ill move one vote. I really don't know that it'll make any difference because they really just wanted somebody who wasn't brain dead. You know we finally hit the limit of how low they would be willing to go. Well okay brain dead might be too far. I'm going to admit that not having a functioning brain okay that might be a standard we can agree on. But a simple bad debate I don't know might not change anybody's mind.

Here's a little factoid that pings my pattern recognition but maybe I shouldn't. So I'm going to tell you something that looks like a pattern and then I want you to tell me Scott that's confirmation bias. There are lots of coincidences in the world. Not everything's a pattern. It's not all a conspiracy theory Scott. So I saw this in a post by Eric Abbenante. Did you know that when Harris was running in 2010 for, what was she running for, attorney general or something, it took four weeks after the vote was over for her to win. That after election night on 2020 Kamala Harris was behind but after they kept counting votes and kept counting votes and kept counting votes for four weeks they finally found enough votes and she won narrowly. Did you know that? Yeah.

Did you know that LBJ in 1941, he LBJ in 1941 won on election day but his opponent found votes days later and won. Oh he found votes days later. But in 1948 LBJ lost on election day but later they found votes and it was enough for him to win. So there does seem to be a little bit of history.

How about Norm Coleman in 2008? He won on election day against Al Franken but there was still votes coming in and those votes came in and after months of counting them Al Franken won. And then of course it was Trump who won. You know if you looked at election day only it looked like he won but weeks later after they kept counting the votes, not weeks later but sooner they kept counting those votes and they found votes and next thing you know Biden won.

Now is that a fake pattern or is it screaming at us that as long as the election is close the Democrat can always find some votes? Does that have to do with mail-in votes? Are those a related topic? I don't know. Yeah is it true that this looks exactly the way it looks or is it leaving out things that would have changed the pattern? Is there something omitted like for example lots of examples where Republicans won after the vote was recounted? I don't know. But I do think that a close vote is going to be real dicey in terms of getting the public to believe that the vote is true if it's just close.

Did you know that in places like Oakland and others that if you commit a crime and that crime was outdoors and it was anywhere near a Tesla vehicle that the police can get that video from your Tesla if they use a legal process to get it and the cars just sit out there basically as permanent security cameras. You know if you do a crime around the Tesla it's going to be on video because the Tesla recorded it. Now I think my BMW X5 also has that service, has cameras all around. I don't think they're running all the time but it does give me pause for what I do in my man cave because my man cave is right next to my car and I've got a feeling that if somebody wanted to they could just turn on the camera and watch me sitting in my man cave through my car. You know if a hacker wanted to. Think about that.

Well I asked a question on X and then I noticed that it was in the explore tab today. I don't know if it's because I'm the one who asked it or it got popular but the question I asked was how can you be in favor of reparations at the same time you're trying to be unburdened by what has been? And if you need an argument against reparations you should say you know I have some advice for you and this comes from Kamala Harris who according to many sources is black and she says you should be unburdened by what has been and that slavery has been and you should be unburdened by that and let's not live in the past let's look forward.

So it sounds like I'm mocking but I'm actually agreeing with the idea of looking forward. And by the way let me give you a persuasion update. And I think that should be the end of reparations by the way. We should say Kamala Harris says and we agree we should not be burdened by the past. And although the claims of harm have validity we just don't care because lots of people could be randomly put into groups that you measured and found out they didn't do well. Have you seen the study of short people? You know the study showing that short people are discriminated against and always have been and they earn less? You probably haven't seen that study because nobody cares about it. How about the one where ugly people earn less? Have you seen that study? I haven't. You know why? Because somebody decided that that's not the group of people they were going to study.

The reparations is only even a question because we decided that was a group of people to study and then once you found their special problem you should fix it. I say you could find a special problem with all kinds of groups and I have no interest in fixing any of them because there's no such thing as an average problem. There are individuals who have very individual problems and if they need help I'm all in. You're an individual. I don't care where you're from or what else is going on. If you're an individual and you need help and I have some way to help you I'm all in. Of course, of course glad to help. But no I don't want to make the average of your artificially generated group to make any difference in my life. Why should the average of your group affect me? No I'm not interested in your average at all even though it's supportable by your argument.

So this is the part you have to separate. Is it true that there was some harm and is it true that there's a thing called systemic racism? Yes. But don't connect that to anything I have to do about it. That's not my problem. I wasn't there and I don't recognize your connection to me specifically. So no I have no interest in it. It doesn't make sense logically. Doesn't make sense in terms of anything really. It's just a theft. So to me it just looks like theft. So if you want to be a thief then push that lever.

So let me say this about persuasion. So I'll give you at least one useful thing today. Do you remember back in the Bill Clinton running against Bob Dole? I've told you this story before. Bob Dole said that he wanted to take the country back to those great qualities of the past. The greatest generation where people were polite and worked hard and helped people and did all those things. The greatest generation. And then Bill Clinton slaughtered him by reframing what Dole wanted to do as taking you to the past. And he said I'm going to be a bridge to the future. And you know this guy's trying to take you to the past. That is a killer winning persuasion.

What did Trump suggest? Make America great again. What did the Democrats cleverly do? They reframed again as taking you to the past. Nobody wants to go to the past. Even people who like the past don't like to go to the past. Everybody likes to move forward. That's just built in.

So what is Harris saying lately on the campaign trail? Because she has good advisors now who are doing great work in my opinion. The advisers are telling her to frame Trump as taking you backwards and they can give examples. Here's an example. You want to go backwards? There used to be no Roe versus Wade and then there was and then Trump took you backwards to where there isn't any. Backwards. Now you could say to yourself but you know we were just reversing something that shouldn't have been there. Yeah I get it. I understand the argument completely but it's easy to reframe that as taking you backwards. So as long as Trump is saying again they can frame him as looking backwards. And so she's saying specifically we're planning for the future. They're looking backwards. At the moment she has the winning frame.

Do you know what could defeat that frame? Well RFK Jr. does because he's good at this stuff and so is Nicole Shanahan. So what's good is make America healthy again. Do you know why make America healthy again works even though it's got again in it? Because again is that same problem right? Again means go back. But here's what's different. What do you think when I say make America healthy again? What pops into your head? Make America healthy again. Let me fill in the answer because it might not be in your conscious mind. When you say make America healthy again here's what I hear. I'm killing my own kids and I may have deeply hurt them through my own actions of just feeding them and giving them vaccinations in some cases. So if you think that you've harmed your own children and somebody says let's fix that you will walk over glass to fix what you did to your own kids. So that would be sort of this really glaring exception to looking backwards. If you could look backwards and see that you endangered your children but somebody's giving you a way to fix it. Right? We know you didn't know but you did in fact endanger your children. Here's the best you can do. We'll put in an administration that'll help you with the food and the big pharma and we'll try to fix that system so there's much more likely you'll make good decisions about what to do for health.

So I think the make America healthy again strikes me as the only thing that could beat the fact that they're framing him as looking backwards. That's what I think.

James Carville is talking about Harris's debate strategy and he's saying that the way for her to win is to let Trump be Trump. So the best way for Harris to win is if Trump did something to remove himself from consideration. Think about how weak that candidate is that the smartest person in their side is saying you know your only chance of winning is if you let him make a mistake. That's as weak as you could possibly be. Yeah you know what, you've heard comparisons to this like sometimes a golfer would be asked how are you going to beat Tiger Woods back in Tiger Woods's peak and sometimes they would jokingly say well you know I have a hope if he breaks his leg. That's what's happening here. Yeah as long as Trump's motorcade drives him off a cliff we've got a chance of winning. They don't even act like Kamala Harris has a chance of a better argument. He's basically saying make sure you leave those microphones on so that Trump can do things that we can mock him for later and then make him lose by being Trump. That's all they have. That's their best play is to let Trump decide who's president. Let me say that that way again. The best play in the Democrats per Carville is to let Trump be the only one who decides who the president will be. Because if Trump decides to just play it straight and just sort of be normal he'll be the president. But if he decides to be more Trump than Trump usually is and says something outrageous then he gets to not be president. But none of it has to do with anything that she's doing. The media will just sort of keep her under glass until Trump did something that they can jump on and turn it into the newest hoax.

Well let's see if you can detect another pattern in this story. There's a new video from Kamala Harris in which I think she looks drunk. I'm not positive on this one. The only reason I'm not positive is that Kamala Harris is the one who posted it. So Kamala Harris's official account posted a video of her interacting with a person at a retail food establishment and joking about sauce on his shirt or something. And when I watched it I thought to myself I hope that's not her normal personality 'cause she looks drunk. But it could be. I'm going to say that might have actually been her actual personality. You know the giggling too much and the witticisms that weren't witty at all. It might be her just natural personality but looked drunk to me anyway.

Here's another one if you find the p