Episode 1139 Scott Adams: Debate Preview, I Explain Trump Taxes to Artists, Ballot Harvesting

Okie. California. I'd love to tell you that that's fog, but it's not. The forest fires are encroaching again. These are not too close to where I live in this case. But the wine country is in trouble. However, that's not our concern right now because at this moment in time, everything is perfect. Sure, people are having trouble everywhere. But are you right now? No. You're watching Coffee with Scott Adams. Possibly the best part of your day. No, probably the best part of your day. And everything's starting to go really well for you. Anyway, too bad about other people. But you're doing great. And the only way that you could do better is with a simultaneous sip. And all it takes is a cup of mug or a glass of tanker. Chelsea in a canteen. Joker flask. A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes everything better except my air quality. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens now. Go. Ah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's good. Here's the coolest thing that happened yesterday. I saw an advertisement for an electric bicycle for the water. That's my own description of it. It's a. They call it a hydrofoil and it's the Manta 5. And you ride it like a little bicycle and you pedal it and there's a little propeller underneath you. And it's just a bicycle kind of a frame, except that it has some kind of floating device underneath it. And it has an electric bicycle kind of assist. And I looked at the video of people just zipping around on that thing. And I thought, you know, the first time I rode an electric bike and I told you about this, I realized that this is really the Future. You spend 10 seconds on an E bike and you wouldn't want to do any other kind of transportation. It's just a cool feeling. And I've got a feeling that the electric assist human pedaled vehicles are going to be way, way bigger than they are now. All right, so that's coming other big news. The government task force has announced there's now a 15 minute test for Covid and they're gonna make 100 million of them and hand them out. Now, the trouble is, apparently it still requires some kind of a healthcare professional to administer it. Why? Don't know. Because apparently it's not a deep nasal swab. It's, you know, it's toward the. The front of your nose. It's not the kind that some of you have had where they stick it up to your brain. So all you do is go rant, rant in your nostril, stick it in a little liquid, no machines involved, and wait 15 minutes. And you definitely need a nurse to do that, right? What somebody's saying it's because of liability. Well, whatever it is, it could obviously be changed. I would say that if there is some kind of law, I don't know, law, regulation, rule or something that requires a health care professional for that. Let's change that today. Is there any reason that by the end of today that should not already be changed? Because there's no reason for it. Right. Can we all agree that whatever dumbass reason there is that you need a healthcare professional to go rah, rah in your nose? That's it. I'm pretty sure that we could get rid of whatever obstacle that is and make more of them. Now, it's not quite where we need it to be. Where you. Where you've got like a $1 test that everybody can do at home three times a day. That would be the end of coronavirus if we had that. But we're getting close. Getting pretty close. I don't think it's good enough for contact tracing either, necessarily. But, you know, there are a whole bunch of things collectively, they're all working in the right direction. So that's the good news. As you know, you probably heard this, Trump has now been nominated a third time for the Nobel Peace Prize. Three separate nominations. And what's interesting is each nomination is different. In other words, he's not being nominated three times for exactly the same reasons. Three separate reasons. You know, they're related, of course, but he's done enough now that you could have three legitimate nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. You know, at the same time, how would you like to be debating against a guy who just got three separate Nobel Peace Prize nominations? Now, will he win any? I don't know. When I say Eddie, will he win one? I don't know. But three nominations for three completely defendable, defensible reasons is pretty strong. The Portland police are getting more aggressive. One of the things that they're doing is trying to take the shields away from the protesters. I guess they found a big stockpile of shields and they went in and they took them away. So I was reading about this on Twitter, and my first impression of that was, oh, that's good, because the shields are obviously being used as offensive weapons and makes the protesters more bold. And it's probably bad news, right? You don't really need a shield to peacefully protest, do you? Explain to me why you would need a shield to peacefully protest. And so when I read the comments, I thought, well, those comments are going to agree with me. Why wouldn't they, given that I'm so darn clever and right all the time. So I look at the comments and I'm waiting for the part where they say, yeah, that's a good strategy, take the shields away. I think that could make a difference. Maybe everything would be better if we do that. But the comments did not say that. The comment said, well, it's obvious that they planned violence because they took the shields away. Meaning that it's obvious that the police were planning violence because why else would they take the shields away? And I thought, okay, the first time I read that, I thought, okay, well, there's always, there's always some idiot, right? There's always somebody who has a weird opinion about anything. And then I read the next one, it's basically the same opinion. Hey, those fascist cops taken our only protection away. They're going to kill us with rubber bullets in the head now. And I thought, okay, well, two crazy people. And then I kept reading, and they're pretty much uniformly against police removing shields, which are basically weapons, the way they're being used. They're used in an offensive way, not a defensive way. Different worlds, what can I say? But it does seem like a good strategy. So I was chatting with my smartest Democrat friend. I mention him often because he's very smart, legitimately very smart and very well informed, but disagrees with me on everything Trump related, which makes it fascinating because when you're disagreeing with somebody stupid or uninformed, well, that's the whole story. There's nothing interesting about that. Right. The reason you're disagreeing is that you know some stuff and they don't know anything. So of course you disagree. But when you run into somebody who is actually smart and well informed and really paying attention, and they disagree and you pay attention, too, and you think you're pretty smart, well, there's something to learn here. So yesterday, I guess I mentioned something about the shy Trump supporters not showing up in the polls. And my smartest friend, who actually knows quite a bit about this field, said, that's not true, it's debunked. It was debunked in 2016. And when people looked into it, they found that there was no such thing as shy Trump supporters. In actuality, the. There were problems with the polling, but it didn't have to do with people lying to pollsters. And I thought to myself, that's weird because the news that I've read was exactly the opposite, that it was confirmed and that they found it. And I sent him an article that showed it was confirmed, it was in some major publication and he said, no, no, no. That was initially, initially they thought they existed. But when the deep dive was done, it was confirmed, it was debunked. No such thing as these shy Trump supporters. The very next morning I see an article that Joel Pollack was tweeting around from Bret Stephens in the New York Times in which he interviewed a shy Trump supporter, someone who wouldn't tell anybody she worked with that she was a Trump supporter and gave her reasons. And it's important for the story. It's not important in any other way, but because every time we tell a story about politics, you have to throw in their demographic information. Someday we won't have to do that. I think I agree with Martin Luther King. You know, someday we won't have to throw in somebody's gender and sexual preference and ethnicity just to tell a frickin story, right? I mean, nothing really bothers me as much as that in terms of, you know, the way we talk about things that you have to do that, but you have to do that. And so this was a story in the New York Times about a woman who was described as a 50 year old lesbian who wouldn't want her co workers and friends to know she was a Trump supporter. And when she was asked about some details of what she liked or didn't like, there was only one thing that she didn't like about Trump. She was an ex Bernie supporter and she liked Trump's economics and she liked a lot about him. But there was one thing, there was one thing she did have a problem with. It was the Fine People hoax, which she didn't know was a hoax. She only had one problem with Trump and it was the thing that never happened, the fine people hoax. Now, as Bret Stephens asks in the article, essentially, I wonder if there's anybody else like that. Is there anybody else out there who is just pretending to not be a Trump supporter, but really is? So I ran my highly unscientific Twitter poll to see if I could stir up some people. And here's the question I asked. I said, have you lied to pollsters about your Trump support? Now the way I worded it was I didn't say would you lie? Because that's sketchy, because people might say they'd lie, but maybe they're lying to me, and when they're actually asked, they might just automatically say the truth. So instead of saying, would you lie? I said, have you lied? Have you actually literally, physically. No kidding. Have you actually lied to a pollster about your Trump support? 18% of the people who answered said yes. Which in just the few minutes that the poll ran, the numbers are clicking up like crazy. But just in the first few minutes, I think maybe two minutes or so, that came to over 630 people who follow me on Twitter, who happened to see that tweet, who happened to answer it, which is a very shrinking group of people. 630 of them have actually lied to pollsters. Now, it's a Twitter poll, so can I be sure that these numbers are reliable in any way? No, no, it's an unscientific poll. But do you think the 630 people within two minutes or so would have lied to me, but would not lie to a pollster? Maybe. Right. I mean, possibly. Possibly. There were 630 people who said, I think I'm going to lie to this cartoonist. Why? What reason would you have to lie? On my Twitter poll, if it had been an hour later, I would say, oh, maybe trolls have spotted it and a bunch of Democrats are coming in to mess up the poll, or something like that. But it happened in two minutes. In two minutes, it just lit up with people who said they lied, literally already have lied to real pollsters. Do you think that's fake? It could be. Right? It could be. The whole point of it being unscientific is you just can't say for sure it's true. Could be 630 liars just sprang up just like that. Maybe. What do you think? I don't know. My belief is that however many of the 630 lied, there's still probably plenty left over to suggest there's a big number there. Now, let me ask you this. In 2016, if you were going to vote for Trump, had he not won, or even if he did win, did you think there was a big risk to the rest of your life? Maybe you thought a little bit, but probably not that much. I don't remember being terribly concerned that my reputation would be destroyed forever in 2016. But 2020, in 2020, you could actually get killed for being identified as a Trump supporter. Let me say that again. You could actually get killed, and at least one person has, as far as I can tell, for being a Trump supporter. If I were to, let's say, go to some business or personal thing in Berkeley, California, down the road. And I was just. I just happened to be there for my own personal reasons, and I happened to walk out the door and accidentally. I didn't know it was going to happen, but I came into the middle of a BLM protest. Suppose I were. Suppose somebody recognized me. Think about this. If I just walked down the door and didn't know there was a protest outside and just walked into the middle of it, somebody recognized me, would I be safe? No. No. I would actually be in mortal danger. My life would be in danger just by walking outdoors if somebody recognized me. Now, if I go where there's more normal people than in Berkeley, I don't feel afraid. But I can't believe that 2020 is going to be like 2016, because the level of literal, physical, economic danger and saying you support Trump is through the roof compared to 2016. All right, here's a little dognot barking situation for you. Watch CNN and msnbc. As long as they're talking about Trump's taxes and here's what you want to look for, look for somebody talking about his taxes on one of those two networks who actually knows taxes. I haven't seen it yet. Now, I would guess it's probably happened, I would think at least once they would have had somebody on who understands taxes, but I don't think so. Have you seen it yet? Have you seen anybody on either of those networks who could explain why the tax code is, why it is what it is, and why Trump's taxes are the way they are? I don't think so. And when I pointed that out on Twitter, someone helpfully pointed me to a CBS interview in which they did try to bring on a tax expert. How do you think that went when the tax expert was asked about all these sketchy looking Trump deductions and why he didn't pay taxes, did the tax expert, someone who actually understands taxes, say, my God, that's a travesty. How can he do that? Some law must have been violated, or at the very least, something ethical and unethical and immoral happened. Do you think that happened? Nope. The tax expert said, yeah, those are just standard deductions. It's just the way, basically this is the way you do it. This deduction was available, so he took it. One of the things I learned by watching that, and I've been waiting to hear about this, because I hadn't heard about it at all, is the point of the audit is that the. And he is being audited. Trump is is there was a $72 million tax rebate, I guess you'd call it. In other words, the government paid him $72 million that he had previously paid in taxes. They gave it back, and I didn't know what the situation was, but apparently it was this Obama. In the Obama era, they passed a law that said you could take into account losses for earlier prior years than before. So the only thing that happened is that Trump initially did not have any way to write off that 72 million. He'd already paid it. It was just gone. It was just money that was gone. But Obama changed the law specifically for companies like his, where they had a loss and they didn't get the benefit of it because it was too far away. So all Trump did, apparently his lawyer said, hey, there's a new law. It totally applies to us, so we're going to apply for this 72 million. Apparently, they filled out the paperwork. Apparently the government looked at it. Apparently the government said, yeah, that looks good, and they mailed them $72 million. So if you think that whatever happened there was some sketchy thing, I doubt it. I mean, I'm not even sure why it's being audited, because it sounds like it was pretty straightforward. But that's not the way you heard it from the New York Times, is it? Did you hear that in the first 24 hours or so? Did anybody explain to you that all Trump did, his accountants did, was they applied for a rebate that Obama made available? That's it. That's all that happened, that whole part of that story. Now, there may be more to it, which would be the subject of the audit, but it's not in evidence, as far as I know. All right, here are some other things that people who don't understand how finance and taxes work have been thinking. The first thing is, I think that a lot of people believe that when they hear that Trump owes $400 million or whatever the number is, I think that people who don't understand how money works, when they hear that Trump owes 400 million, they think that he's $400 million in the hole, meaning that if he paid back all that 400 million, he would have less than zero money left over. He would use up all of his money to pay off the 400 million. That's not the case. He's just a guy who has some debt, and apparently, according to him, it's not much debt compared to his assets. So, like anybody who's got, let's say, a good income, but they also have a home mortgage. The home mortgage doesn't mean that they owe more than they have. It means there's a little bit of debt in a larger picture. So that's the first thing that the money morons don't understand is that debt isn't necessarily a big deal. The other thing that I see them jabbering about today is there's some indication that Ivanka was paid a 26 million dollar consulting fee. Now, we don't know if this is true yet. Right. But this is the way it's being reported. And it's being reported like that's some kind of an illegitimate write off, that he's figured out how to save taxes by paying his own daughter a salary. Not a salary, but a consulting fee of 26 million. And that's pretty tricky, Right? You save some taxes there. Yeah. All the people in the news are pretty sure that looks a little sketchy because, you know, normal people can't do that. Right. Well, here's the part they're leaving out. The amount that Trump saved in taxes for his company by paying Ivanka is exactly identical to, to the amount that Ivanka paid in taxes because she made an extra $26 million. There's no difference. The government got exactly as much taxes as far as we know, unless there was something weird going on with her taxes that year. But as long as they're both in the top tax range, which they would be, the tax is just paid a different way, but it doesn't change it. So it's basically a mechanism for, let's say it's an estate planning mechanism. But how about this? Do you think Ivanka was worth $26 million in one year? I do, I do, yeah. If you look at what Ivanka adds to the whole operation, you know, both in the White House and then you look at presumably what she added to the whole operation when she was in private business. If you tell me that that wasn't worth $26 million, whatever it was, you know, I don't know the details, but I would say that's in the range. That doesn't even seem, that doesn't even seem high. But here's the cool part. If Trump could pay Ivanka 26 million, which I think we'd agree was completely optional, Right? Optional in the sense that if he was bleeding cash and couldn't pay his bills, would he have paid Ivanka 26 million? I don't think so. So it sounds to me like he had enough cash flow that paying off his debt wasn't going to be a big problem, because if you can't pay off your debt, I don't know that you would necessarily move $26 million to your kid as part of your estate planning. I think you'd keep it and pay your debts because it would be better to keep the big operation afloat than it would be to temporarily just hide some money there and hope that that worked out in the long run. So that's the next thing we learn, is that probably, at least before coronavirus, which hurt everybody, he probably had enough money to pay off his debt. Now, here's the other thing. The accusation against Trump is that if his debt is really big, that he's at risk of blackmail because he'll need those Russians or whoever to pay off his debt. To which I say, okay, the amount of money that would have to be paid off for Trump, let's say 400 million. Let's just pick a number for a conversation. Let's say that the Democrats are concerned that Russians will pay off $400 million for Trump and therefore he would do whatever they wanted to get them to pay that off. I don't think that's the case. But just say that you're a Democrat and you believe that. Here's the thing. Is there some other politician, Is there some non billionaire politician, a senator, a president? Is there somebody you can imagine who would not be influenced by $400 million? Because paying off somebody's debt is only one of many ways you can give somebody a lot of money if you were inclined to do that. It's fairly easy to do legally. You just make sure that there's some investment in something that their brother in law was investing in. You know, you just make sure that somebody in their circle got a lot of money and it's sort of untraceable. So if Russia wanted to put a shitload of money into bribing an American politician, they don't need to depend on them having debt. That's sort of an irrelevant detail. If you said to Bill Clinton, hey, Bill Clinton, I think I can arrange to give you $400 million. And let's say Bill Clinton was clever and he said, whoa, don't give, don't write me a check. That would be obvious. But you know what you could do? You could donate to the Clinton Foundation. They give me a pretty big salary and they pay for my jets and stuff. So that would be legal. Ish. So why don't you do that? My point is, if you're talking about gigantic amounts of money, which is the Only thing you're talking about, if you're talking about paying off Trump bank loans, it has to be a big amount of money. That same big amount of money would be just as influential for anybody. They don't have to be in financial trouble. Nobody says no to $400 million if they can obtain it legally. So the risk of blackmail is just sort of the same everywhere. If you're talking about millions of dollars, everybody has the risk. I would argue that Trump probably has less risk of being bribed, because I just don't think he would need the trouble. There's not enough upside. All right, the. Oh, and it turns out that the 72 million that Trump could apply to for, based on his past losses, was because of the casino abandonment. So when he got out of the casino business, that was the loss. So we know exactly what the loss was. We know it was a real loss. We know that the casino thing didn't work out. That was real. And we know he applied for it with an Obama regulation. It all looks pretty good to me. I mean, I don't know Ann Coulter, who I consider one of the smartest people who comment on stuff, also an attorney, right? Very, very smart. But I don't know how much she knows about finance and tax law, which would put her in good company with 99.9% of the public. But she tweeted today that as an example of how the law allows real estate billionaires to get away with murder, how about fixing the utterly corrupt tax code? So, in other words, even Ann Coulter is agreeing that Trump and other billionaires are getting away with something because they're not paying taxes like little people. And she noted that she paid 50% a year, as do I. And here's the thing. I'm not sure she quite understands. What exactly would you change? How would you change that to make it better? Would you, for example, say that if you're a billionaire, you can't write off expenses, or you can't write off all of your expenses? What would be the justification for saying that billionaires uniquely can't write off expenses? And what would happen if you did? Suppose you said, all right, here's the law. Everybody else, small business, you can write off your expenses, but if you're a billionaire, you can't or you can't write them off all. What would that do? It would probably change their behavior. There would be certain expenses because they can't write them off, that they wouldn't incur, they would avoid. And the reason that the tax law exists the way it does is to encourage business and encourage the greater good. Even though there's some minor inequities that happen because of it, it's for the greater good. So how exactly would you change it? Would you change the capital gains laws? Because if you do, that disrupts a lot. There's a lot that depends on that. So you could collapse the real estate business by changing a law like that. You could just collapse the entire business. Is that what you want? How about somebody says a fair tax? There's no such thing as a fair tax. That's not a thing. You can't design a tax system that's fair. If you think that that can be done, you need to look into it. There are only tax systems that can burden some group more than others. That's it. But you can't do something fair. That's not one of the possibilities. Because in the end, people always think that whatever their taxes is, are unfair. It's subjective. That's why you can't get there. So if anybody can come up with some specific thing that could be changed that wouldn't collapse the economy or destroy an industry that's vital to the United States or something like that, I'm all ears. But I think there's some kind of. The people who don't know tax laws, I think they imagine there's some obvious fix here. It's like, well, it's obvious. It's sort of obvious this is all wrong. But if you tweak this, things will be fair and the economy will be great. Doesn't really work that way. Doesn't work that way at all. Yeah, the flat tax is a talking point, but it's not. There's a reason that it's never gotten anywhere. It's because as soon as you start digging into the details, it all falls apart. You know, I mean, if it could work, that'd be great, but I think that ship has sailed. There's also the accusation that Trump wrote off his haircuts and on Twitter, that is being seen as an obvious unethical thing. That's no fair, and it shouldn't be allowed to. Which I say, well, there's somebody who doesn't understand how taxes work, because is anybody suggesting that the $70,000 he wrote off for haircuts, is anybody suggesting that the IRS has disallowed that? They haven't disallowed it. If it's not disallowed, it's allowed. If your accountant is not putting in deductions that get accepted, you need to get A better accountant. But this is an example of a deduction that was accepted. Now, why would his haircuts be allowed and yours would not? Why is it that you can't write off your haircut? Well, let me give you a possibility. Is it possible that there was a contract employee who was part of the cast of, I guess, the Apprentice because the haircuts were related to his work on the Apprentice? And did that person get paid an actual fee for being on call to play with his hair and to cut it and probably also to make sure it's in good shape for the camera? That's an employee. That's an employee who probably he paid, as opposed to the production company paying. If you pay an employee, it doesn't matter what they do. It doesn't matter that they cut your hair or if you pay a contract person. So it probably was a perfectly reasonable deduction in the context of being on a TV show and in the specific context that Trump's hair is part of his brand. You can't compare that to anything else. All right. And there's lots of questions about family members acting as project managers and acting as consultants. And Krista Eliza is writing about this as if there's something wrong with it. Almost certainly not. You can hire your family members. There's nothing wrong with that. You can overpay your family members. You're allowed. You can overpay your family members. And in this case, because so much money is involved, it just transfers who pays the taxes. So, you know, if. If Eric Trump is paying more taxes and Donald Trump is paying less, it's the same amount. It's just moved to a different pocket, in case you didn't know. Over at Locals, for those who don't know, there's a subscription service that I'm part of. Also an investor, by the way, full disclosure, I have a small investment in it, and that's where I do some of my. Well, all of the stuff that I don't put on Twitter that's worth seeing. So the provocative stuff, and I'm putting a lot of micro lessons there on success and persuasion, etcetera, Things you don't see on Twitter. But Greg Gotheld has joined Locals. So if you want to see the stuff that you're now seeing elsewhere from greg, go to locals.com and look for Greg Gutfeld and you'll be glad you did. So look for that. So the big debate is tonight, of course, I'll be tweeting. And I was watching a Brit Hume interview and I hadn't Seen Brit Hume use these words before. He was talking about Biden and he described Biden as, quote, plainly senile. Plainly senile. Do you remember it wasn't long ago we were saying things like, well, he may have lost the step. Or were we saying things like, well, you know, he doesn't have the same mental acuity, but day before the debate or day of Brit Hume says he's plainly senile. Now, the reason this is important is that if you don't follow Fox News, if you were to rank the opinion people to the news people in terms of credibility, the more opinion they are, you would say they have less credibility in terms of the factual part. And the more news oriented they are, the more credible they are. So on the most credible end, you'd have Bret Hume, Bret Baier, Bret Hume. These guys are considered even by independent people as fair and pretty much down the middle kinds of players. And even he's willing to go on national TV and say plainly senile. It's that plainly word that got me. Because plainly says you don't have to talk about it. We're beyond the point where this is a conversation of whether or not it happened. We're completely at a point where it's plain. You know, I see it, you see it. We all see he's senile. And I can't believe he used that word. Just put it out there. So Trump's strategy tonight, I don't know if he has a strategy per se, but I would guess that he's going to try to get Biden worked up, don't you think? It seems to me that that the most obvious thing that Trump would do is try to figure out how to get under his skin and make him mad. Now, Biden knows that because everybody will be telling him. He's going to try to make you mad. Don't get mad. Don't get mad. So I think you're going to see the Biden over smile. Do you know what I mean by the Biden over smile? It's where he has to listen to Trump say bad things about him and bad things about Hunter. But he wants to act like he's not fazed by it, so he does the over smile. Let me do the over smile for you. It looks like this. If you're listening to this on the podcast, it's not very interesting. He squints his eyes really high and he just does this really fake looking smile that doesn't match the eyes. That's how you know it's fake. So look for the Biden fake smile. And of course Trump is going to go after Hunter, right? Because that's the most obvious thing that would get Biden worked up. So if Trump is playing it right, he should probably not introduce any new ideas that would be headlines of themselves. Because I think he wants to not make news except for whatever news Biden generates by being, you know, by being tweaked by him. I would love to see Trump make a full throated play for the black vote, which he might. Wouldn't you like to see Trump just say, look what have you done for the black population of this country? Now look what I've done and already plan to do. Look at my portfolio of what I'm doing for black America, compare it to everything you've done and give me a frickin break. These are not even close. We're not even in the same zip code of what I've done compared to what you did in 47 years, which amounted to what? Putting black people in jail? That's what you did. So I think Trump could tell a story that would just kneecap the black vote quite, quite factually. He wouldn't have to add any hyperbole at all. You could just lay it out there because at this point it's just factual. And I don't know what Biden does with that except go for the fine people hoax. And here's the thing I know is not going to happen, but I would love for Trump to debunk the fine people hoax explicitly. Now if Joe Biden brings it up, which there's a very high likelihood he will, what will Trump do if the fine people hoax is brought up? How do you deal with it? Here's how I do it. Given that they have a time constraint and so Trump would not have time to go through the whole, well, it's a fake news, they edited this part out, etc. If you wanted to get to like the most clean, quotable part, I would say here's what I said that day. I said that the white nationalists and the neo Nazis should be condemned totally. That's my exact quote. If you look at the tapes that you think I said fine people, you'll see that they cut that out to make it look like I was talking about a different group. So it's fake news. I said this sentence exactly without prompting that they should be condemned totally. Isn't that right, Chris Wallace? Now, Chris Wallace, he's not going to do fact checking, but maybe he could help out with the question, if you know what I mean. All right, so there's a. It looks like the grand jury stuff is going to be released on the Breonna Taylor situation. So we're going to get to hear the public is the exact deliberations in the grand jury. I don't know how often that happens, but I think that's a good idea. Transparency will probably help. The Ilhan Omar situation with the ballot harvesting is getting interesting, but I'm worried that it's going to go into the news black hole. What would be a bigger story than undercover film of Ilhan Omar's campaign? People seem to be paid by the campaign, allegedly collecting all these mail in ballots and doing sketchy things with them. What would possibly be a bigger story than that? And it's sort of disappearing, isn't it? I think the CNN is largely just ignoring it. MSNBC largely ignoring it. They may have done a mention of it and then just moved on. So the ability of the news industry to make something go away is the scariest thing that you'll ever see. It's one thing that they tell a story that's not true. I mean, that's annoying and vexing and it shouldn't happen, but you sort of are used to that. But making a story go away, that is actually a true story, just making it go away, that's dangerous. That's really dangerous. I saw a suggestion that one way to promote Trump is to change all your hotspots to Trump 2020. So that anybody who's looking for a hotspot, they're going to run into Trump 2020. So they're going to see a lot more Trump supporters, but they'd be a little bit underground because all you'd see is the hotspot. You wouldn't necessarily know where it came from. I thought that was pretty funny. So if you know how to change your hotspot, change it to Trump 2020. I'm not sure if that would conflict with other people or not. Is there any reason why, by next election, is there any reason that we won't solve this voting problem? Because I get that the coronavirus caught us off guard. So we're not ready to do the mail in ballots as well as we would like to be prepared. But by next election, and maybe even by midterm, doesn't it seem to you that we should have this completely solved? And the way to completely solve it, and I can only think of one, is with facial recognition. There has to be a way, both for home you mail in votes, but also for in person. There has to Be a way to use facial recognition to guarantee you're getting the right person voting. Now, the company Clearview is, I think, the leader in that area right now, and they seem to be. They do, I think, the best job of dark faces. Sometimes you get the false identifications with some of the lesser technologies. I think Clearview is the leader in that, in terms of getting actually accurate facial recognition. So in two years, there's just no excuse for not having facial recognition as at least an option or at least something you're testing. All right, do you believe that the polls are with Biden winning by a lot? Does that sound right to you? Because it seems that the average of the polls have Biden up by, I don't know, 6 nationally, 9% in Pennsylvania, something like that. Does that sound right to you? That doesn't even sound close to right to me. But we'll see. We shall see. All right. That's all I got for now. So I'm going to be watching the debates with Christina tonight. I will be tweeting as I see things develop. You know, there are predictions that this will be the most watched presidential debate of all time. And when I heard that, I thought to myself, yeah, you know, I think that's true. I think this will be the most watched presidential debate. But you know what else it could be? I'm not going to say that this is a prediction, but it is not impossible it will be the most watched televised event of all time. I'm not going to predict that that's the case, but it's possible because of the specific dynamic of it being Trump, it being 2020. The stakes seem so high, and the fact that the real fun here is watching Biden try to keep it together and watching Trump, the world's greatest trash talker, try to set this guy off his game, national tv. Now, if you can tell me there's anything you've looked forward to watching more than that. I'm not sure I believe you. If you told me every sport, you know, literally there's no sporting event I would want to watch more than this. There is also no comedy I would be willing to watch more than this. There is no First Run movie that I would want to watch more than this. This is literally the most anticipated thing on television that I could even remember. I mean, I don't remember anything that I've anticipated this much. I mean, I've enjoyed watching a Super bowl now and then, but, you know, those were just sort of routine. I wasn't really, you know, I wasn't really loving it. I just sort of did it because it was a party time. This might be just maybe the biggest televised event of all time because there's nothing to compete with it, right? TV is awful. What else are you going to do? Why wouldn't you watch this? All right, that's all I got for now. And I will talk to you maybe tonight.