Episode 1140 Scott Adams: I Tell You Who Won the Debate and Why. And is Kim Jong-Un Alive?

Date: 2020-09-30 | Duration: 48:27

Topics

Find my “extra” content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com

Rough Transcript

This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

Transcript

---

• Unconvincing proof-of-life, Kim Jong-Un

• My Presidential debate analysis

• Debate strategies

If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
[0:16]

why does my lighting look wrong today hey everybody come on in is there anything to talk about today did
did anything happen last night that's worth discussing oh i think so oh yes but first before we get to the discussing part wouldn't you like to get ready for that with the simultaneous sip i think you would and all you need is a copper mug or glass attacker gelser a canteen junior flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better the unparalleled pleasure it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now go
well of course we'll be talking about the debates but a couple of little tidbits before that

[1:20]

number one uh we all heard the story the last 24 hours or so about uh national intelligence uh director john ratcliffe he declassified some information that indicated that russia was aware that hillary clinton was trying to implicate russia uh and uh some kind of collusion with trump as part of a plan to take attention away from her email now as of this morning politico is reporting that it's fake news that that's not actually something that happened now i believe that's not the final word rather that the the intelligence agencies look like maybe they have some evidence of this but we shall see i remind you of the following 80 20 rule are you ready here's the 80 20 rule of the month before election day

[2:22]

of the month before election day it goes like this any new story that happens in the month before election if it's a new thing you haven't heard of before a new twist on a thing would be the same thing there's an eighty 80 chance it's not true doesn't matter which side it comes from doesn't matter what the topic is if it looks like it's good for anybody and bad for somebody else in terms of the election you should figure just automatically there's an 80 chance it's not true so we'll see if that one's true um i have to admit it had the sound of not being true you know if you had to place a bet on it and you said okay you're no expert but i want you to place a bet on this thing and the thing is that that putin actually had a conversation or the intelligence people did over in russia about hillary clinton trying to distract with a russia collusion hoax what what do i tell you about

[3:23]

hoax what what do i tell you about stories like that are they a little bit a little bit too on the nose you know what i'm talking about a little bit too perfect timing timing of the story is a little bit too good it might be true but i would put a 20 chance on it if you want to know the odds um it would be interesting if i were wrong on that another story is that kim jong-un allegedly is holding a cronovirus meeting uh and they showed a still photograph of what looked like it could have been the meeting except everybody was sitting closely together with no masks on and it was a still photo not a video now i know they have video still photo is fine for some some purposes but if you're trying to prove that your leader is still alive

[4:24]

leader is still alive a still photo of not wearing masks during a pandemic suggests that that photo was taken some time ago as in prior to the pandemic so maybe even months and months ago
i don't know if there exists a verifiably um current video of kim jong-un but i'm going to tell you that all signs are indicating he's not in charge or something but everything seems to suggest there's something going on there in north korea so keep it keep an eye on that i would wait for a sign of life there all right let's talk about the debate um i feel terrible after watching the debate did any anybody have that reaction and you know some of it's personal i'm going to come right out and say it the the president lost my vote last night

[5:30]

president lost my vote last night now that doesn't mean he can't get it back it doesn't mean that bidens would be a good president i don't think he would be i think you'd be a disaster but here's my thing um and i get i get what you're going to argue so before you jump in with the comments you should trust that i will say your argument for you all right so i'm not ignoring the argument i will say it for you here's my problem
in my mind president trump needed to do one thing to win the election just one thing he had he had one thing he needed to do and it wasn't you know make biden go crazy it wasn't make strong points it wasn't you know be accurate it wasn't make a good case for a coronavirus it wasn't any of those he had one thing he needed to do disavow white supremacy if asked that's it
it now it would have been nice if he had

[6:32]

now it would have been nice if he had gone at the fine people hoax to decry it as a hoax he mumbled something under his breath when chris wallace asked them the question about you know would you disavow white supremacists and uh and the militia now here's the part you're gonna tell me like i don't know it but i'm gonna tell you i know it and watch it won't even stop you from telling me like i didn't just tell you it's just the way the world works i don't know why yes i heard trump say um sure he said the word sure in the answer to
to would you disavow these groups said it twice so is it true that trump did in fact indicate he disavows the white supremacists yes it is unambiguously true that the question was asked and answered he said sure would you disavow them sure but but here's the thing

[7:33]

sure but but here's the thing when you saw it happened in real time and then he quickly changed the subject to anti-fuzz is is bad didn't you think to yourself uh
uh half of the country is going to think you just supported white supremacy because of the way you answered it okay all the people in the comments are doing everything that i just said you would do i i don't know how to stop you from doing it everybody who's making a comment that says he did disavow them he said sure that's what i just told you okay did you not catch that that was the main point i was making is for you not to do what you're doing now which is tell me in the comments what i just told you i just told you he said unambiguously sure and he answered the question doesn't come close to being sufficient not even close

[8:35]

not even close if you know that the way that's going to be taken is the wrong way it's the wrong answer it doesn't matter that it's technically accurate it matters how you say it let me give you an example scott do you disavow white supremacist absolutely of course i disavowed them i've disavowed them in the past i disavowed them now and beyond that i would disavow any racist group i would disavow black lives matter anti-far i would disavow anybody who's racist that's how you disavow white supremacists let me tell you how you don't disavow white supremacists hey scott do you disavow a white supremacist sure yeah whatever um but yeah what about the weather what about the weather that's how you don't do it if you want to leave the impression that you really support them while technically saying you don't do it

[9:35]

while technically saying you don't do it exactly the way trump did it he the the way he did it is exactly how you would communicate that you're really okay with him now i'm not going to make an assumption of what he's thinking that's the mistake everybody makes i'm not i'm not telling you that he has bad thoughts in his head what i'm telling you is that his performance was below the level that could earn my vote i can't vote for somebody who can't say in a full-throated way that he condemns white supremacy while he's running for the presidency okay i i'm off the ship now i'm not going to vote for biden that would be crazy i'm just he just doesn't earn my vote at the moment now here's the interesting part we'll talk about some of the details of this as well here's the interesting part there are two more debates what was the

[10:35]

there are two more debates what was the uh what was the uh the biggest problem that trump had going into this debate i would say the biggest problem is that the expectation game was out of whack the expectation is that trump would just destroy biden that didn't happen in fact i would say maybe his worst performance as a debater maybe his worst performance and but what does that do well it's going to give him a solid week of bad news right but what about the next debate happens at the next debate the expectation game just got flipped at the next debate you're going to think to yourself i know biden was solid enough he didn't fall over so he's solid enough he should be solidish for the second debate and the third that's your expectation now what do you

[11:36]

that's your expectation now what do you expect about trump well you certainly expect he's going to get that question again i don't know who the moderator is for the next debate but of course i think i think they may have different question topics but i feel like i feel like they're going to work that question in somehow or at least biden will work it in
what will trump do the second time he gets the question and you know it's just a layup and he missed the layup this last time and other times um somebody says did biden earn my vote no biden did not earn my vote he did not um but the expectations are flipped now so what you might find what you might find is that trump uh if he if there are three debates trump actually has a weird advantage and if you don't see that yet you will

[12:37]

and if you don't see that yet you will because it's going to take a while people are still reveling in this debate they're they're not yet thinking too much about the next one the moment their minds switch to the next debate there's going to be an oh moment because the democrats are going to say oh our expectations are sky high now
now that's not good the odds that biden will have let's say a cognitive event and the next two two debates it's non-zero i mean i don't know what the odds are but it's non-zero so it's got to make them a little bit nervous all right let's talk about some of these specific things uh i don't believe joe was wearing an earpiece or a wire there was no indication of an earpiece or a wire but of course the internet being the internet there's there are photos of what appears to be a wire under his lapel but it's just a fold in his shirt so all over the internet there's this bad photo of something that looks like a

[13:38]

bad photo of something that looks like a wire but it's just a a wrinkle and then there's something that looks like he's coming out of his sleeve but apparently he wears a rosary around his uh his uh his uh wrist for his son or something so so i would say that that is debunked i don't think there was any wire or earpiece i would say that trump was prepared it looked like he was very prepared i think he he blew it in my opinion but it looked like he was prepared so that's good news um here's the frame that was it ryan lizza i think he's the one who pointed it out it was the first time i'd ever noticed but once you notice it you can't unnotice it and it goes like this when trump debates he has a strong preference for offense so even his defense is sort of an offense so if somebody says you you murdered a baby what trump doesn't do

[14:39]

do as often as you think he oughta is to start off by saying that's not true i didn't murder a baby but that's what you would do right if you were in a debate and the other person said well you murdered a baby don't you think your first instinct would be to say well that's not true i didn't murder a baby if you watch trump long enough and this is what ryan lizza noticed and he called it out as a positive in terms of technique it might be it might be but i think there's an exception to it and so it so if somebody says trump you murdered a baby instead of saying i did not murder a baby he will say you killed a hippopotamus or something he'll he'll just accuse you of something worse so for example and and i think this is a good technique so when when biden was saying you uh you did a bad job on chronovirus and killed over two hundred thousand people it's a

[15:41]

over two hundred thousand people it's a ridiculous claim that they're all they're all because of trump right but trump instead of trying to defend it which probably would be a strategic mistake he says you would have done worse and here's why he says you know you wouldn't have closed the border et cetera that's not bad it's not bad i think he's weak on coronavirus so there's not there's not like a kill shot you can do to get out of that but it probably is about as good as you can do in the time constraint and the format of a debate to simply say you would have done worse because how can you prove that's not true it's an unprovable statement that might be true might be untrue don't know so as a debate technique it's probably pretty strong but here's where it fails where it fails as if you're accused of calling neo-nazis fine people all

[16:43]

neo-nazis fine people all trump did was sort of mumble something about it wasn't true but he never returned to the point he never defended himself against the accusation that he called the neo-nazis fine people which is not true he never did it so how hard would it be to defend yourself against something that's so well documented and you know i think what he mumbled when when uh biden was still talking was something like you know read the rest of the statement because that's the defense the rest of his statement that they they always leave out is where he said he clarified that he was condemning the neo-nazis and white nationalists so to let that go just because your method is always to attack i feel like that should have been an exception and honestly um let me let me depart a little bit from um objective analysis

[17:44]

um objective analysis now i don't think anybody can really really be objective about any of this stuff so it's sort of ridiculous to try to claim that you're completely objective nobody can achieve that at the moment but
but i want to confess a little bit of emotional attachment i felt that i was personally thrown under the bus by the president last night it felt personal because i've spent a tremendous amount of my personal capital explaining to the world that the fine people hoax was a hoax and obviously he's condemned all these groups a number of times you'll see compilation clips of him condemning those same groups so it's not like he hasn't done it plenty of times but when the fine people hoax came up again i literally stood up from the couch and said here it is
is here's the moment when trump just said just has to say you know you you base your entire campaign on that lie i just encourage everybody to look at

[18:45]

i just encourage everybody to look at the transcript and you'll see that the part that they cut out is the part where i clarified that i'm condemning those groups if he had said that i would have said i'm really happy that i've spent so much of my time and my personal credibility a great deal of money i would say that my personal financial situation is way worse way worse because of supporting the president there's no question about that and i thought it's so obvious what you should say in this situation and that he just didn't and i thought to myself i really feel abused honestly i was actually i took it personally that that wasn't politics anymore that was not politics anymore that was me personally and i feel like he screwed me personally and then i had to sit there stewing in that and then this this white

[19:48]

stewing in that and then this this white nationalist or the white supremacist question comes up and he botched it it was a layup it was free money sitting on the table and he left it there and he left me on that table too he left me just exposed so he lost my vote he lost my vote can he get it back yeah all you'd have to do is fix that i mean how hard is it to fix it well apparently it's pretty hard for him because he's taken three years since since charlottesville and he hasn't fixed it yet easiest thing he'd ever fix
i take it personally so those of you who are disagreeing with me and saying blah blah blah scott you don't understand you know no this is personal i'm not talking about the election anymore i'm not talking about you i'm not trying to change your mind i don't i don't expect you to come over to my point of view i'm not even trying to

[20:50]

my point of view i'm not even trying to i'm telling you i feel abused by that i feel actually abused by that and don't ask me to be happy about it because i'm not going to be all right let's talk about what went right or wrong um so trump took the approach of just ignoring the rules and sort of trying to dominate the situation and trying to be the the more powerful person so that there would be a contrast to the lesser powerful person biden i think that much worked i think the fact that he completely abused the rules and took over the situation i didn't mind that at all actually it was a it was a hot mess but that's what we signed up for right there the reason the reason that i waited for two hours before the debate i i couldn't i couldn't even leave my living room like i didn't want to miss the first minute so i was there like

[21:51]

the first minute so i was there like hours early to my own living room and uh it's what i wanted to see i wanted to see a spectacle i wanted to see a gun fight i wanted to see you know pigs wrestling and that's what i got so as as a technique for potentially pushing biden into a mistake i think it was strong i think it was pretty strong so i'm going to give him an a plus for energy power dominance and it's hard to know how much that counts right because there are lots of other things that happened so you can't really analyze these things in isolation um everybody of course is going to be arguing about how he was so impolite and whatever but that's all baked in i would argue that what we saw with trump taking over the room you know essentially just ignoring all the rules and and having his way with it i would argue that's more of a feature than a bug

[22:52]

than a bug meaning that that's closer to the reason he got elected than it is closer to a reason not to be elected that that power of personality is a big part of his appeal and i think he did that uh he did that well actually
let's see i would say that both candidates lied about almost everything i think it would be ridiculous to say that the president was the liar that night i would guess that 80 percent of what the president said was not true roughly speaking and i think that 80 of what biden said was objectively not true he did the the bleach hoax uh he did the you know the fine people hoax he did the calling soldiers losers hoax i mean mostly biden was full of foxes and by the way what was what was trump's response to the
the bleach hoax he said he was being

[23:53]

bleach hoax he said he was being sarcastic even i don't believe that you know i'm inclined to be favorable to the president's uh you know perspective on things but even i don't believe he was being sarcastic what he was doing was talking about light technology because that was the whole context and and that was a real thing and it was really being tested so he let that go too but again you have to look at it in the context of his debate strategy which is he doesn't go after he doesn't spend a lot of time defending um an accusation now biden had a really good answer to something so when he was when when trump uh was pressing biden about the 3.5 million dollars from the uh i guess the widowed ex-wife of the mayor of moscow that's one of those accusations that's really damning it's a really damning accusation

[24:53]

accusation and the way biden dealt with it i would have to say was really good now i don't know if it's true i don't know if what he said is accurate but in terms of a debate strategy it was well done and it went like this the president said blah blah you know hunter biden took that 3.5 million from a russian and biden's response was that has been discredited that's pretty good because as soon as he gets into the weeds about it he loses right so biden can't get into the weeds he can't ignore it that would be a bad mistake so the the fastest thing you can say about it to dismiss it is probably good debate strategy in this concept so simply being able to say it's disavowed and i don't know if that's true do you i haven't seen any disavowing of it personally i have not seen even an attempt at disavowing it but the fact that he said it that's disavowed i thought that's not bad

[25:54]

bad as as a technique probably not true that it's disavowed but uh it's a good technique um it seems most of the most of the chatter about last night is about chris wallace and i totally get what everybody says that it looks like chris wallace was being tougher on trump would you all agree can we all agree that it looked like chris wallace was being tougher on trump everybody's on the same page right it looked like that now does that also imply that because he was tougher on trump is it therefore true that he didn't do a good job because that's where i might depart from your opinion he was definitely tougher on trump no question about it and he's obviously not a big trump supporter that's pretty clear but it's also why he got the job the reason that chris wallace was there

[26:55]

reason that chris wallace was there and out of the hundreds of possible people who could have been the moderator the reason he got picked is because he can do that he can go at the president and he can go at the other side there aren't that many people who can so you're gonna hate this but i think he did a great job sorry i know you hate it you ate it because he was he was tougher on the president and he totally was but i'm okay with that and here's why part of why he was tougher on the president is the president was giving him more material to be tough on the president was more interrupted and etc
etc and so there was just more to more to deal with but there were other things about you know some people saying he maybe helped biden by describing biden's own energy plan etc i here's my take all of that other stuff that looked like he was a little pro-biden and a little bit anti-trump all of that stuff should have been easy

[27:57]

all of that stuff should have been easy for
for trump to dismiss there was nothing that there was nothing that uh chris wallace added to the process this should not have been just simple for trump to handle the fact that trump didn't handle it well and blew the you botched the white supremacist question the fact that he did that is not really chris wallace's fault that is a hundred percent on trump and to put that on chris wallace unfair now i was trying to imagine as i was watching chris wallace you know try to get control of these people who were uncontrollable mostly trump i thought to myself i had a hard time imagining some other journalist is that what you want to call them a journalist or tv host whatever i had a hard time imagining anybody else doing that better
because chris wallace does have a a forceful personality and he does have

[28:58]

a forceful personality and he does have credibility he has gravitas and i thought he did as good as a person could do under that situation i would give him a very high mark actually for that night because i don't think anybody could have done it better given the circumstance
um i know i'm disappointing you today but that's the way it goes sometimes now one of the biggest things which we don't know how it'll play out yet is that trump did get biden to disavow the green new deal
somebody says are you a liberal i'm left of bernie but i typically support the president um so that might matter do you do you think the green new deal people are happy with that do you think they said to themselves hey he disavowed us well there's a an extra detail there apparently on the biden website

[29:59]

apparently on the biden website it says
that he appreciates the framework there's an actual word his website says that the green new deal is quote a crucial framework now when joe biden's website says the green new deal is a crucial framework but then he goes on to say but my deal is not that it's the biden deal is he being inconsistent is it a lie to have on his website that the green new deal is a crucial framework but at the same time he's saying i'm doing something that's my own thing it's not incompatible it's not incompatible at all in fact it's what he's been saying all along which is it's sort of a good framework but we're you know if you want to stay practical and do things that can really be done it looks more like a biden plan it's not too far off but will

[30:59]

it's not too far off but will his own side see it that way and that's the part that is a question if the aocs and the bernie supporters think that they've been thrown under the bus or sold a bill of goods they might stay home so that might be the biggest thing that came out of this it's entirely possible that the only thing that changed is some green new dealers decided that they weren't excited about him anymore but that said they still probably like him
him better than trump if they were green new delish because at least you get a little bit of you know the flavor of the crucial framework of green new deal that's better than none right so i suppose uh we'll have to wait on that all right one of biden's worst answers was when he was asked why he's not speaking out about the violence in the streets he said quote i don't hold public office that's a really weak answer that is

[32:00]

that's a really weak answer that is really weak and neither neither candidate disavowed violence last night think about that think about the fact that biden would not disavow antifa acted like it didn't exist trump was you know we already talked about that wasn't uh wasn't exactly anti-violence himself and these are the two two guys running for president and neither one of them could say full-throatedly that all violence is bad neither of them could say full-throatedly that all forms of racism were bad they both wanted to pick their shots those are they're completely unqualified in in my opinion and that's that's just about the most basic thing you gotta get right is to be against domestic violence if you can't be against domestic violence in a full-throated unambiguous way that

[33:01]

in a full-throated unambiguous way that everybody can hear you're not qualified to be president so neither biden nor trump met that standard last night so you can't be too happy about that um and then president trump uh he he kind of went who knows what he was talking about with the proud boys so you all heard it i don't need to repeat it when chris wallace was asking about denouncing uh racists or whatever and he said give me some names and that i don't know if i don't know if chris wallace said proud boys first or trump did i think wallace did and then he said then trump leapt on the proud boy question and he said they should stand back and stand by now of course that's open for interpretation stand back sounds good because that's you know don't be violent so far so good but what does stand by mean standby kind of suggests that maybe and you went on to say that something

[34:01]

on to say that something somebody's got to stop the violence i feel as though he was giving them a green light to mix it up with antifa that's what i that's what i thought now i'm not sure i have a big problem with that to be honest because i have been saying for a while that if law enforcement decides to not not take part in ending violence for whatever reason they decide they don't want to do that you should expect citizens to come in and fill the gap there's no other way that could go if the police won't stop violence there will be some informal citizen thing that happens something's going to happen and i would say that if you get enough people who are willing to stop the violence even if it takes some violence to do it we might be at a point where a little bit of violence is is called for
for you know i'm not going to say that it would be a great idea it's more like a prediction

[35:02]

a prediction that it's just the way it's going to go all right unless something else happens such as better law enforcement all right um let's see uh biden actually said that antifa is an idea not an organization that is disqualifying right completely disqualifying to say that antifa isn't an organization what can you say about that other than that that's just disqualifying um trump called the critical race theory training racist i agree with that characterization but i don't think he did a good job you know given the time constraint and the format of a of a debate it takes a little explaining why that's true it is true but it takes a little explaining and it debates the wrong place to do that so i don't think he nailed that uh it would be great if he could come up with some shorter way to make that point and and

[36:03]

shorter way to make that point and and just be able to you know drop that point and walk to his next point so he'd probably do that better in the next debate um biden biden said something that i thought was really good and it was this when he was talking about whether he would accept the winner after the debate after the election given that there would be on some uncertainty about the quality of the vote biden said this quote once the winner is declared after all the ballots are counted that will be the end of it and if it's not me i'll support the outcome that's just about a perfect statement right there i don't know how how practiced that was but it's kind of perfect because what he did was he took all the energy out of the question you know once the winner is declared that will be the end of it that statement that will be the end of it
it that is that is such a good persuasion

[37:03]

that is that is such a good persuasion statement that it makes me think some kind of you know expert in persuasion may have coached him on that a little bit because that will be the end of it is a deflating statement that works really well it wasn't like we're going to fight this to the end you know we'll we'll take every measure that we can you know it's going to be a battle etc he just said the most american thing you could ever say this is the most american statement anybody's ever said once the winner is declared after the ballots are counted that will be the end of it
and i have to say that in that moment i felt something like leadership from bible there was something like leadership in that because i thought to myself yeah that is it once the once the ballots are counted now of course you know there's going to be some controversy about what does it mean to be counted and when

[38:03]

what does it mean to be counted and when are they counted and how accurate they are
are but i like that i like the notion i like the
the leadership notion that there will be an end
end and that when we reach the end that's the end of it there's something really good about that when we get to the end that's the end of it
it it's not going to go on forever that's the end of it i like that it's very american
and you know i know that trump is keeping his options open and that probably makes sense strategically but it was a good statement [Music] here's something from the hill they tweeted today so the hill tweeted biden and trump differ greatly on integrity of mail-in ballots and they quote joe biden as saying there is no evidence at all that mail-in ballots are a source of being manipulated and cheating and then they quote president trump as saying this is going to be a fraud like you've never seen so their character characterization of those two statements

[39:04]

those two statements is that they greatly differ there's a great difference on integrity of the election is that what you heard because that's not what i hear to me i hear two sentences that are completely compatible let me read them again one there is no evidence at all that male in ballots are a source of being our source of being manipulated and cheating that's true it's true we don't have we don't have evidence of the future because we only have evidence of things which have happened in the past and in the past have we ever done mass unsolicited mail-ins to states that have not practiced it and cleaned up their database no no so how could we have evidence of something that hasn't happened is it true that in the past it doesn't seem like it was a gigantic problem there were individual problems that we found you know the the elon omar thing with

[40:06]

you know the the elon omar thing with minneapolis and you know project veritas they did find that there was definitely a problem in the past but we don't know if that was widespread so do you know do you know if that would have changed the election do you know if it was widespread do you know if it was happening everywhere would it be fair to say there is no evidence of this problem being widespread there is certainly evidence of individual problems but is there any evidence that there were whole elections changed in the past yeah there might be a little evidence but i would say that's a fairly safe statement about the past when trump talks about the fraud of this election is he talking about the past he is not one man is talking about the past and making a true statement that it hasn't been a giant problem in the past the future won't look like the past

[41:07]

the future won't look like the past because we haven't done it this way before nobody knows if you've never done it this way and the stakes are sky high and you think you think hitler might get reelected do you think do you think this is right for
for for election mischief yes yes of course it is so every idiot who says that biden and trump disagree about the election integrity is just talking about two different topics the past not too bad the future probably a giant
let me let me put it another way would you say that the could you say to the people on the left climate change is no risk in the future because the sea level hasn't drowned us in the past same argument right the same argument

[42:09]

same argument right the same argument we didn't die in the past so therefore how could we die in the future it doesn't even make sense yeah it does make sense because you know what the past is different it's different things are different so how about uh nobody ever died from drinking coffee
so therefore you should be able to snort as much fentanyl as you want without dying logically right if nobody ever died from drinking coffee doesn't it logically make sense that you can't die from ingesting large quantities of poison that's just common sense no they're different situations so this mail-in vote thing just bugs the crap out of me uh all right

[43:09]

um was biden talking about defunding the police he was a little weak on that one of the things he was super weak on is when trump challenged biden to name any law enforcement group that was backing him now i don't know if it's true that there are no law enforcement groups backing biden is that actually true i don't know
somebody says you're losing my vote scott so i know that you know i know that uh this doesn't make you happy today right but uh i i can't lie to you what do you want me to get up get here get up here and just lie to you to make you happy can't do that
someone tells scott he's embarrassing himself oh you don't have to do that i'll just block you and then then you don't have to worry about it

[44:10]

then you don't have to worry about it goodbye
anybody else want to get blocked i got a feeling we'll have some we'll be doing a lot of blocking today ah somebody says fentanyl is not caffeine you're right you're right fentanyl is not caffeine so it's almost as if you shouldn't compare those two same same as solicited mail-in votes versus mass untested unclean databases unsolicited votes it's almost like they're different that would be the point um
yeah it's a little disconcerting all right now i don't think that you would pay attention to me if you knew that i was just gonna back back the president no matter what he did i don't think would you even find any value in this if

[45:11]

would you even find any value in this if you knew what i was going to say before i said it no you wouldn't
you're gone all right anybody else want to make it personal
all right [Music]
i'm just looking at your oh the slaughter meter update i'd say the slaughter meter is down to 50 50 50. at the moment i would say it's a toss-up i think the president hurt himself last night uh but biden is so weak that you know anything could happen
somebody says you seem very emotional yeah that's the way i feel that you would be accurate about that

[46:15]

that you would be accurate about that all right uh looks like i got rid of all the all the bad people so uh
uh thank you for staying around oh packing the court yeah biden refused to say you wouldn't pack the court my feeling is that probably doesn't make any difference i don't think that court packing thing is going to be a big variable
just because people don't know what to think about it i think they just don't know which way to go on that
biden's laugh yeah did you see biden's crazy smile
that was pretty funny yeah biden's smile was hilarious all right uh people are saying run for governor i would be a terrible governor you wouldn't want me to discover i think i would be better outside that realm it would be a waste of my talents

[47:17]

will there be more debates oh you know if the if the biden campaign decided to cancel the other two debates and they said the reason they were doing it is because trump doesn't play fair and they just take their their performance from this one and say you know we're going to live or die on that first debate that probably would be
be a reasonable strategy because trump's best hope is to have a good second and third debate which by the way is not unexpected that the first debate the incumbent does poorly you've been hearing a lot of reporting this says the re the incumbent tends to be a little sloppy on the first debate but might improve as we go
so but i haven't seen them commit to that because you know they have to they probably need to feel it down a little bit here's what i'd expect i would expect that the the democrat helpers and the media will try to feel that out a little bit and try to see how the public feels

[48:18]

and try to see how the public feels about it might even be some polls on it we'll see all right that's all i got for now i'll talk to you tomorrow