the benefit of

00:15:02.780 the country? Right? So you have to think that whatever you see him do, he has reasoned out,

00:15:08.700 might be good for his campaign, but also would have to be good for the country or else he shouldn't be

00:15:14.500 doing it in public. Right? So Hunter, or I'm sorry, Joe Biden has decided that what's best for the United

00:15:21.480 States for now is to have less of him. So he put a lid on it. So he's just going to disappear for nine

00:15:29.140 days. Now, if Joe Biden thinks that the country is better off for those nine days without him,

00:15:37.680 what is it that's going to change on the 10th day that make us suddenly need him?

00:15:44.780 Well, I suppose getting elected would do it. But it's a weird proposition, isn't it? I'm running for

00:15:51.120 president to help the country. And the first thing I'm going to do is give you much less of me.

00:15:56.520 I think we should take him at his word. If we need less Joe Biden, let's give it to him.

00:16:04.680 The Rasmussen polling group, they've started doing a daily tracking of not likely voter approval. That's

00:16:16.220 what they've been doing. So approval of likely voters gets you sort of an indirect indication

00:16:24.500 of how the vote itself might go. But it's not asking voters who you're going to vote for.

00:16:30.060 It's asking them approval, which could be a little different from who they vote for.

00:16:35.520 So at approximately, I think in about 13 minutes or so, Rasmussen will be publishing the first of their

00:16:47.160 series of daily tracking polls for who you're actually going to vote for. So in this case,

00:16:52.180 they've actually asked people nationally, who are you going to vote for? When do you see that?

00:17:02.020 I'm not going to spoil it. But I might have seen a little sneak preview. And I'm just going to say

00:17:09.760 this. Wait till you see that. So that's just your teaser for the day. In today's out of context news,

00:17:20.680 which is the only kind we get right now, the entire news cycle is just people taking things out of

00:17:27.020 context, and then criticizing the thing that didn't happen. But it looks like it happened if you take it

00:17:32.700 out of context. So yesterday, Mark Meadows worded something poorly, I guess, in the sense that it

00:17:41.360 opened him up for this criticism. He said that the US is, quote, not going to control the coronavirus

00:17:49.160 pandemic. Which caused his critics to say, what? What are you saying, Mark Meadows? Are you saying that

00:17:59.280 we're giving up? And of course, you know, Kamala Harris takes that and says that that means they're

00:18:05.520 giving up? They're not, they're not going to control the coronavirus pandemic. This is the dumbest

00:18:13.180 freaking thing I've ever seen. Let me ask you, which country is controlling the pandemic? 1.00

00:18:20.940 That's not even a thing. You can't control the pandemic. You can do what you can do.

00:18:27.940 And you can do everything that you can do. But you can't control the pandemic. All right? You can't

00:18:34.380 control the rain. But you can wear a raincoat. You can't control a hurricane. But you could go into

00:18:41.840 your hurricane bunker. You can't control cancer, totally. But you might be able to develop some

00:18:49.040 cures, some treatments. So of course, Mark Meadows is making an obvious, simple,

00:18:56.900 universally understood statement that you can't control a pandemic. And then his critics,

00:19:04.340 you know, act like it's a completely different statement. Oh, we're going to give up and just

00:19:08.820 let the pandemic sweep through and kill as many people as possible because you can't control the 0.98

00:19:14.160 pandemic. So when you watch the, you know, the alleged news, this is news. This isn't news.

00:19:23.860 This is taking somebody out of context. That's all it is. It's nothing but that. There isn't a single

00:19:30.920 newsworthy thing in the statement that humans can't control a virus that has swept across the globe.

00:19:38.280 Because you know what, if we could control the frickin virus, I'm pretty sure we would have done it.

00:19:44.020 Now, you could certainly, you know, do more, always, you can always do more, you can always do sooner.

00:19:51.040 But you can't control a pandemic. That's dumb. All right. 0.99

00:19:58.900 So it's sort of a fun day for NewsWise. So 60 Minutes ran their, their interviews with Trump and with

00:20:07.880 Kamala Harris and Biden. And the big news ahead of it that you had been told is that Trump stormed off

00:20:17.500 and ended the interview, you know, before it was over. Isn't that what you heard? I heard that

00:20:24.420 everywhere. I heard it all over social media. I saw it in the news that Trump ended it early

00:20:31.580 and stormed off. And then I watched it. That didn't happen. Nothing like that happened. Let me explain to

00:20:41.820 you what a photographer once described to me, who this photographer was doing a photo shoot of me some

00:20:49.400 years ago. And he had done lots of photo shoots of famous people. And he tells me this story. He goes, he had

00:20:58.380 been asked to do a photo shoot of Bill Gates for some national publication. Now, if it's a national

00:21:05.160 publication, you want a really good photo. And I've been on a number of magazine covers. And I know that

00:21:12.940 to do a magazine cover shoot, it's a real big operation. You know, you're bringing in, you know,

00:21:18.440 backdrops and, you know, lighting, and you've got three different cameras, and you've got your,

00:21:23.260 your assistant, and you're changing film, and you know, not film, but you're, you know, you're changing

00:21:28.740 cameras. And it's a big, big operation can take, let's say, an hour. So a reporter, or I'm sorry,

00:21:37.740 a photographer to do a big photo shoot of somebody like Bill Gates would want at least an hour. And

00:21:44.740 sometimes they'd want more. They'd want to get there early and set up and do some shoots of, you know,

00:21:51.940 somebody has to stand in to get the lights right and everything. But Bill Gates walks into a photo

00:21:57.080 shoot, and he says, you have 10 minutes. And the photographer, knowing he needs an hour, I mean,

00:22:03.820 he needs an hour. He knows his job. This is no, this is not a photographer who started yesterday. You

00:22:11.340 know, you get the best, most experienced photographer to do a Bill Gates photo shoot. And Bill Gates says,

00:22:18.280 you have 10 minutes, the photographer knows, he knows, he needs an hour. He's like, I can't do it

00:22:24.460 in 10 minutes. I just, I just need an hour. And Bill Gates says, you have 10 minutes, nine and a half.

00:22:32.720 And the photographer's like, I can't do it, I can't do it. All right, all right, grabs his camera,

00:22:36.060 starts shooting, gets, you know, gets maybe 10, 10 snaps. And he knows he needs 150 to be able to pick a

00:22:45.300 good one. And then Bill Gates stands up and he goes, all right, we're done. And he walks out.

00:22:52.000 And the photographer has to pick from his 10 snaps. And one of them is good enough. And it becomes the

00:22:58.080 cover and everything's fine. Did the world end? Nope. Did they not get a photo of Bill Gates? No,

00:23:06.020 they did. They got exactly what they wanted. Who decided when the photography session was over

00:23:13.180 and how long it should be? Not the photographer. That's not how it works. Bill Gates decides when

00:23:21.960 it's over. Bill Gates decides how long he's going to be there. And that's the beginning and the end of

00:23:27.760 the story. It's not up to anybody else. So when I watched the actual footage of Trump storming off,

00:23:37.840 which is what I'd heard before I saw it, I expected something like that. I thought he would

00:23:44.120 angrily get up and say, I'm not answering that question and, you know, throw down the lavalier and

00:23:50.100 walk off all angry, something like that. But that's not what I saw. And not even close. What you saw

00:23:58.620 was the President of the United States in control of his own schedule. And that's it. Because let me

00:24:08.900 give this advice to 60 Minutes, as I tweeted earlier today. 60 Minutes, you don't decide how long the

00:24:17.840 interview is. That's not your decision. When did you think that happened? When did 60 Minutes get

00:24:24.620 to be in control of President Trump's schedule? One of them is the fake news. The other is the leader

00:24:33.080 of the free world. The President decides when it's over. And if you watch the video, he simply decided

00:24:40.900 it was over. You know, he obviously didn't want to do more of it because it was becoming nasty. But there

00:24:48.580 was a natural break. And instead of continuing after the break, the President just said it's over.

00:24:55.220 You have enough. All the President did is what every CEO does in every photo shoot. And also in

00:25:04.820 interviews. The CEO decides when it's over. The President of the United States, he's the one who

00:25:13.440 decides when you're done. There's no wiggle room there, right? This is not a shared responsibility. 60 Minutes

00:25:22.480 doesn't get a vote. And so the whole framing of it as he left early doesn't make any sense at all. Because the

00:25:32.680 President left when he was done. That's when you're done. You're done when he's done. That's it. That's the

00:25:41.960 whole story. Anyway, watching that develop into a whole fake news thing was fascinating. But then I

00:25:47.940 saw the clip of Kamala Harris. I think Kamala Harris ended any chance she has of helping the team and 0.99

00:25:58.940 becoming part of the government with that interview. It was bad. I don't know if it's the worst

00:26:06.940 interview I've ever seen on 60 Minutes. It could be. And the thing that Harris gets wrong

00:26:16.100 is the persona, the presidential vibe. Now, what has everybody been accusing President Trump of

00:26:28.600 since the beginning? He's not presidential. You are not tweeting presidential. You're not presidential.

00:26:35.100 But remember I told you on Periscope yesterday, you can get used to anything?

00:26:41.660 Over the last three and a half years, our understanding of what it is to be presidential

00:26:47.360 started out as this big history of other presidents. And this President Trump didn't match that history.

00:26:55.660 So he felt a little unpresidential by that standard. But of course, he said he's modern presidential.

00:27:02.200 And I actually accept that definition. He is his own person. But now that time has gone by,

00:27:10.480 Trump himself, not completely, but to some extent, has become your mental model of what presidential

00:27:19.900 looks like. Right? What is one of the things that President Trump is often criticized for

00:27:26.860 that I don't think is true, but he gets criticized for it. They say he never laughs.

00:27:33.820 How presidential is laughing at your own joke?

00:27:40.100 Not very. It just sort of doesn't look leaderly. I laugh at my own jokes, but I'm a professional,

00:27:48.100 and I'm allowed to do that. So Kamala Harris, I'm going to do my Kamala Harris answering a question.

00:27:59.300 And if you're listening to this on podcast and can't see the visuals, oh, you're missing so much.

00:28:05.260 Because my impression of Kamala Harris is just spot on. And one of the things she did,

00:28:11.440 and I don't know if I've ever seen her do this before, is she kept her mouth open while she was 0.99

00:28:17.700 listening. So she laughed really hard and then kept her mouth open while she's listening to the

00:28:23.540 rest of the question. And it made her eyes look crazy at the same time. And I don't know if it's

00:28:28.620 related or if it was an illusion because the mouth was crazy. But this is Kamala Harris

00:28:34.220 answering the question. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

00:28:46.260 Say, now if you're listening on podcast, that last five seconds was hilarious, if you'd seen the

00:28:53.060 visual. And she actually just stayed in that position with her mouth open for way too long. 1.00

00:29:04.220 And she looked like the village idiot. Now, Kamala Harris is a smart human being. I mean, 1.00

00:29:16.400 there's no doubt about that, right? If you gave her a standardized IQ test, she'd do great. I mean,

00:29:24.040 you look at the jobs she's had, the accomplishments she's had. For God's sake, she's a U.S. senator. 0.98

00:29:29.760 She is a smart, accomplished human being, which we could all, you know, we all wish we could be as

00:29:37.260 capable as she is. So I'll say a lot of good things about her, and they're all true.

00:29:43.620 But she looked like a village idiot. And you can't shake that, right? Now, 60 Minutes got a lot of play, 1.00

00:29:53.180 in part because the story about the president walking off probably got them more attention than

00:30:00.420 they would have gotten otherwise. But that was devastating. I don't know if I've ever seen a

00:30:06.060 worse interview than that. Here's something to worry about if you're a Biden supporter. And trust me,

00:30:22.040 you've got a lot to worry about in the next few days. Have you noticed that the entire time that

00:30:29.340 Trump has been behind in the polls, that Trump supporters have not looked as worried as you

00:30:36.100 think they ought to? Sure, there's been plenty of worry. You know, there's always worry and concern

00:30:41.840 and uncertainty. It's always there. But is it my imagination? Or have the Democrats been far more

00:30:50.160 worried while being way ahead in the polls? Because they've got this 2016 PTSD, still very much part of

00:31:02.380 their personalities. And the PTSD says, it's not a problem until that last week or so. And that last

00:31:11.040 week, anything could happen. Anything could happen. For example, right about now, there should be a poll

00:31:21.820 dropping from Rasmussen. And that would be an example of anything could happen in those last few days.

00:31:30.380 If you see the poll, put it in the comments and let me know. All right. So here's what the Biden

00:31:39.100 supporters should be concerned about. Have you been watching all the Trump rallies and, you know,

00:31:45.600 parades and boat rallies and everything else? And have you noticed that there's one thing that they

00:31:52.200 all have in common? That the Trump supporters have started using the American flag as a campaign prop

00:32:02.620 for Trump. In other words, the whole country, I think, both left and right, has begun to associate

00:32:12.060 the American flag only with Trump. Just think about that. You probably, maybe it didn't,

00:32:21.960 it may have snuck up on you, but you've noticed all the American flags that are a substitute and a direct

00:32:29.360 substitute with no change. You don't have to add anything for a Trump poster. You don't have to put

00:32:38.200 a Trump sign in your lawn. You only have to put up the American flag and everybody will know who you're

00:32:45.940 voting for. Think about that. How would you like to be running for president of the United States?

00:32:52.920 The United States. It's a country with a flag. Betsy Ross created it. It's very popular among some

00:33:03.640 people. Not everybody, apparently. Not always in professional sports. But the American flag,

00:33:11.260 don't count it out. All right. No matter how many stories you hear about somebody's burning one,

00:33:18.320 somebody doesn't want to stand for it, somebody wants to kneel for it, those stories give you a false

00:33:25.480 sense of how the country responds to their most potent symbol. The American flag is really powerful

00:33:35.860 with the American public. And when you see that Joe Biden is so disassociated with the American flag

00:33:45.280 that you can use it as a substitute for a Trump poster. Have we ever seen anything like that? Has there ever

00:33:54.740 been a campaign where one of the presidential candidates could use the American flag as a substitute

00:34:02.820 for his own brand? Come on. That is other level stuff, right? It sneaks up on you because you know

00:34:14.440 the number of flags just sort of started increasing until it was just the flagotopia. And then you say,

00:34:21.740 oh, I get it now. Flag equals Trump. Years from now, when all of the, you know, the TDS has worn down,

00:34:31.700 this is going to be one of those things that historians are going to look back at and say, 0.92

00:34:36.500 oh, my frickin' deity. I didn't see it when it was happening. But this is the most phenomenal 0.87

00:34:47.000 branding exercise of all time. No president has ever, no candidate has ever branded themselves

00:34:57.140 with the American flag and made a stick. It's just crazy how good that is in terms of,

00:35:04.280 in terms of technique, how good that is that it got to that point. All right.

00:35:11.940 Let's talk about how to bamboozle inexperienced voters. As the, as the creator of the Dilbert comic

00:35:22.220 strip, I can speak to this with great authority. And it goes like this. I see in the comments,

00:35:30.260 somebody is saying that Reagan did a good job of branding himself with the flag. And I would accept

00:35:36.780 that. But he ran against people who also would be associated with the flag. Like he didn't, he didn't

00:35:42.860 own it. He, you know, he was more of it, I guess. So here's how you bamboozle inexperienced people

00:35:50.040 and young people. If there's something that they want, let's say a policy that they would like the

00:35:57.760 government to do. And let's say you're running for president and you want them to vote for you, but you

00:36:02.460 don't want to do what they want you to do. So you want to, you want to bamboozle some young people into 0.97

00:36:08.680 voting for you by making them think they might get what they want, but you're not going to give it to

00:36:16.000 them in reality. What do you do? You want them to think you're going to do it, but you're not going

00:36:22.420 to do it. Well, here's how you do it. You say that you're going to form a bipartisan commission to study

00:36:29.820 it. And again, as the creator of the Dilbert cartoon, let me say with complete authority that

00:36:38.900 if you're going to form a bipartisan commission to study it, you're not going to do it. Because the

00:36:45.680 whole reason that you form a bipartisan commission is to send the idea off to the graveyard of ideas.

00:36:52.880 All right. If, if you can get a bipartisan commission, meaning that there are Republicans

00:36:59.460 on the commission, all right, if you can get the Republicans on your bipartisan commission

00:37:04.720 to say it would be a good idea to pack the Supreme Court or to limit the term of the dominant

00:37:11.420 Republican or at least conservative leaning, good luck with that. Good luck with your bipartisan

00:37:19.540 commission, because I'm sure those Republicans are going to get talked into that real easily.

00:37:24.060 Um, so I think President Trump should, uh, take a page from that. So he's, uh, oh, he could take

00:37:34.640 two pages from it. So here's what Trump could do. He could say, you know, uh, I think we could do better

00:37:40.320 on healthcare. So the day I'm elected, I'm going to form a bipartisan commission on healthcare. There you

00:37:48.040 go. You want, you young people, you Democrats, you want, uh, you want, uh, universal healthcare or

00:37:55.140 health, health insurance for everybody. I'll give you a bipartisan commission and we'll look into it

00:38:01.160 right after I get elected. Yeah. So that would be fine, right? Who could argue with a bipartisan

00:38:08.980 commission? How about climate change? A lot of Democrats would like the president to take climate

00:38:15.800 change more seriously and to deal with it, you know, more aggressively, but you know, what would

00:38:22.400 help? Bipartisan commission. So president Trump could say, you know, the day after I'm reelected,

00:38:30.000 I'll get you your bipartisan commission. And then that gives people a reason to vote for him.

00:38:37.100 Now, the beauty of this, of what Biden is doing is it's actually a really good play

00:38:41.600 because it's definitely the younger people and the less experienced people he's trying to bamboozle

00:38:48.440 who don't understand that a bipartisan commission means no. They will learn that. They might learn

00:38:56.900 it the hard way, but you've got a lesson coming, young people. All right. Uh, let's talk about,

00:39:03.900 uh, all the news about Hunter's laptop. Um, so of course the big story is that there's, you know,

00:39:16.640 these allegations and this news and, uh, and the mainstream media, you know, the, the big

00:39:22.500 respected media is disappearing the story and simply aggressively not covering it. They're not only not

00:39:30.800 covering it, they're really mad at anybody who suggests that it should be covered because it

00:39:36.180 violates every standard of, uh, professional journalism. You know why? Because it's, it's

00:39:44.320 unsubstantiated, right? That makes sense. The press doesn't want to cover a story that's

00:39:51.360 unsubstantiated or as they would like to say, baseless. Would you want, would you want a professional

00:39:59.080 press to start covering a bunch of baseless stories that they can't substantiate? No, no. Because if

00:40:07.100 they started doing that, what could that lead to? Well, the next thing you know, some author is going

00:40:14.620 to write a book with a whole bunch of anonymous sources, and then that's going to get on the news.

00:40:22.100 It's going to be this unsubstantiated claims in the form of a book, let's say knocking a president or

00:40:30.560 something. And, and if, if journalists started treating that stuff like something that should

00:40:38.420 be covered by the journalists, well, what's that going to do? It's a, it's going to encourage people

00:40:44.000 people to write books about the president with anonymous sources in them. And you know, that's

00:40:51.400 not, you don't want that to happen, right? Oh, right. That already happens just about once every

00:40:58.980 three weeks. And they cover the piss out of it. Unsubstantiated though it may be because they

00:41:08.520 talked to the author. Is that what covers, is that what counts as substantiation? Yeah, we, we talked

00:41:15.940 to the person who made the claim. Oh, I guess we're done here. Good enough. Let's put it on the air.

00:41:22.220 Prime time that baby. How about Russia collusion? That was all pretty substantiated, right? Oh no,

00:41:30.720 it never happened. How was it that for three years, the press covered Russia collusion when none of it

00:41:40.160 was substantiated. And indeed, when the Mueller report came out said, didn't happen, or at least

00:41:45.900 nobody could find anything. So the standard that they have now of something that is baseless and

00:41:54.040 unsubstantiated requires a hilarious twist. And it requires them to ignore the fact that this Tony

00:42:03.560 Bobulinski guy, who is the business associate of Hunter Biden, has confirmed the, you know, the

00:42:13.940 validity of at least one of the emails and some of the other emails, I guess, on the alleged Hunter

00:42:20.460 Biden laptop. All right, so now you've got an email that, okay, maybe you can't tell if that was

00:42:28.400 faked. But now you have a human being who is a direct witness who has come forward publicly. We know

00:42:36.660 his name. He's not anonymous. And he has credibility. There's nothing about him or his history that would

00:42:44.580 suggest he has any sketchiness about him, as far as I know. He's an ex-Navy guy. Looks like a solid

00:42:51.200 citizen, as far as we can tell. And are you telling me that the mainstream media doesn't know how to find

00:42:58.300 Tony Bobulinski when he's actively trying to find them? He's actually doing a public press release,

00:43:06.940 and he would be the easiest person to contact in the entire world. In fact, I'll bet there's nobody

00:43:15.680 easier to find if you were, let's say, a major press entity. There's probably nobody easier to find than

00:43:22.600 the guy who's trying to find you, Tony Bobulinski. Now, when, and watching the press, sort of, I hate to

00:43:35.100 use the term, but it's coming into popular usage, so it will gaslight the public. It's really

00:43:41.000 interesting. So I guess it started with the Wall Street Journal was going to write an article about

00:43:47.140 the laptop stuff. And they decided that they wouldn't, because when checking the financial

00:43:54.760 records, it became clear that Joe Biden never received any direct payment, nor was he on any

00:44:03.060 contracts by name for any deals that Hunter did. So that's the Wall Street Journal. They looked into

00:44:10.840 it and found no financial written records. Now, here's a problem with that. Given that the allegation

00:44:24.500 is that something sketchy was up, as opposed to something completely legal,

00:44:29.940 why would you expect there would be a record of it, given that the email in question, one of the

00:44:37.660 central emails in question, says explicitly that Hunter would be holding the 10 for the big guy?

00:44:46.780 And Tony Bobulinski has confirmed that what that means is that Hunter Biden would be holding a share of

00:44:54.560 the deal on behalf of the deal on behalf of Joe Biden to keep it from being on any kind of a record.

00:45:02.260 So if you're the Wall Street Journal, and you're trying to research whether a crime was committed or

00:45:08.400 something just sketchy, whether it was criminal or not, and the entire nature of the crime was it was

00:45:14.640 kept off of financial records, and then your reason for not running the story is that it wasn't on

00:45:21.660 financial records. Have you done your fucking job? Doesn't look like it. But it gets better. 0.99

00:45:31.480 New York Times runs an article, I think it was Ben Smith, runs an article talking about the Wall

00:45:37.220 Street Journal, and essentially backing them up for their decision to not run these stories,

00:45:44.240 which they don't describe in that article, so it doesn't get accidentally described.

00:45:49.760 And so now you've got the Wall Street Journal that has passed on the story by saying it's baseless,

00:45:56.640 because they literally looked in the place that it's not supposed to be.

00:46:02.260 They consciously looked at the place it's not supposed to be and said it's not there,

00:46:09.260 therefore it can't be in the place it's supposed to be, which is Hunter holding it.

00:46:15.040 The fact that they can push this story, and because of the complication of it, the public

00:46:22.080 reads it and they go, um, I'm not really following this Wall Street Journal thing, because

00:46:27.100 didn't they look in the wrong place? And you think to yourself, am I missing something in this story?

00:46:34.560 This looks exactly like they're just trying to not do the story. It doesn't look like they

00:46:42.100 researched it, and it was baseless, because I just saw, I just saw the guy who's a witness

00:46:49.000 talking about it on TV. Does he not exist? Where's the part where they talked to him

00:46:55.220 and decided he didn't have a story? Um, there's something missing. And you say to yourself,

00:47:02.360 so I'm not really comfortable with this Wall Street Journal decision. There might be more to it

00:47:08.380 that we don't know, right? So my take on it is based on the information I have. Could there be

00:47:14.940 more to the story, which would change how I'm thinking about the Wall Street Journal's decision?

00:47:20.060 Of course. Almost every story we see, there ends up being more to the story. But what we see so far

00:47:26.460 doesn't explain what they did. And then the New York Times comes in with suppressive fire. Because

00:47:35.360 you're over here saying, um, I've got a question about the Wall Street Journal decision. And you're

00:47:41.640 like, I'm not sure I understand. Or do I have the timing of something wrong? Because there's something

00:47:47.860 unexplained here. And then you see that the New York Times totally backs the Wall Street Journal.

00:47:53.460 Now, what do you say about the story? Well, if you're a reasonable, educated, well-informed adult,

00:48:02.500 here's what you probably think. You know, I don't understand what the Wall Street Journal did. But

00:48:08.400 the New York Times is very credible. And they seem to understand what the New York,

00:48:13.680 what the Wall Street Journal did. So I wasn't totally sold by just the Wall Street Journal.

00:48:19.720 But now that the New York Times has essentially endorsed what they did, okay, I guess all the

00:48:28.300 smart people are on the same side. So I'll just let it go. That's what you just saw. It's freaking

00:48:34.880 amazing. It's impressive as hell, because they're getting away with it. And it's so good that I even

00:48:42.200 wonder if it's not intelligence sources behind it. Because the quality of this, if you call it a

00:48:51.760 cover-up, I don't know what you'd call it, maybe a cover-up, the quality of the work that went into

00:48:57.780 the psychological engineering of the cover-up is better than the press could do on their own.

00:49:05.240 It's almost like there's a professional or professionals who are sort of running the show.

00:49:11.980 And I don't know what country they would be from. So that's another question for you.

00:49:19.780 Given the sketchiness of all this, you should not automatically assume that this is domestic.

00:49:28.080 Got that? Now, I'm not going to say I have some information that says it's not domestic.

00:49:33.920 But the way it is developed, you should ask yourself, given all that we know about the world

00:49:40.760 at this point, you should ask yourself, is this domestic? Is this coming from completely

00:49:46.620 domestic actors who just want Joe Biden to get elected, and that's it? You know, they're just

00:49:52.000 coordinating, or they just know what to do. They don't need to make a phone call and coordinate.

00:49:58.700 So anyway, here's an assignment for you. Find a low-information Democrat. 1.00

00:50:03.920 That would be somebody who never follows any of the conservative news, so they only see the news

00:50:09.800 on the left. Find somebody like that, and then tell them the whole Hunter Biden laptop story,

00:50:17.180 including the email about the 10 that goes to the big guy. Tell them that there's this Tony

00:50:24.200 Bolinski character. Except, here's the twist. When you tell the story, change Hunter Biden to Don Jr.

00:50:33.180 And change CNN not covering the story to Fox News not covering the story.

00:50:40.040 What do you think your Democrat will say about that situation? I think, without doing the experiment

00:50:48.080 myself yet, I think they're going to say, that is so outrageous. And Fox News, why don't they cover

00:50:55.600 that story? I think that's what would happen. Because I don't think there's any possibility that if this

00:51:01.780 story were reversed, and it was a Trump kid doing any of this stuff, you don't think that that would be

00:51:09.980 a major story. Here's another part of the story that is not mentioned. So, not mentioned by New York

00:51:17.280 Times, not mentioned by the Wall Street Journal. Aren't we worried about blackmail anymore?

00:51:23.820 When did we stop being worried that a president could be blackmailed?

00:51:28.180 We've had a president Trump for, you know, close to four years. And, you know, the press and everybody

00:51:37.920 else in the world has been digging and digging and digging and looking under every rock and found

00:51:43.160 nothing. The only things that we thought maybe there was something there was like Deutsche Bank,

00:51:49.360 maybe there was something in his taxes, but there wasn't. There wasn't. Turns out there's nothing.

00:51:55.280 The only thing they found is he did some business in China and opened some smallish Chinese bank

00:52:02.760 account to do some business a few years ago, but it didn't turn out. And that's it. Basically a big

00:52:09.660 nothing. But you've got Hunter Biden, who we can be pretty sure, because of the videos you've already

00:52:17.560 seen from the laptop, et cetera, and from the emails, that if ever there was somebody who was blackmailable,

00:52:23.840 it would be Hunter Biden. Which means that Joe Biden would have pressure too. Because if you're

00:52:33.780 blackmailing the kid and the father could do something to make that not happen, that's a lot

00:52:41.040 of pressure. Now, I'm not saying that Joe Biden would break the law of the United States or even change

00:52:48.200 policy of policy of the United States to save his son. But let me remind you, Joe Biden already lost a

00:52:57.080 son. That matters. If you had, you know, two sons, and does he only have two? There were only two,

00:53:07.560 right? Two sons. But if you've lost Beau Biden, and you've lost one son, and you can imagine the crushing

00:53:16.300 emotional impact that that would have, you're going to do everything to protect the one you still have.

00:53:26.400 And so that makes Hunter Biden a little extra vulnerable to blackmail, I would think. Now,

00:53:32.420 here's the counter argument. The counter argument goes like this. Hunter Biden is the least blackmailable

00:53:39.820 person in the world because you already know so much about him. You know, if tomorrow you found

00:53:44.900 out, oh, he also does heroin, it wouldn't change anything. All right? It wouldn't change a thing.

00:53:52.800 There's no suggestion he's ever done heroin, by the way. But, you know, you could see some news

00:53:59.460 that would be, you know, make your hair catch on fire. And you would still say, well, we kind of knew

00:54:06.420 that. That's sort of baked in. We know Hunter's the wild child. But suppose it's financial. Suppose

00:54:15.080 it's financial, and there's some way to tie in the dad. What if that's still out there? And we've seen

00:54:23.560 enough to suggest that Hunter was in the kind of business where you would suspect a little bit of

00:54:29.620 that to be out there, right? Now, in order for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times to

00:54:36.340 treat this as non-news, they have to sell you the following belief. The belief that foreign entities

00:54:43.820 would pay millions and millions of dollars to Hunter Biden and Hunter Biden's business entities,

00:54:51.840 with the assumption that that would not make any difference to Joe Biden. In other words, you have

00:55:00.120 to believe that all these high-level players who have millions of dollars to, you know, put into other

00:55:06.260 things, that they're very sophisticated. And yet, somehow they don't understand that giving money to

00:55:13.960 Hunter doesn't have any effect on Joe Biden. Or does it make more sense that the entire reason they do it

00:55:22.160 is that they have a high confidence it will pay off, that there's a return on investment? And what

00:55:30.020 would be that return on investment? How would the Chinese company get a return on investment

00:55:37.900 for a Hunter Biden payoff, except for the Hunter Biden company itself, which probably was not why they

00:55:47.160 invested, right? They're not investing in Hunter. Nobody would invest in Hunter, all right? Because

00:55:55.300 even China's heard the stories about Hunter. Nobody puts their money into the crack cocaine guy,

00:56:02.580 right? And nobody does that, unless they think they're buying something else, influence on the dad.

00:56:10.740 Now, I've heard it said that one of the reasons it's no big deal is that some of this happened when

00:56:17.680 Joe Biden was out of office. And therefore, you know, he can't make any policies anyway.

00:56:24.960 Oh, okay. Technically true. But do you think Joe Biden didn't have any influence on the other

00:56:33.780 politicians in the government? Do you think that after eight years of being vice president,

00:56:38.540 he didn't have any favors he could call in? It's crazy to think that the Chinese were not 1.00

00:56:45.660 buying influence on Joe Biden, because that's what they thought they were buying. You know,

00:56:51.340 they thought they were buying that because they weren't investing in the crackhead. That wasn't

00:56:55.700 happening. So in order for you to believe that everything was fine, and that there's nothing there

00:57:02.880 that's newsworthy. Now, I will grant you, I did not see a crime. That doesn't mean there wasn't one. I'm not

00:57:12.020 a lawyer. I'm not a prosecutor. But it doesn't matter. Does it matter if you can identify a specific crime

00:57:19.240 on the books? If what you have identified is people thinking they're buying influence, paying actually

00:57:26.760 money, a lot of money, a lot of it, for what they think is influence, and your common sense tells you

00:57:32.980 it is. That's not a story? You have to ignore a lot of stuff to make that not a story. You have to

00:57:42.260 ignore potential blackmail. You have to ignore Tony Bobulinski and his confirmation of the email,

00:57:49.600 and you have to have no curiosity about who the big guy was, or who's holding the 10, and why he's

00:57:56.180 holding it. You have to accept a lot to think that's not a story. And it's just crazy to imagine

00:58:04.220 it wouldn't be a story if it were about Trump. Here's some dumb people in the news. Axios has a 1.00

00:58:12.820 story in which the headline is so dumb that you don't need to read any of the article. 0.98

00:58:18.680 And here it is. Trump has no second-term economic plan. What? You don't have to read that article. 0.97

00:58:30.160 That title of the article is so dumb that nothing in that article could be of value to you. 0.92

00:58:37.080 Let me explain why. You don't need an economic plan, unless you're a communist, I suppose. 0.98

00:58:44.320 You need a system. The system is the plan. Here's the system. It's called capitalism.

00:58:52.460 And what would be a good system to make sure that your capitalism system is working well?

00:59:00.960 Well, you'd want to have a good court system done. You'd want to get rid of unnecessary regulations.

00:59:07.940 Trump did a lot of it, will do more of it, has a system for doing exactly that. You would want to,

00:59:17.000 let's say, remove any competitive barriers so that there's free market stuff in healthcare,

00:59:23.640 healthcare being a gigantic part of your entire situation. You'd want to, and of course,

00:59:31.160 the president does have a spending plan about the military, which is spending a lot to make sure

00:59:37.960 our military is first rate. That's part of the economy. He wants to open up sooner rather than

00:59:46.180 later. That's an economic plan, because this pandemic is going to be part of the next term.

00:59:52.380 And for Axios to say he doesn't have an economic plan demonstrates a massive lack of understanding

01:00:03.580 about anything. It's certainly about the economy and what is appropriate for a president to do to

01:00:12.380 manage an economy. It's like they don't even know what it is. They don't know what managing an economy

01:00:18.500 even entails. I'll tell you what it doesn't entail, any kind of a plan. If one of your presidential

01:00:28.620 candidates tells you they have a plan, you run away. Run away. You want the economy to work on

01:00:37.480 free market competition, not a plan. Now, certainly it's plan-like to say you want to cut taxes,

01:00:45.840 but I'd say that's a system. The president's system is to remove friction wherever you can

01:00:53.140 and to make us competitive with external forces. One of the ways you can be competitive with your

01:01:00.100 corporations is you've got to have a tax rate in your corporations that's similar to or lower than

01:01:07.840 the countries you're competing with, because otherwise those corporations can't produce cheap

01:01:13.680 enough goods to sell in other places because they'd be taxed too much. So it is such economic

01:01:22.060 ignorance to say that the president doesn't have an economic plan. It just ignores reality and every

01:01:29.780 element of management and understanding of free markets. It's mind-boggling how ignorant that is. 0.99

01:01:38.160 All right. The people who believe the fine people hoax are having a tough time this week. Did you see 0.96

01:01:49.980 all the coverage of a group? I think it's Jews for Trump. And so in New York, there was this giant 0.51

01:01:57.520 caravan of Jews for Trump and a lot of people there. A lot of people were there with their American flags.

01:02:06.540 And if you were a Democrat and you would believe the fake news that the president of the United

01:02:13.440 States, Trump, had once called the marchers in Charlottesville fine people while those marchers

01:02:20.100 were chanting anti-Semitic things, if you think that actually happened, it didn't happen, by the way,

01:02:26.040 that was fake news. But if you did believe it, how would you explain thousands of Jewish Americans

01:02:33.560 who are not aware of that? You can't. It doesn't make any sense. If there's, you know, you could be

01:02:44.420 the worst anti-Semite in the world and you would still agree with this following sentence. 0.98

01:02:51.780 Jews can spot anti-Semitism. Are we on the same page? Do you think that there are thousands and 0.99

01:02:58.940 thousands of Jews in New York who don't have anti-Semitism DAR, you know, radar for picking up

01:03:07.880 anti-Semitism? Do you think that they heard this Charlottesville story, believed it, that the

01:03:15.600 president was supporting people who want to, what, deport them? You know, American citizens? I mean,

01:03:23.660 it's so insane that I don't know how to keep it all in my head at the same time. They can't live in

01:03:29.540 there, these thoughts. But if you're a Democrat, you have to explain that. It's like, oh, and how would

01:03:36.560 you explain it? Like, what kind of cognitive dissonance would you have to gin up in your head

01:03:42.200 to explain why thousands of American Jews, who clearly know what anti-Semitism is, who clearly

01:03:50.800 can spot it from a mile away, who live it, breathe it, they know what it is? And they didn't notice

01:03:59.140 this? According to your fake news worldview, they just didn't notice. The biggest news in the country

01:04:06.100 for years? Nope. Joe Biden's primary theme of his campaign, you know, the fake news about the

01:04:14.380 Tiki Torch guys. And the Jews in New York didn't see the news? Nobody saw that? Obviously, the only 1.00

01:04:24.960 way to explain it is that the fake news has convinced some people, but not all. All right? That theory

01:04:32.560 is complete. There's nothing else to add. Oh, some people realize it's fake news, and then they act upon

01:04:40.280 that understanding. And some people can't distinguish fake news from real news, and they act on that

01:04:46.340 understanding. And that would give you a number of Jewish supporters of Biden and a number of Jewish

01:04:51.700 supporters of Trump. And that's completely consistent, right? It's consistent with everything

01:04:57.240 you see and observe. But if you're a Democrat and you believed in the fine people hoax, you're very

01:05:03.480 confused this week. It gets better. You would have also believed that the president supported

01:05:11.480 neo-Nazis. Didn't happen. But the fake news people who believe that, believe it did. How does that

01:05:17.420 explain 44% or 46% African American approval of the president's job performance? Are you telling me

01:05:27.580 that nearly that approaching half of all black people in the country don't know what racism looks

01:05:34.400 like? I think they do. I think black people can spot racism. You know, if anything, you know, there

01:05:43.060 might be too much spotting to the point where maybe they see it when it's not there. But what they never

01:05:48.480 do, back me up on this, you know, if this sounds racist, I don't think it is. I don't think it is at

01:05:55.720 all. But you'd be the judge. I believe black people are good at spotting obvious racism.

01:06:04.040 Same page? Anybody disagree with that statement? Because in order to understand, again, you're a

01:06:10.820 Democrat, you're trying to explain your world. How do you explain 44, 46% job approval for Trump?

01:06:18.500 How do you explain that? You think there's 44, 46% of black Americans who can't spot obvious 0.99

01:06:27.700 racism? Or, or, this is just as crazy, they're okay with it? Like, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's an

01:06:36.760 obvious racism, but, you know, I like low taxes. You think that's happening? I don't. I think that's

01:06:43.380 happening zero places. Because even if they like the low taxes, what you would hear would be closer

01:06:50.240 to, I like low taxes, but I can't put up with that. I'll pay extra taxes to not have that guy

01:06:56.780 in office. That's what you'd hear, right? That's exactly what you'd hear. Yeah, I like low taxes,

01:07:02.540 but we can't, we can't have that. That's, that's completely unacceptable. There's no,

01:07:07.760 there's no argument about that, right? We're not even going to have the conversation

01:07:12.460 if you actually believed he was racist. So I would have to say that black America and Jewish America,

01:07:19.760 in each case, some substantial portion of them, are demonstrating the two movies on one screen,

01:07:29.620 and it's because of fake news. It's not because of the president. It's because of the fake news

01:07:35.380 coverage of the president. It's the only explanation. It's the only explanation for why people would be

01:07:42.540 on two sides of this whole question. All right. I'm seeing in the comments, when will Biden step

01:07:52.040 down? You know, I gotta say, the fact that he put a lid on for the next nine days, and the fact

01:08:00.200 that, you know, he called President Trump George, and the fact that, was it yesterday? He was, he was

01:08:09.120 out in public talking, and he was doing angry, angry Biden, where he just acts like the angry neighbor

01:08:17.040 who says, get off my lawn. Get off my lawn! Trump! Trump! So Biden has turned into, you know,

01:08:26.220 James T. Kirk's Star Trek nemesis, Khan. I mean, I feel like Biden should just go out there and go,

01:08:35.420 Khan! Khan! And just say, I'm done. Just make it short. Except he could, I guess, suppose he'd have

01:08:45.460 to say Trump. Trump! Trump! Trump! And then just walk off the stage. That's all you need.

01:08:54.520 All right. So make sure that you watch my bonus video that's already posted on YouTube, in which I,

01:09:04.820 uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, just looking at your comments. I talked to Nikki Klein, who is, uh, associated with

01:09:14.780 the NXIVM, what you call a cult, and she doesn't. And, uh, you make your own judgment about that.

01:09:23.060 I think you're gonna like it. And that's all I got for now, and I will talk to you later.

01:09:29.200 I thank you, Laura.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 26, 2020

Episode 1166 Scott Adams： Giggling Harris, President George, 60 Minutes, NXIVM, Slaughter Meter Update

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript