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

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,

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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,

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,

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript