All Episodes
Previous Next
June 16, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
46:08
Episode 77 - North Korea Walk-Away and SPYGATE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everybody!
Guess what time it is?
I think you know.
I think you feel it.
I think it's time for the simultaneous sip.
Ready? Ready?
Grab your cup. Run across the kitchen.
Grab that cup. Come back.
You're ready.
And now, the simultaneous sip.
Well, I'm guessing you've probably seen the headlines.
Turns out that President Trump has cancelled, cancelled, I say, the summit with North Korea.
Why did he cancel that summit with North Korea?
Exactly like I told you he would?
Oh no, did I say that?
Yes, I did. Probably a month ago.
You should expect at least one walk away, and depending how you count it, this is either the one big one or the third one, depending what you count as a walk away versus a threat to walk away.
Now, why did we walk away from a summit to talk about nuclear denuclearization?
We walked away because an underling in North Korea insulted the vice president, calling him a big dope, basically.
Now, is that a good enough reason to cancel a summit?
Yes. Absolutely.
Not only is that a good reason to cancel the summit, it's a really good reason.
It's a really good reason to cancel the summit.
Now you say to yourself, Wade, we should be able to take a few insults.
Denuclearization is much more important.
But I'll tell you what the insult to the vice president signaled.
Is signaled that they were in it for reasons other than denuclearization.
Is signaled that they were going to yank the football again.
And by the way, let me give you some background.
Should North Korea have played it straight to get to the end and denuclearize like they originally said?
Was that their best play?
Or was their best play to lead us along and then...
Once again, like they always have in the past.
Well, it's obvious. Their first play should be to try to lead us on and then grab the football like all the other times.
That should definitely be their first play.
Now, if that doesn't work out, they always have the backup options.
But the first thing North Korea should do is see if they can screw us right in front of the world, see if they can disrespect us right in front of the world, and get away with it.
Who wouldn't try for the big ask first?
So they go for the big ask.
Now, do they think that they would get everything and we would just back down and be suckers?
They don't know. They don't know until they try.
So doing what they were doing and probably were planning to do, which is not reach a deal when we got to the summit, it looks like that's what their plan A was.
But people don't go into this sort of thing without a plan B and a plan C. You know, you need to know, okay, we'll try this.
But if this doesn't work, you know, we got this lined up.
And if that doesn't work, there's always this.
So the first thing that North Korea should and did try was to get everything for nothing, basically.
You know, to give up a bunch of nothing.
There's a mountain that was falling apart anyway.
You know, there were some captives that they shouldn't have had in the first place.
So they didn't really give anything up.
And... So we're right exactly where we should be for everything to work out well in the end.
In other words, there had to be the step.
There had to be the step.
The weak negotiator, which is North Korea, they have the weak hand.
They've got to try a bluff.
That's the first thing you try.
And you try to get what you can for nothing.
That's your first offer. So, that's probably what we're seeing.
Now, you also saw that maybe China's not playing as nicely as they could.
They should say goodbye to their big bank.
I guess there are four big banks in China.
If you were an owner, I don't know how they work in terms of stockholders, owners.
I don't know the deal with their banks.
But if you owned a bank, I would be pretty worried right now.
Because odds are, odds are, One of them is going down.
Because that is the logical next step.
So we probably have to take out a Chinese bank.
Before that, we'll take out the bankers.
So we'll target individual bankers before we take down an entire institution.
But that's probably happening now, and those individuals probably have ways to not suffer too much.
Maybe they can't travel.
Maybe one of their banks, some of their money gets frozen or something.
But they're probably billionaires.
Probably doesn't matter. But taking down the bank will certainly matter.
So it looks like that's next.
So I would look for a Chinese bank to go offline and for it to be the biggest story in the world.
Once that first bank falls, we might not get the result we want.
But you got three more banks, so we're going to get the result we want one way or the other.
Now what's interesting about the reason for canceling the summit is that I'm not sure we needed a specific reason because the negotiators would know by now whether Kim was really going to denuclearize.
So it's obvious that he had not made that actual offer.
He pulled it back.
Maybe he was vague, whatever he was doing.
But we're not canceling because of the words.
So if you think That the reason we're canceling is because somebody in North Korea insulted our vice president.
If you think that's why we're canceling, you're missing the story.
Nobody cancels a denuclearization summit over some insults, especially if you happen to be the greatest insulter of all time.
I mean, President Trump is not going to risk World War III over an insult.
Nobody understands the function of insults better than he does.
But canceling the summit because you're not getting the type of respectful, general approach makes sense.
Targeting the letter, that just gives them a specific reason, which is convenient.
Yeah, so let me clarify.
I did say that's a great reason because it's just a great trigger and it's a symbol of the larger disrespect we're getting.
But if it were the only thing happening, if the negotiations were going great and the only thing that happened was somebody got insulted, there's no way we would cancel.
So it's really a symptom of the rest of the negotiation not going ahead according to an honorable way.
And we would know that by now.
So President Trump probably also, and here's another important point, he probably also wanted to be the first to officially walk away.
If North Korea had been the first to officially walk away, it would have felt like they had, or at least they thought they had the stronger hand.
The walk away person is the person who gets the advantage.
So President Trump played this somewhat perfectly.
Because it was, well, you know, I might not go.
Well, we might not go either.
Well, I might not go, but I might not go.
And then bam, canceled.
So, timed it perfectly.
Waited until they really did know if something good was going to happen.
Certainly by now they know whether North Korea was serious or not.
And obviously they've decided that they weren't.
Which is exactly where North Korea should be at this stage.
They should not be serious.
They should try once to get everything for nothing.
They tried. It didn't work.
It's going to cost China a bank.
At least one bank.
Now, it's possible that China will get North Korea in line before they lose a bank.
I doubt it.
I think we have to go full bank at this point.
Now, I'm not the national economist, so I can't tell you how big a deal that is, but it seems to me it's a pretty big deal.
So I think we're going to crash a bank next.
That should get everybody's attention.
Somebody says, why will a bank be destroyed?
So the thinking here is that China could make North Korea do anything they want.
I don't know how true that is exactly, but we'll go with that.
And then if China is not forcing North Korea to negotiate on good terms, then maybe China's not a fair player.
And the only way to get China to be a fair player is pressure.
And we've tried other kinds of pressures.
So a bank is one of those things we can get to fairly quickly because if you shut down the international trade for a bank, they're kind of out of business pretty quickly.
So you can take down a bank very quickly.
And it's a pretty direct thing because those banks have been doing business with North Korea.
So it's not random that we would target a bank.
I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
These banks would be violating the sanctions so they're totally targets.
Now, I would expect we're not going to be in any hurry.
I think we're probably going to squeeze the North Korean economy another month, maybe another two months.
See, the thing that North Korea didn't want to happen is that President Trump would be desperate for an agreement to get his Nobel Prize and for the midterm elections in the United States to go well.
President Trump just said, we're going to have those midterm elections before this is done.
Now, who knows if that will happen?
It's too early to say that the midterms will happen before something good happens with North Korea or vice versa.
It's too early to say.
But President Trump basically just said, keep your Nobel Prize, screw the midterm elections, Deal with your starving economy.
Come back to us when you're ready.
So that's sort of where we are.
So if you're worried, let's see how worried the world is about this.
I will check The stock market.
Let's see where we are.
Alright, so the index fund for stocks in the US is down 0.79%, so less than 1% fluctuation for canceling the North Korean summit.
That's not too scary.
In other words, we're not that worried, or the markets are not that worried.
Yeah, 250s, not a big deal.
So there should be some dislocation in the market.
Alright, so what if Kim launches another rocket?
He might. Wouldn't you be surprised if he didn't?
So Kim has to do something.
So he has to do something to rattle us back.
But I imagine that, you know, the thing is, as observers, we don't know how close their economy is to a full crash, but it's probably pretty close.
Now, let me draw a scenario for you.
Have you seen the demonstrations where I think China's done this and I think Israel's done this as well?
They've coordinated swarms of little hobby drones with lights on them to do fireworks looking shows.
Where all the coordinated drones are in the sky at the same time, hundreds of them, and they're all programmed to do shapes and make scenes and stuff.
Pretty amazing. Now take that technology And imagine that North Korea has something like 19,000 artillery sites.
Is that the right number? Somebody fact check me on that.
They have some god-awful number of artillery sites.
Artillery aimed at South Korea.
And the big fear is that if they turn on that artillery, even without nuclear weapons, they can do a lot of damage to South Korea before our military could take care of them.
Now, given that we've known that for a long time and that we understand the nature of the artillery and that the artillery can kind of hide in a cave or it's got camouflage until it's ready to go, It seems to me that we probably have readied by this time some kind of a air blanket of drones.
In other words, we're probably going to have drones.
If we were to attack North Korea, this is how I imagine it would look.
And I'm not a military guy, so I'm just going to spitball here.
I would imagine that we would put a sky over North Korea.
We would have so many drones in the air right away that there would be something over every artillery.
And as soon as it showed itself, each drone would become kind of a suicide drone and take it out.
So could we take out 19,000 artillery sites, all in different places, all of them kind of hidden?
Maybe. Maybe.
I don't know, because we don't know what secret weapons we have, right?
But maybe. The other thing we could do is, whatever communications those artillery sites have with headquarters, we probably know how that works by now.
And if they don't get an order to fire, They didn't get an order.
Now obviously they've hardened their communications and they've got backups and everything else.
But does that backup go to all 19,000 individual commanders who don't know what the heck's going on if a war breaks out?
So my assumption is that our military has a pretty good idea Where at least a lot of those artillery pieces are and exactly what we would do to get rid of them should they show themselves.
So my guess is that the risk of that artillery taking out South Korea is definitely a risk, and it's a big one, but not nearly as big as North Korea would like it to be.
Yeah, I think we could probably shut down their communications so that they don't notify her.
I think we could see them the moment they do.
And I think it would be a matter of probably 60 seconds before each one is taken out.
Something along those lines.
Hardened artillery sites.
So would a hardened artillery site be hardened from everything?
Anyway, we can only speculate what our military can or cannot do with the artillery, but that's going to be part of we can only speculate what our military can or cannot do with the artillery, but that's going to be part of the questions Um...
*laughs* Alright, let's talk about Spygate for a moment.
I saw a couple of funny things.
One was there's a report that Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, when she was talking to Trump off camera, whenever they were talking for 60 Minutes, Trump had said, allegedly, that he goes after the news Calling them fake news and criticizing the news.
Because then if anything bad comes out about him, he will have discredited the source in advance.
And the reaction from people was, oh my god, that's horrible.
He's discrediting the news in advance in case something bad comes out about him.
And I thought to myself, aren't you just describing somebody who's effective?
Because that's really a good thing to do.
That totally works.
You know, what Leslie Stahl did not say is that won't work because it does work.
The whole idea of fake news is a Trump branding thing and it absolutely makes people not believe anything bad about him.
It completely works.
Somebody's mentioning that Elon Musk has been tweeting lately about the fake news.
So it turns out that Elon Musk, who is no fan of President Trump, as we know, because he once quit the economic council that he was on for Trump, That even Elon Musk has come out saying something that was, at least on this one small topic, supportive of Trump.
He tweeted, Elon Musk did, that it's no wonder that Trump won, basically, because people are coming after Musk for also talking about the fake news, etc.
So you can feel Elon Musk being a little bit more pro-Trump than people will be happy for him to be.
Somebody said, Candace Owens just tweeted something about my book.
I'll have to take a look at that.
And so here's the other related story.
So, it's absolutely good form for President Trump to diminish the credibility of his enemies.
Now, there was a time when I would have said, my God, you can't call the free press an enemy.
It's their job to be tough on power, right?
That's sort of the balance.
We got the free press, keeps the power in check.
You don't want to discredit one of the checks and balances.
Too late. They discredited themselves.
All Trump is doing is giving them the label that they earned.
He didn't give them a label they didn't earn.
That's stuff they earned.
So if he gives them a label that helps him, it's hard for me to complain that we have a president who knows how to do stuff.
Let me say that again. Yes, the president's calling the fake news fake news is a strategy to discredit them if they say bad things about him later.
But it's a good strategy.
It's one that works.
It's effective.
The press earned their lack of credibility.
He didn't give that to them.
They earned that all on their own.
So am I going to be angry at President Trump for being good at the thing that he's doing, which is making his brand stronger, diminishing the brand of his enemies?
That's sort of why we like him.
Right? That's the stuff we want him to do to other people for us.
That's what he promised. Look at the stuff I can do.
Look at what I did to this guy, this guy, this guy.
I'm going to do that to your enemies.
Do you want me on your team or on the other team?
Get on my team.
You're effective. All right.
Let's talk about spy gates.
So there's also a report that President Trump wanted to get the word spy out there because it sounds more nefarious, I think was the word.
And I thought to myself, duh.
Of course he does.
And by the way, of all the gates, you know, the water gate, the this gate, the travel gate, everything, has there ever been a better gate than Then, Spygate.
Just from a branding perspective, just how the words sound and feel, just how spy and gate go together, come on, how many gates have we seen?
This gate, that gate, this gate, this gate, this gate, and they're all, weren't they all just weak imitations of Watergate?
And Watergate wasn't Great.
Watergate was just the name of the hotel, right?
It wasn't a great brand or anything.
Oh, Gamergate, right.
And all of those other gates were just sort of weak sauce, right?
And then, Spygate.
There's no competition.
From a branding perspective, Spygate.
It's just the best. It's the best of all the gates.
You can say anything else you want to say about it, whether he should do it or anything else.
That's a separate conversation.
But given that he was trying to brand this thing and trying to put the word spy on it, the way he put low energy on Jeb, oh my God, did this work!
It's one of his best branding exercises, bar none.
He had bridge gates, so many gates.
So what's funny about this is that the news, the enemy press especially, was trying to say, it's not a spy.
Oh, it's crazy that you call it a spy.
It was a human informant.
It was an informant.
So while President Trump's enemies were bringing person after person on to say, with explanations, wordy conceptual explanations, well, let me tell you, the definition of a spy, no, this isn't a spy, no.
This is simply a human informant hired by an intelligence agency to do secret operative work and inform back to us.
Not a spy!
And so they were actually sort of getting away with it a little bit.
Like that attempt to call it not a spy was actually working.
So what does the president do?
Spygate. Spygate.
Now, if you watch, and this has been my hobby lately, is watching the news try to cover the story without using the word spy.
They can't do it anymore.
He took that away from them.
It used to be that they could have told the story without using the word.
They could say, well, there was a human informant and the Trump supporters are calling it...
Hold on.
Yes, there was a human informant, but the Trump supporters are calling a spy!
A spy!
Oh, God!
They don't believe anything. Suckers!
Suckers! So gullible.
It's like Sean Hannity tells them something and they believe anything.
Now, Spygate.
And you watch them, they can't not say spy now.
But they say it this way, which President Trump calls Spygate, which other people say is actually a human informant.
But what do you hear?
Once you've heard spy, and you've heard it from the President, and he put it in a clever little name, the best of all the gates, It's a frickin' spy now.
It wasn't a spy until he branded it.
But now, it's a spy.
So, I know I get excited about all the wrong stuff.
But this little piece of branding is so good.
I think historians are going to talk about this one, you know, with low energy jab and crooked Hillary.
This is now in the pantheon.
This is in the, my God, we've never had a president who could do this before.
We'll never have one again.
Maybe we will, but I doubt it.
This is the sort of thing that just seals him as the best at this.
Whether he's the best president, to be determined, but the best at this, for sure.
You probably all saw the, he gave a little press conference thing where he talked to the press, not a press conference, on his way to the helicopter.
And he says, you know, he goes, the president goes, I call it Spygate, you call it Spygate.
And that was the part that, every time they show that clip, I laugh out loud.
You know, I call it Spygate, you call it Spygate.
Because even the you call a spygate part is just perfect.
I call a spygate, you call a spygate.
Everybody calls a spygate now.
It's spygate. Spygate!
Oh, there's a spy emoji.
Alright. Oh, let's also talk about the wall.
So there's some legislation that would allow individuals to donate to a special trust fund that would only be spent for the wall.
I think that's a great idea.
Not that I know how much it would take.
But I think it would be something like if 10 million people gave $100 a year You'd probably pay for enough of it, you know, given the rate at which you can build anyway.
You can't build the whole thing in a year.
I think 10 million people giving $100 a year, if somebody could do the math, it's probably something like that.
And it doesn't matter if the funding will get to, you know, 25% of the wall or what.
It will create progress on the wall.
If you have progress and funding, it's just going to look like the wall's getting done and the government couldn't make it happen.
I mean, we may be on the border of taxation not being what it used to be.
In the old days, the Congress had to decide what you were getting taxed for.
And we had this weird situation where people were saying, can you tax us more?
You know, at least half the country was.
Tax us more. We want to pay for that wall.
We can't do it directly. Just tax us some more.
Why can't you guys just tax us?
We want to pay for this thing. Now, obviously, that's not most of the country, but some part of the country is saying, I'll pay more taxes.
Just give me a wall. And so we may see this hybrid government situation where you just have a direct way to fund the things you want on top of the things you had to pay taxes for.
So we might see more of this for the unpopular stuff.
Here's another example. Funding for Planned Parenthood.
There you go. And somebody said it just as I was going to say it.
Planned Parenthood is really sort of a perfect case for this.
Because the people who pay the most...
Well, let me put this in economic terms.
If I said, give me $10 and I'm giving you nothing that you want, you'd say, oh, that's $10 I don't want to spend.
That's just a waste of $10.
But if I say, give me $10 and I'll do something that you really care deeply about.
That $10 is gonna buy you something you so want.
You want it deeply.
Then you say to yourself, it's only $10?
Why not? Yeah.
And for the people who want Planned Parenthood to be funded, it's really, really important.
And if you say to them, look, I know you care about this, and I know you want the whole government to pay for it, but I think even the people who are in favor of abortion, everybody understands that the people who are against abortion are not assholes.
Well, you can't say that about everybody in any group.
So there are always bad people in every group.
But people who think life is sacred and that it starts at birth, they're not jerks.
You could disagree with them.
On lots of good, perfectly reasonable levels, you can disagree.
But they're not jerks.
And so I think that they're entitled to not spend their own money on something that they believe is murder.
That's not my personal opinion, by the way.
My opinion on abortion is to leave it to women.
In other words, if women as a majority want abortion to be legal or not legal under whatever conditions, if that's the majority of what women want, I'm just going to say, Men, let's recuse ourselves and support it.
But when it comes down to who spends money for things, then I think everybody has to be involved.
And if some people want to spend money for this option, Let them.
Somebody says, that's a cop-out.
No, it is the opposite.
Because my opinion is very firm.
What makes a law credible?
Let me give you some background on why my opinion.
If I don't say this every time, things get taken out of context.
The reason my opinion on abortion...
is that men such as myself should recuse themselves from the argument and just back whatever is the majority of female opinion is that for issues that are literally life and death and abortion is life and death no matter where you say life begins at some point somebody is on the wrong side of that and so it's a life and death question but we have to have a result Abortion will either be
legal or not legal, and whichever it goes, a big part of the country is going to be hopping mad.
When you have that kind of situation, which is kind of rare, a lot of things don't matter that much.
There aren't that many issues that are actually life and death to that same extent, right?
Other things that can involve your health and maybe kill you later.
But this is a serious top-level life and death situation.
And in that unique situation, what's most important for society is that whichever way the law goes, ban it or allow it, You need it to be credible.
If the law is credible, then the people who didn't get what they want can go with the system and they say, oh, I hate that outcome with every fiber of my being.
But it was obtained in a credible fashion.
If you believe in the Constitution, you believe in the majority, in most cases, creating the laws, you can kind of buy into something that went the way you didn't want it to go.
You can hate it, you can protest against it, but you're not going to leave the system.
You're not going to cause a revolution.
Because the system got what the system should get, the majority rule.
So my deal is this.
If women collectively have an opinion, and that's what the law becomes, the majority female opinion, without men being directly involved in it, that's the most credible law.
So I will support the law that the majority of women want because that's what's best for the system.
So when somebody says, ah, you're copping out by not giving an opinion, It's the opposite.
I'm giving you an opinion about how to keep the entire system stable and credible.
And that's a bigger priority.
They don't have the same opinion.
I know women don't all have the same opinion.
How could you miss the point by so much?
How could you miss the point by so much?
I only care that the majority of women, that their voice gets heard.
Not every woman on the same side.
Somebody saying it is a stupid point.
You left out the reasons.
Surprise. So the people who say really dumb, shockingly dumb, those opinions, you'll notice that nobody would put a reason.
And you've got lots of characters.
So show me your reasons.
Or it doesn't have to be a full reason.
You could just hint at basically what your problem is with that opinion.
Go ahead. Why is it only a women's issue?
I didn't say that. Go ahead.
Give me your reasons.
Truly wish you would avoid this topic.
uh...
Women can't impregnate themselves.
That's not a reason. You're seeing this, right?
You're seeing that the reasons against it actually don't make sense.
It's not that I disagree or agree.
They're not even on topic.
Yeah, so you can see that the people who say that I'm really dumb can't give you a reason why that makes sense or is even on topic.
Somebody says, unborn have rights?
No, nobody said that.
18th Amendment has nothing, I don't know what that has to do with anything.
Because men have father rights had nothing to do with that.
That's not part of my calculation.
That's just a true thing.
It's half the father's child.
Correct. Has nothing to do with my point.
Right? So you have lots of statements that are true, but they're not about my point.
Because the father would have father rights in all situations.
Men should have a say in the life they created.
Where's your reason? I gave you a reason.
I said that the way that I would prefer things makes the system more credible.
That's a reason. But you didn't give me a reason.
You just said, fathers have rights too.
Or, let me do it this way.
Fathers have rights too.
I hate to dail you.
But fathers have rights too is not a reason.
Nor is it true.
People have rights when the law and the Constitution allow it.
I mean, we can decide who has what rights.
Somebody says reason, Jesus point.
Oh, so somebody's saying that Jesus is the reason for why the law should be one way or another.
I'll go with that as a let's say if your reason is a religious interpretation then I will respect that.
So I respect that some people have a religious interpretation but women have religion too so if women as a majority are on one side I will allow their religious interpretations to be the form of credibility for the Somebody said, what if women... Oh my God.
Natural rights are inalienable.
False. False.
We can make a law against anything we want.
It's not inalienable.
False. Yeah, Jesus never talked about abortion.
But forget about the religious argument, because women have that covered.
There's nothing that men are going to add to the religious argument that women don't say on themselves.
So women don't add anything.
Spark of life.
Yeah, I'm not seeing any reasons.
So, just check your thinking.
Compare whatever it is you're saying on this topic about why men should not recuse themselves from having an opinion on this and compare it to mine.
My reason is that if women as a majority agree with whatever the law becomes on abortion, that's the most credible outcome For the system, even if you disagree with the outcome.
So beat that reason, and you've got something.
But the no reason stuff doesn't make sense.
You don't believe in natural rights.
Sometimes there are some things which are so painful, it's almost hard to talk about.
So there's this idea that people have something called natural rights.
That they're sort of born with rights.
That's true if you want to define it that way.
In other words, you have a right to do anything until the law tries to restrict you.
But we live in a world in which we always use the law to restrict people in a whole number of ways.
And that's our permanent situation.
It's not going to change.
So pretending that we could somehow just have the Constitution or the laws or the rest of society not bother us while we express our rights is just not a real world thing to say.
But women aren't the only ones involved in making babies.
Correct. Has nothing to do with my point.
Children have the... You recuse yourself, don't recuse me.
I'm not. I'm not recusing anybody else.
So if any of your objections have anything to do with what I'm saying, you might have a point.
But so far you're saying things that are true that just don't have anything to do with my point.
Here comes the leftist idiocy from Scott.
Left out the reason.
I'm open to reasons.
And by the way, if somebody sees me miss a reason going by, feel free to just amplify it.
Somebody says I'm ignoring comments that make valid points.
I may have missed some that make valid points, but I'm not intentionally ignoring anything.
Uh... Do fetuses that grow up to be women have a voice?
That has nothing to do with my point.
The law is supposed to protect the individual.
That has nothing to do with my point.
Murder is not okay, no matter what.
Nothing to do with my point.
Yeah, none of this has anything to do with my point.
This is incredibly weak.
We already talked about the Trump letter.
That was the first part of the Periscope.
All right. Maybe we should do a separate Periscope on this.
There's so many comments, I'm probably missing some.
Single father opinion should matter.
Not to the law.
You give no reason to believe your plan makes it most credible.
I can fill out that reason, but I'm going to wind it down for today.
The reason why credibility matters is, take this mental model.
Imagine that the laws on abortion were only created by men.
It's just a mental, a thought experiment.
Imagine that all the abortion laws, whether it's legal or illegal, were only made by men and women didn't get a vote.
Would that law be credible?
Well, it would not.
Because women would say, what the hell?
We're the ones actually having the babies and we don't even get a vote?
That would not be a credible law.
Even if, even if, The men got the right answer, in your opinion.
It's still not a credible law.
Society wouldn't hold.
It would be too disruptive.
There would be riots in the street.
If men and women both vote, which is the current situation, you get the current outcome, which is there's a law, but people don't feel it's credible, necessarily.
A lot of people want to change that law.
But now imagine, let's say 75% of women, this is not the case, but let's say 75% of women were on the same side of abortion, whatever side that is.
That would be a pretty credible law, because the women are the ones who accept the biggest risk, even if they don't have babies.
They're assumed to be fertile when they go into the workplace, and that might influence whether somebody hires them.
They've got more appreciation for the entire process.
So if women as a whole are strongly on one side or the other, You've got a pretty credible rule, the people with the most in.
Let me give you another example.
Capital punishment.
The death penalty.
Who gets killed in the death penalty?
Well, it's almost entirely men.
Men is who get killed by the death penalty.
Sometimes a woman gets the death penalty, but it's so rare you barely hear about it.
So if you said, well, let's reverse that around, Scott, do you agree that since the death penalty is almost entirely men, that the male opinion of whether these men should be killed or get life imprisonment should count more than women's opinion?
Well, this is a special case because women are the victims, right?
So, you know, there's nothing that's a perfect example.
But if somebody argued that men should decide whether men are killed or given life imprisonment, I would say I'd listen to that argument.
But that's a special case because the women are more often the victims.
Or often the victims.
Alright, that's all for now.
Sorry I went too far afield.
And I will...
▲
Export Selection