Episode 157 Scott Adams: Cohen, EU Trade, Shadow Banning
Date: 2018-07-26 | Duration: 44:59
Topics
CNN puzzles the obvious Cohen tape…the explanation you haven’t heard yet Tariffs and kissing EU Juncker Huge psychological pressure from EU deal on other countries CNN might be showing signs of a news coverage policy shift President Trump’s tweet about shadow ban of Conservatives Scott Adams Proposal: Clarification Rule for politics
Transcript
[0:05]
Hey, cranium cracker, come on in here. I’m gonna read some of your names. Why are you coming in here? We’ve got Ray—hey, Ray—and hey, Marc. Hey, everybody. You know what time it is. I think you do, or you wouldn’t be here. You did not randomly show up here. Today will be a very fun Coffee with Scott Adams, if I do say so myself. Hey from Upstate New York. You happen to be in Upstate New York one of the three months of the year that that’s a nice place. I can say that because I came from Upstate New York.
Everybody grab your mug, your vessel, your container, your cup. You should have some kind of liquid in it—your favorite liquid—coffee—and it’s time for the simultaneous sip.
[1:14]
Now, if you’ve been watching CNN lately as I have been, you’ll note that there’s a mystery that they’re reporting about, mostly Anderson Cooper. And here’s the mystery: Anderson Cooper, after hearing the Michael Cohen tapes, is trying to figure out why the President might have lied about an extramarital affair. I was specifically lying about some payments involved, but Anderson Cooper and CNN, they seemed genuinely puzzled about why would the President lie about an extramarital affair. I don’t understand it.
Now, that’s not the only mystery they’re working on. There are some other stories coming up, and these are other mysteries that CNN is trying to figure the answer to.
[2:14]
So in addition to why would somebody lie about an extramarital affair, there are other episodes coming up: why do hungry people eat? We know that hungry people do eat, but what are they thinking? What is their motivation? Is this some kind of Gaslight thing? They’re hungry and then they just eat? I know there’s a mystery here; we got to figure this out.
The other one CNN’s working on is why do sleepy people take naps? We see them taking naps and we observe they’re sleepy, but we don’t know what they’re thinking. Like, what are you thinking when you’re taking that nap when you’re sleepy? And also, our next topic CNN’s working on is why do dead people never dance? We notice that dead people just mostly just lay there, but what are they thinking? Why don’t they just get up and dance? Boom boom boom, I’m dead, I’m dead.
[3:14]
So these are some of the big mysteries that CNN is working on: why does somebody lie about an extramarital affair? I gotta admit, I can’t think of a reason, can you? Can any of you think of a reason anybody would lie about an extramarital affair? What possible motivation would you have for such a thing?
In our Yanny vs. Laurel world—in our world in which there are two movies on one screen—sometimes there are three. The two movies that everybody’s watching about the Michael Cohen tapes are: did the President say “use cash” or did the President say “don’t use cash”?
[4:16]
Now, the way it’s being reported is hilarious, frankly. The fact that the President’s lawyer, ex-New York Mayor whose name I’m forgetting at the moment, Giuliani—so he’s saying the tape very clearly says “don’t use cash.” Do any of you hear that? Do any of you hear him say “don’t use cash”? Is there anybody out here actually hears anything like that on that recording? What’s funny about it is this: it’s such a bold and ridiculous thing to say.
[5:20]
But I’ve been watching this situation and I’m trying to figure out what really is happening here, because the snippets of the conversation don’t quite make sense, do they? So no matter what your interpretation is of what was said or what was not said, it still doesn’t quite make sense. There’s something that doesn’t all fit.
I wanted to offer you a third interpretation. So the two interpretations we have is that Trump said, “Should we use cash?” Now, Lanny Davis—the lawyer for Cohen—says that he’s talking about physical dollar bills. If you can imagine $150,000 worth of just cash—a big pile of cash. So Lanny Davis says, “Well, that’s what he means. He means cash like a big bundle of money.” And of course, Giuliani says, “No, he’s saying don’t use cash,” which is clearly… well, I’ll leave it to [6:24] your judgment, but I don’t hear that when I listen to the tape.
I’m going to give you a third interpretation. And by the way, here’s my challenge to you: when I give you the third interpretation, I want you to see if you can even think the other two are possible anymore. I’m going to erase from your mind—maybe not all of you, but for many of you—when you hear the third interpretation, you’re just gonna say, “Oh, why did it take so long for somebody to explain that?”
And here it is. So we’re going to the whiteboard. Here are some words we heard on the tape. We heard Cohen say, “We need to finance this company”—the company that would be used for the payments to the ex-Playboy model. And you heard Trump say [7:24] “Finance what?”
When Cohen says “finance,” we all would agree that Trump had a question about the word finance: “Finance what?” Then there was a clarification later. There was a second word: “cash.” And you heard again that there was some question. Trump said something about cash and then there was some clarification. Then there was a point where Cohen was saying, “No, no, no, no,” but there’s some ambiguity about what was he saying “no” about.
Let me clear this all up for you. If you’re Cohen and you say, “We have to finance this new entity,” what you mean is we have to fund it. In other words, put money into it. If you were Trump and you hear the word “finance,” what’s that mean? What does finance mean to a developer? It doesn’t mean [8:26] fund; it means loan.
Now, this would make sense, right? Because Cohen said, “Hey, we have to fund this entity,” but he used an ambiguous word. Trump says, “Finance? Finance what?” because to somebody like me—I’ve got a background in finance and economics—when I hear “finance,” I hear it the same as if somebody is going to buy a car. If you’re going to buy a car, they say, “Are you going to finance this?” meaning get a loan.
That was the first point of ambiguity; they use the language differently. Then came the word “cash.” If you go in to buy a car and they say, “How do you mean to pay for it? Are you going to finance it?” meaning get a loan, or are you going to pay cash for your [9:27] car? When the car dealer says, “Do you mean to pay cash?” does he mean a big pile of dollar bills? It does not. It is not cash the way Cohen, I believe, heard it—this is just my hypothesis. He probably meant currency like dollar bills, or it might have been immediate. So there’s some ambiguity about what Cohen thought about cash, but I don’t think there’s any ambiguity about what Trump thought. Cash is the opposite of finance. So cash is really just writing a check.
Now, what really happened? Do you remember how it was actually funded? I believe the plan—I don’t think they did fund it—but the plan was going to be that Cohen would put the money in and then he [10:28] would be reimbursed through normal lawyer payments or something like that, which would be effectively a way to finance payment over time.
So when you get to the “no, no, no,” I believe what’s happened is something like this. This is just the interpretation—and by the way, I wouldn’t bet my life on this—the point of it is to show you how many interpretations you can get out of the same set of facts. Cohen says finance, Trump says what do you mean by that because he’s thinking loan. But Cohen is just thinking we need to put money into it.
Then the question of cash comes up. Trump asks the question because he’s still trying to determine: did you mean really finance as in pay over time, or do you just mean we need to put money in, which is cash, which is also a check? It means the same thing in this context. By the time Cohen [11:29] got confused with their terms, he wants to make sure that Trump doesn’t think he’s talking about a big pile of currency. He might be just saying, “No, no, no, I’m not talking about actual cash, I just mean we have to put money in it.” It’s still a little unclear [12:31] at that point.
Other people say they heard it that way too. Now, have you seen this explanation on CNN or even Fox News? I haven’t seen it, have you? At one point I heard somebody saying the White House was saying something about payment over time, but I think they abandoned that explanation.
Now, here’s the other confirmation—and Giuliani said this—every once in a while you hear something that you say, “Oh my god, that’s right.” So Lanny Davis has said, “Hey, when they’re saying cash, that’s only something that drug dealers or basically criminals do.” Only criminals and drug dealers use cash? Do you know who else uses cash? Rich people, but they call it writing a check. So when Lanny Davis says only drug [13:36] dealers use cash, he is a huge liar.
Let me just say it as clearly as I can: Cohen’s lawyer is a gigantic liar. He’s lying to you because he’s trying to make you think that the word “cash” as used in that could possibly mean as if either Trump or Cohen were actually talking about a big pallet of currency of dollar bills. That’s Lanny Davis trying to make you believe something that’s ridiculous. He did a pretty good job, I have to say, as an advocate and a lawyer, but he’s totally lying to you in a way that is so transparent it’s kind of funny.
That’s my analysis. Cash does not mean hard currency; that’s what I’m saying. It means both things, but in this context [14:38] obviously it meant write a check.
Have we totally settled that question? And here’s my real question to you: have you seen this explanation before? Because I keep expecting I’m going to see this. I look at the news and I think, “Oh, somebody’s going to do this. They’re going to explain what cash means in this context. They’re going to explain what financed means in this context.” Then it all makes sense.
Somebody’s saying I’m contorting myself? What? I think we should agree that when people tell me that I’m contorting myself, that that’s a tell for cognitive dissonance. Why did I have to do this? Somebody says, “You’re a businessman.” That is correct. My background is business school and economics; that’s my educational background. Then of course, I worked [15:40] in business for a long time and I worked on things like finance deals. I literally worked in a department called the finance department. To me, this is a little more obvious than it would be if you don’t work in that world.
North Korea is set to return remains of 55 fallen servicemen. I believe they’re all men. I have these real weird questions… there are about 5,000 unaccounted for service people from North Korea—American service people—and I think to myself: where are they? I’m trying to say this in the most respectful way, but does North Korea actually know where they are? And if they do know where they are, does it mean that they’re buried? Does it mean that they’ve already [16:41] been collected in one place and kept in case they needed to give them back? I’ve got real questions about how is it that when we ask, they can produce 55 bodies? From where? I don’t know how they did that. Anyway, that’s more of a curiosity thing.
You saw that the representative from the EU—did you see the picture of him literally putting a kiss on President Trump’s neck? And then the President tweeted that out, and I saw it on Instagram as well, saying how much they loved each other. That was just great.
Now, of course, the two sides of the news, the left and the right, are going to report that story completely differently. The right will [17:43] report it as great progress and that the bones of a deal, the framework of a deal, are largely agreed to and now they have to put some meat on it. That’s just ordinary business. It’s a big breakthrough and the tariffs—let’s say the trade war slash negotiations—were successful, at least insofar as it looks like they will be.
The left will say, “Well, they haven’t agreed to anything yet.” So you’re gonna see two movies on one screen: one saying nothing has really happened—the same as they said about North Korea—while the right will say, “My god, it’s a big breakthrough,” which it might be, but it’s a little bit earlier. We’ll see.
Imagine, if you will, the situation we have been in, which is: the President of the United States says we’re going to [18:44] put tariffs on everybody from Canada to China to the EU—you name it. We’re going to tariff, tariff, tariff, and we’re going to start a trade war and everybody is on notice. We’re not going to do any bad deals anymore.
In that situation, what is the likely arc of how things are going to go from that point? The setup is the President said we’re tariffing everybody, trade war with everybody from Canada to China all at once. What’s going to happen? It’s very likely because the United States is the biggest buyer, the biggest customer, that we have more leverage. We have a strong economy, we can withstand some pressure on the economy right now, and we have the biggest bank, so to speak—we have the most money. So the chances were we were going to get at [19:44] least one of those entities—whether it was Canada, EU, China—one of them was gonna agree to a deal first.
Somebody had to go first, but nobody goes first until they have to. Here was my prediction: for the first X weeks or months, nobody would want to go first because nobody wants to be seen as folding. They don’t want to be seen as the one who buckled. Nobody wants to go first. But here’s the part I wish I had said earlier, but it’s still time to say: after the first one makes a deal, the pressure on the rest of them to make a deal goes way up. Why is that? Because everybody in their [20:46] own country will say, “Hey, the EU just made a deal. Why is my business suffering when the EU just solved their problem? Why can’t my government solve its problem? The EU just did.”
The psychological pressure just went up because the EU just agreed to something. I don’t know if anybody is saying it’s an unfair deal that they’ve arranged; I don’t know the deal, but I don’t see anybody saying, “Hey, that deal with the EU and the United States, the framework of a deal is going to be unfair.” I don’t hear that.
So what you’re seeing is other countries who are going to have pressure internally to also make a deal because the first one did. It also makes it safe because everybody can watch the EU and they can say, “Uh-oh, what’s going to happen to the leaders of the EU? Are they going to lose their jobs?” Probably not. Now, why was it easier for [21:46] the EU to make a deal than China or Canada? See if you know this one.
In retrospect—I didn’t predict this—but this was the way it was going to go: the EU’s negotiator, Juncker, he is not the elected leader of any country. You get it? That’s why this worked. Because he’s not the elected leader. So if you’re the leader of any of the countries in the EU who were part of the deal, it wasn’t you. The individual leaders of the EU will not have to say, “I folded,” or “I made a deal.” Nobody has to lose [22:46] face because they had this common person who did a deal for a bunch of people.
Now that the first one’s done—and in retrospect, that was the one that makes the most sense to do first because of that effect—it’s not the individual leaders. That makes it safe for Canada. I’m just using Canada as an example. Now Canada can say, “Okay, the EU made a deal, let’s make a deal too.” Probably there’ll be a little give and take on both sides. Nobody’s ever going to know if these deals are good or bad, by the way. They’re all too complicated for we the public and even the press to know if the deal was good.
So that gives some cover for Canada to say, “Look, I’ll make a deal, but you got to do this on cheese, we’ll do this on maple syrup” or whatever. [23:47] Trump will be able to claim that it worked. Canada will be able to say, “We did a good deal for our people,” because it’ll be complicated. We won’t know. We’ll say, “I know one of them is telling the truth. I’ll believe our leader this time.”
And then probably China will be last. My guess is that China would be among the last to make a deal. There’s no guarantee to any of these things—too many variables—but the normal course of things would be nobody makes the deal for as long as possible until the first one does. And the first one being the EU made perfect sense because that’s not a single leader of a single country; it’s just more comfortable politically to do that.
So here’s what I expect: I expect that the trade will go from “Oh my god, worst thing in the world” to, now that one has made a break, it’ll be easier for the others to break. The other dominoes will fall. Somebody said “dominoes.” I literally had the word “dominoes” written here. I was gonna say that next. Damn it, you beat me to dominoes! But yes, it’s the domino [24:48] theory.
I have seen this exact theory in a court case that I don’t know if I can tell you what it was about, but there’s somebody I know personally who was involved in a very large, billion-dollar court case and it was against a number of entities. All of the entities—these were big corporations—were being sued by a smaller entity, and all of them of course fought like crazy. Nobody was giving an inch until one of them did. And the moment that one of them broke ranks, all the rest of them got in line because that made it easy for the rest of them to say, “All right, that’s the way it’s gonna go. It’s gonna look like this first one. Let’s just get it over with. We’ll just do what they did.” So it’s a domino theory.
You saw Nikki Haley give a speech to some kind of students—I forget who they were—[25:49] in which she said, “Don’t try to quote-unquote ‘own the libs.‘” In other words, don’t just be dicks, basically. Don’t be mean to the opposition. It was a real good message; got a lot of play, got a lot of attention.
Remember I told you that I thought CNN has turned some kind of a corner? It looks like they’ve made some kind of a decision. It could be this is preliminary and I could be completely off on this, but it feels like CNN has decided to be a kinder, gentler version of CNN. I don’t know that that’s true yet, but I’m seeing some signs of that. We’ll see if the “Summer of Love” is back on. Because if you imagine, [26:49] there’s a really good chance that trade deals will start looking good. The children in the cages will be reunited with their parents. The Russia collusion thing will be more obviously a big nothing.
And we just saw that Israel did a major strike in Syria that apparently was either coordinated with or for the benefit, at least partially, of Russia. So we’re watching the Russian and Israeli military coordinating in Syria. How would you like to be Iran right now, watching Russia and Israel coordinate militarily? I’m sure they’ve already been doing that, but the more they do it, the more it has to be worrisome for Iran. So Iran is being further isolated.
How do you check your summer of wishful thinking? Well, I’m wishing it into existence, which is [27:51] different from normal wishful thinking. When I do it, it causes it.
Let’s talk about shadow banning. Yesterday a lot of you know there was an issue on Twitter where if you put in a search for somebody, if they were prominent conservatives, often they would not show up in the drop-down box that auto-populates. That affected people like me; it affected Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz. President Trump tweeted this morning about this issue.
What’s interesting is when Trump gets his [28:51] jaws on something, he doesn’t really let go. So I think this issue is gonna have to be dealt with. Of course, Twitter’s response was… I actually appreciated Twitter’s response in the sense that what Jack Dorsey responded was that obviously they need to do some work. I thought, “Oh, that’s very disarming.” It’s actually exactly the right thing to say—they’re recognizing the complaint, they’re not denying it, and then they’re saying I guess we need to do more work to gain the public’s trust.
We’ll see in the next few days if anything changes in terms of the drop-down box. I think it might have already changed; I’m not entirely sure, but some people were reporting that mine started to autofill. I think the issue was: if you follow somebody, it autofilled fine, but if you were looking for someone you did not [29:52] follow and they were conservative, there was a good chance they wouldn’t even show up in the autofill thing.
How do you do some work on expressed censorship? You look at your algorithm and make sure that it’s not accidentally discriminating. It’s not easy, but that’s the basic idea.
I’ve got another suggestion to make the world a better place and it’s called the Clarification Rule. You know the rule where if you drop something on the ground, people say, “Oh, five-second rule,” they pick it up and eat it? There’s no science to the five-second rule, but it does make [30:53] life better, right? Because people don’t want to think, “Oh, I dropped something on the floor; now it’s ruined and I can’t eat it.” So a lot of people will just tell themselves this little story: five-second rule, didn’t count. Science has debunked that—the five seconds has nothing to do with anything. But is it a ten-second rule? If you’re really hungry, it’s a ten-second rule, not a five-second rule. Somebody says there is science to it, but I believe I have seen stories saying there’s not.
But in any case, that’s not the point. Here’s the rule I suggest for politics: if someone says something provocative and maybe there’s some ambiguity to it—or maybe people think there’s no ambiguity to it, but it’s very provocative and upsetting—here’s the rule: when you ask them to clarify, you accept the clarification. You report the first [31:55] thing as something puzzling where you need more information, and then you report the clarification as the truth.
If your politician says, “Hey, I’d like to kill babies and eat them,” and then the news says, “Oh my god, he says he wants to kill babies and eat them,” and then you ask, “Did you…?” In the subsequent clarification or another interview somebody says, “We thought we heard you say you wanted to kill babies and eat them; can you clarify that?” and then the politician says, “Oh, I didn’t mean that. I meant I want to take care of babies and feed them,” the rule should be: that’s the story. The story is what they said with the clarification. The first story should not be “What are they thinking? Let’s read their mind; let’s figure out what their dog whistle is all about.” Let’s just forget all of that because that’s just guessing. Let’s just ask for the clarification, and then once [32:58] it’s given, that’s the news. You report: “Okay, this politician says this”—the clarification, not the original thing. The original thing is just people being confused.
Somebody says: has Hulk accepted Papa John’s CEO’s clarification? I didn’t know a clarification he made. I think his clarification was he was talking about the word as opposed to using it—talking about the N-word—that he was talking about it and not using it. As you know, if you’ve been in this world more than ten seconds, that doesn’t count.
The rule is that you just don’t use the word. Now, I know what a lot of you say: “Damn it, I live in a free country and in my free country I will use any words I want.” I hear you; it’s a free country, but people are also free to [33:59] treat you differently for the word that you’ve used.
My take on that specifically, the N-word, is that it’s one word. It’s just one word. You do have a very special case going on here, right? There was only one slavery situation and there’s only one word that’s sort of the banned word. Is that a big deal? Are you giving up your freedom because you know that some of you cannot use that word? I’m gonna say that that is such a small thing to ask that I’m happy to give it. I would think anyone would be happy to be kind and considerate over this one tiny, tiny issue. Arguing that it’s okay to use the word because you’re just talking [34:59] about it instead of using it? Don’t go there. Just do not go there. There’s nothing productive there.
Somebody says: “Give an inch, take a mile.” I’m gonna add—thank you—I’m gonna add that to my list of bad thinking. A slippery slope. I’m writing something now and I needed examples of bad thinking. The reason the slippery slope is bad thinking is because it literally applies to everything. There is nothing that you could not apply the slippery slope to. “Hey, I’m giving a Periscope today; it might last 45 minutes.” Oh, that’s a slippery slope! What happens if I start giving Periscopes for hours and hours and then I starve to death? It could happen. As soon as you started giving Periscopes, it’s like, “First one’s 10 minutes, then it’s 20 minutes… what happens if I keep giving them until I stop eating and I die?”
Slippery slope is not thinking. It’s just [36:03] not thinking. If you think, “Oh, I see a slippery slope here; I’ve made a decision based on the slippery slope,” you have not been engaged in any form of mental cognition of any importance.
If you give a mouse a cookie, that mouse will want a full cake. Banning words regardless of context isn’t thinking either. Here’s the thinking: it’s a very, very small request by specifically the African-American community who, I remind you, if you’re American especially, are on your team. That’s the important part; they’re your team. Members of your team have asked you for a tiny, tiny little piece of good manners. Is that a big deal? Put it in [37:09] perspective. Well, there are lots of racial words you shouldn’t use; I agree.
Somebody says: “You believe that…?” I don’t know what you’re talking about, but if you would like to ask me what it is that I believe… I think somebody’s saying, “Do you believe that if you let them ban one word, that they won’t go and start banning more words?” Of course they will! Will it matter? No. Will somebody try to…? Somebody said “watermelon.” What if they banned “watermelon”? Depending on the context—are you using the word?—it could be offensive. That’s good coffee.
Should your team forgive you for using [38:12] the word? “Should” is one of those words that are never interesting. When people say somebody “should” do something, that’s either lazy language or lazy thinking, maybe both. But there are things—just things—that if you do this, you’ll get a good result; if you do this, you’ll get a bad result. To say, “I should be able to do this thing,” what does that mean? The reality is if you do that thing, you’re gonna get a bad result, and nothing will change that. Your use of the word “should” is useless talk; it doesn’t mean anything.
I’m gonna give you a tour at the end of the Periscope. I like to get provocative. It’s time to get provocative. I’m gonna give you a little psychology test and I want you to all play along. Are you ready? It’s a little test; we’re gonna do this in public. I don’t [39:12] know how this will turn out, by the way, but I want you to know I’m gonna ask you to picture a person who is a Trump supporter and then a person who is an anti-Trumper.
Don’t pick a famous person—not a politician, nobody you know. I want you to conjure up in your mind your best picture of a Trump supporter. You can put this person in any kind of clothing you want, but it has to be, in your mind, somebody who’s not famous, nobody you’ve ever seen before—a generic Trump supporter. Just hold it in your mind for a moment and remember what you’re thinking. I think you’ve all got it now. You’re thinking of a generic Trump supporter. Give that person some appearance, some clothing, but get a picture.
Now do the same picture for an anti-Trumper. [40:13] Actually, let’s make it somebody on the left, specifically. Not an anti-Trumper, because that would include people on the right. So, somebody on the left, a Democrat. Now picture them. Picture this person’s clothing, picture their look, maybe add a face. You might put some accouterments around there, some glasses or whatever if necessary. Now picture that person. Does everybody have their two pictures?
Here’s my question: what was the gender that you imagined for the Trump supporter? That’s my first question. Everybody, what gender did you imagine for your Trump supporter? Give me your gender: Trump supporter. I’m seeing male, male, female, male, male, male, male, female, female, male, male, male, male, male, female, male, male, male, for both male [41:15], male, male, male, both female, male, male, male.
Obviously, this is not the kind of test that you would get all the same answer, but I think it skewed male. Now, did you imagine a female for the Democrat? How many of you imagined a female for the Democrat? There’s a little delay in the comments, so it’s hard to tell.
Male for both? So a lot of you… okay, so the new answers are coming in. Female for both, female for both. It’s a little hard to tell; it [42:16] could be that the Democrat was either way.
Here’s the basic test: obviously they’re all individuals and you were all over the place. Some had male for both, some had female for both, some had all kinds of combinations. Do you think it’s true that there’s sort of a male bias for the Trump side—which doesn’t mean that only men like it, etc.—versus a female bias for the Democrats? Part of it is the leadership choices, right? The Democrats are very female-centric in terms of actual and potential leaders.
[43:17]
Somebody said they anticipated the question, so you’re ahead of me. It was a very non-scientific question. It’s starting to feel like, if you could project into the future, it makes you wonder if—and I think there is a male-female difference already, right, in terms of voting? Didn’t most women vote Democrat and the majority of men voted Republican? Not by a gigantic majority, but that’s true, right?
I’m wondering if that trend will continue and accelerate until you have two parties: the male party and the female party. I wonder if that could be a thing in the future, 10 years from now. That’s just speculative. There is a male bias in my audience; probably I think that’s true. So we did not learn anything today scientifically. I just wanted to try that test and to see how [44:17] stark the differences were. They were not nearly as stark as the hypothesis would have suggested. So maybe that’s good.
No controls in my experiment; you’re right. It is very non-scientific and you should not make any judgments based on it. Obviously, there are tens of millions of female Trump supporters and tens of millions of males supporting the Democrats. That goes without saying.
All right, that’s enough for now. I think I will talk to you later.