June 16, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
04:21
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Hey everybody! | |
| You're probably wondering about this Iran deal. | |
| So I thought I would tell you about it. | |
| Give you my immediate reaction. | |
| This will be a quick one. | |
| Just a quick reaction to the President's announcement. | |
| So, not too surprising. | |
| He said he would do it. | |
| He did it. But it's sort of the pull-out that's not really a pull-out because, obviously, he's willing to renegotiate. | |
| So, the parts that I liked about it in terms of persuasion... | |
| I'll let you look at my dog. | |
| In terms of persuasion, the parts I liked were... | |
| He drew a picture of Iran after the mullahs, or at least with better leadership, and Iran in which they're prosperous and respected by the world. | |
| So he's clearly doing his contrast persuasion, and we don't see it done this well by other people. | |
| Where he draws a picture of this great situation that they have in front of them if they make the right choices versus a crushed economy if they go the other way. | |
| So I love the contrast part of it. | |
| I'm still calling bullshit on sponsors of terrorism. | |
| Because I think they're bending the definition a little bit because it sounds like it includes standing militaries. | |
| So if they're helping a militia or Hezbollah or folks in Yemen, Those are kind of standing armies. | |
| Now you can call them terrorism, but we usually think of terrorism as the loner with the gun or the bomb. | |
| So it's a different kind of terrorism if that's what they're talking about. | |
| So I object to that characterization of it because I think it just adds some noise to the situation. | |
| So I think he laid out the case. | |
| The strongest part of the case goes like this. | |
| You can't let a country that chants death to America have nuclear weapons. | |
| You know, if he had only said that and nothing else, I would have been sold. | |
| I didn't really need to hear their supporting terrorism. | |
| You know, that's good, but I didn't need to hear it because I was already, you know, you had me at death to America plus nuclear weapons. | |
| There's no scenario in which that, you know, is a comfortable situation. | |
| So there might be some questions about what trouble are they up to, aside from having missiles that we don't like, which we're not really part of the deal, apparently. | |
| And having the capability to have nukes, which we don't like. | |
| So those two things are good things to make sure that we tighten up. | |
| But I'm not buying the supporting terrorism unless you give me examples. | |
| And those examples have to be not standing militaries. | |
| Now I understand that these standing militaries, at least in the case of Hezbollah, We're a direct threat to Israel, so we can't abide by that either. | |
| But if that's what we mean when we say supporting terrorism, I think we could just say supports Hezbollah. | |
| Hezbollah has done X things against Israel since the deal was signed. | |
| So I need some specifics. | |
| It does seem to me that the president is credible in this and he's probably smart to at least push on the deal and see if we can get something better. | |
| So that's all I have for now and I'm gonna go to the gym and do something else. |
Export Selection