All Episodes
Previous Next
July 5, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
46:02
Episode 129 - Putin, Animals Attack, Michael Cohen and Coffee
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody.
Come on in here, grab a beverage for the highlight of your day so far.
It might get better, but it's gonna start out pretty darn well.
It's already getting better.
You can feel it, can't you?
It's that good feeling of knowing that you're about to experience coffee with Scott Adams and, and what?
That's right, the simultaneous sip.
It's coming. Grab your mug, your vessel, your cup, your thing that holds beverage, and get ready to do the simultaneous sip.
Oh, yeah. So, as you saw in the news, there's yet more reporting that says that coffee is good for you.
It's good for you, I say.
You'll live longer, and that's even not counting the simultaneous sip, which modestly will add eight to nine years to your life, I think.
Those of you who simultaneous sip the most probably live the longest.
That's science. Speaking of science, have you seen all the stories in the news about animals attacking?
Is this a coincidence or a revolution?
In the last day I saw video of a shark grabbing a woman's hand and dragging her in the water.
She was trying to feed the shark.
There was a story of lions killing a guy somewhere in some preserve.
I guess the lions killed some poachers.
Now there's a story about a man killed by polar bear while protecting kids.
I keep thinking, is this a coincidence or some kind of a trend?
Is the revolution on?
The animals are just sick of us at this point.
Do you ever think the animals have a convention?
Year after year they have a convention and somebody says, we should rise up.
Let's have a revolution against the humans.
And the other animals go, eh, I like my kibble.
I got a good thing going on here.
Don't rock the boat. And then they started reading Twitter and the animals said, have you seen Twitter?
These guys gotta go.
So it looks like the revolution is on.
The animals are starting to attack.
If you have a pet in the house, keep an eye on that pet.
That's all I'm saying. Let's talk about Michael Cohen.
Michael Cohen recently said something provocative.
He said that his highest priorities were not the president, but rather his highest priorities were his family, you know, his wife and kids.
And I think that's what he said.
His highest priority were his wife and his kids.
And so people said, my God, he's throwing the president under the bus because he says that the president is not a higher priority than his own children and his wife.
Do you know who else says their wife and their children are the highest priority?
Take a guess.
Is there anybody else who might say in public, my highest priority is my family?
Every married man, as you were saying in the comments, a hundred percent of...
Yeah, somebody said Hiller, which was funny.
A hundred percent of married men...
We should say in public, my highest priority is my family, not the president, not my boss, not my friend.
Every person.
What did CNN report about Michael Cohen saying something that literally every person would say if they were married?
They said it could be a sign that he's turned on the president.
So by acting like every other living sentient being, proof there's something up.
And then apparently he removed from his Twitter account his reference to being the president's lawyer.
Now CNN reports it like, well, here's another hint that Michael Cohen might be ready to flip.
Do you know who else changes their Twitter profile to get rid of their old job once they no longer have it.
Anybody? Anybody?
How about every single person who changes their job?
How about all of them?
Every single one.
All right, so that's enough of Michael Cohen.
What we know about Michael Cohen is we don't know anything about Michael Cohen.
But if I were his lawyer or I were Michael Cohen, one of the things I would definitely do, are you with me on this?
As a strategy, one of the things I would definitely do is say publicly and also to whatever investigators, I am so not on the president's team.
I, you know, I'm just taking care of my family.
So, if I don't tell you something that you'd like to hear, what's that mean?
Well, if I said, no matter what, I'm going to protect the president, and then you asked me a question, and it was maybe an answer which protected the president, what would you say to yourself as an investigator?
You'd say, he might be hiding something, because he already said he's protecting the president first, so can't really trust anything he says about the president.
How do you deal with that possibility if you're Michael Cohen?
You say, the president is not my priority, my family is.
Because that makes it look like you're a flipper.
If you look like a flipper, and then they say to you, alright, so tell us all the good stuff you know about the president, and then he says, well, I'm not protecting the president, I'm protecting my family, but I don't have anything.
That sounds a lot more credible than the guy who says, I'm going to protect the president at all costs.
I will take a bullet for him.
I will go under the bus for him.
I will do anything for the president.
So, do you have any bad news about the president we should hear about, Michael Cohen?
No. No.
I don't have any. Nothing like that.
No credibility. So, of course, for the defense of his situation, he has to act like he is putting some distance between himself and the president.
Does it mean anything?
Well, it doesn't mean anything one way or the other.
He could be getting ready to flip.
He could be just defending himself in the normal way people do.
He could be just talking about his family in the normal way people do.
You have absolutely no information about what's in Michael Cohen's mind.
So I'm not telling you he does or does not have anything.
I'm not going to tell you he will or will not flip if that's even appropriate in this situation.
I'm just saying we don't know anything.
That's what we know. We know zero.
All right, let's talk about...
There was a news about Senate panel says Putin was trying to help Trump.
So a Senate panel, bipartisan, that's important.
So was Republicans and Democrats.
They said that the intel, which claimed that Putin was trying to help Trump, was solid work.
It was solid tradecraft.
Now, let me say a few things about it.
Number one, That doesn't mean it's true.
So something can be solid intelligence work.
They can do all the things they're supposed to do and still not have the right answer.
So that's a complete possibility, right?
Yeah, they've said various times that these 17 agencies all agree.
I have called BS on that because in the real world, 17 agencies agree really looks more like this.
Hey Bob, over there in that other agency, did you see this report we did?
Bob says, show it to me.
I'm looking at your report.
You look like a stand-up guy.
I've worked with you before.
I'd say your work is totally good.
Does Bob recreate from scratch the same work?
So that he can get an independent opinion, not influenced by the person who gave him the report and said, hey, Bob, take a look at this.
Just say you like this.
This looks good. We did everything right.
Trust us. We did everything right.
We always do. Just trust us.
Which one of those seems more likely?
17 agencies?
Yeah, now it's down to four, right?
So the latest reporting is that, well, when we said 17 agencies, it was more like four agencies.
And the other ones just sort of read our work and didn't disagree.
Now, when somebody says that four agencies came to the same conclusion, does that mean four agencies independently did their own work without influence from the other, and when they compared notes, same result?
No. No, that is not what happened.
What happened, almost certainly, is that groups did their own little work that probably did not overlap much at all.
They shared what they all knew, and they put it together, and they said, all right, you know, this is now a combined work from our various groups.
You like the part you put in.
I like the part I put in.
Let's just say it's all credible, because you're not really checking each other's work.
Not really. So, yeah, as soon as you say there are multiple agencies involved, there was a little handpicking of who's on the agencies, they all work with each other, they don't want to be the bad one who says...
Imagine if you were one of the other agencies, and you looked at the work of, say, the CIA or the FBI or whoever else you're looking at, and it looks good on paper, and that's all you know.
You weren't there. All you have is the paper.
And you read the report and you go, yeah, that's what a report looks like.
And these guys are credible.
Credible people handed me a report that looks like a report.
I'll say that's good.
So there's not much credibility there, but here's my favorite part.
Oh, there were also, there were different confidence levels between the National Security Agency, the CIA, and the FBI. Why would there be different confidence levels when they're all looking at the same stuff?
Now, apparently the difference in their confidence was discussed openly so that we can see the reasoning behind it and people are happy with that.
But that's different from being positive, right?
If the agencies were positive, what happened exactly?
Would there ever be a difference in confidence level?
Because being certain looks a lot like having the same confidence level.
If one is certain and one is probable, looks good, probable, that's not really as convincing as two people who are completely certain.
Alright, but looking for my favorite part here in the story.
So listen to what the committee relied on.
All right, so here are all the sources that the committee relied on to decide that the intelligence assessments were solid, good work.
The committee said that the intelligence community assessments relied on, number one, public Russian leadership commentary, things that prominent Russians said in public.
In public.
So, apparently...
Their secret plan to influence the elections are something they talk about in public.
Hey, did you see what we did with America?
Oh, man!
Any more questions?
Can you rely on that stuff?
I don't know.
If it were true, and somebody said it in public, and they did not die from poisoning within 24 hours, is it still true?
Well, it could be. It could be.
Alright, then they also relied on Russian state media reports.
I'm not making this up.
They relied on the Russian media.
The Russian media was one of their sources.
What exactly did the Russian media say about their own country that they were allowed to put in the news?
I feel like I need some details on this, don't you?
So, so far, two of the four sources that our intelligence community is referencing, I'm not making this up, two of the four sources they got from watching television.
Am I overstating that?
Here are the two sources.
The committee said that the intelligence community assessment relied on public Russian leadership commentary, Watching television.
And Russian state media reports that they got by watching television.
And then public examples where Russian interests aligned with U.S. candidate policy statements.
So there were examples where the Russians' interests and the things that Trump said were in alignment.
What exactly are the examples of that?
For example, if President Trump said, hey, we should be more friendly with Russia because we have common interests, would that be an example of him coincidentally aligning with Russian interests?
What are the other things in which the United States and Russia just have the same interests?
Maybe we both want ISIS to lose?
Maybe we both want a good result with North Korea?
Don't we have a lot of overlapping interests with Russia?
Wouldn't that be normal?
So which ones are they looking at to say, oh, very coincidental that in this case Trump, I assume they're referring to, has the same policy preferences in just some cases, not all, but in some cases as the Russians.
What are the odds of that?
A hundred percent? What are the odds that the next candidate for president, whoever that might be after Trump, also has some policy preferences that are the same as what Russia wants?
What are the odds of that?
A hundred percent?
A hundred percent, right?
So, so far we've got two of the sources are from watching television.
And one of the sources is that, by coincidence, there are some things the United States and Russia both want at the same time.
That's three out of the four sources.
So three out of the four sources are absolute, complete bullshit.
But the fourth source is good.
I don't want to make the fourth source sound like it's unimportant because the first three were completely ridiculous.
So the fourth one is good.
Here it is. It's a quote, and this is in quotes, a body of intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for Trump.
Do you know what other situations the Russian leadership would have a preference for one of the two candidates running for president?
Every time?
How about every single time?
There are two candidates who are different.
Should we expect that Russia doesn't have a preference?
What are the odds of that?
Of course they have a preference.
How could they not have a preference?
If somebody runs against Putin, do you think we'd have a preference?
Who won? Of course!
Of course! Now let me put a different frame on this.
Suppose Putin I thought that Hillary, because of his history with her when she was in the State Department, there's at least some reporting, I don't know if it's true, that she might have been behind or the State Department under her leadership was behind organizing some of the protests in Russia around the Russian elections.
That Hillary Clinton literally was involved with trying to overthrow Putin, and then she's running for president against a guy who was very unlikely to want to overthrow him because he wasn't the guy who was going to overthrow dictators.
That wasn't his deal.
He's not the dictator overthrow guy.
Would the Russians have a preference for the one who doesn't want to overthrow them versus the one who has already tried?
Should we expect Russia to have a preference?
How could they not?
How could they not have a preference?
Now here's where it gets interesting.
Although they would certainly have a preference for the one who hasn't tried to overthrow them, they couldn't have possibly believed that Trump was going to win because the U.S. reporting was so unified in saying he wouldn't.
So if Russia was betting on this long shot, 2% chance of winning Trump thing, it was a pretty long shot, and the things that they did with their little troll farm that was completely toothless and ridiculous, if that's the best they did to try to get somebody from a 2% chance of winning to winning, I don't think we have to be too worried about Russia if that was their best game.
Let's back the guy who's polling at 2% in the final months, 2% likelihood of winning the election.
Let's back him.
Because this seems good. Let's do it in a way that probably will be detected because, you know, it's the internet, right?
If it's on the internet, people are going to figure out who's behind everything.
That's how it works.
So we'll definitely be detected and we'll really piss off the likely winner who has already tried to overthrow me once.
So what's the worst thing we could do?
Guys? Guys?
Anybody? What's the worst thing we could do?
Well, Vladimir, the worst thing you could do is publicly bet on the one who has no chance of winning to further piss off Hillary Clinton, who has already tried to overthrow you and just needs one more good reason to push it over the goal line.
She just needs one good reason, when she is certainly going to be president, to take you out.
So let's do that one.
Let's do the one that gives the person who will be the most powerful person in the world a really good public reason to overthrow your regime through nefarious means.
How about that? Then Vladimir says, hmm, that is just crazy enough to work.
I believe I will bet against my own best interests by putting money and resources, not very good resources, I'm talking about terrible advertisements, not good advertisements, nothing effective, but we'll do it in a way that will certainly be traced back to us, because it's on the internet, obviously we'll get caught, to really piss off the next president of the United States who already has an axe to grind.
Yeah, that could work.
Maybe. You know, nobody really knows what people are thinking or what they say.
Somebody pointed out that my Putin impression is more like Count Dracula.
I don't have a lot of range in my impressions.
Pretty much, I can do Irish and Dracula.
That's better. So everybody I do an impression of is either Irish or Dracula.
So, now the other thing that doesn't make sense about this story of Putin definitely having a preference for Trump, and of course everybody has a preference so that shouldn't be any news at all, but don't we have it as a matter of fact That there were pro-Hillary ads as well as pro-Trump ads.
I'm not making that up, am I? Is it not true that their interference was on both sides and that that's facts and evidence?
We've actually seen the ads.
We've seen the ads.
Some of them are pro-Hillary, anti-Trump.
Now, If their goal was to interfere on the side of one of the candidates, why did they do it so poorly?
Because it's one thing to not be able to know how to make persuasive advertisements on the internet.
That's kind of normal.
Because if you look at the actual candidates themselves, if you look at Hillary Clinton's ads, they were terrible.
They weren't very persuasive at all.
Bernie actually had some good ads, one of the best ads I've ever seen.
And Trump had some good ones too.
But Clintons were pretty bad.
So it's not unusual for even professionals to create bad ads.
So that part is not confusing.
But why would you also make an ad that's clearly against your own best interests?
Who was it at the troll forum in Russia where the troll boss said, alright everybody, here are our marching orders.
Again, Dracula, not Russian.
We are going to put out a bunch of ads that will favor the candidate Trump.
And then one of the trolls raised their hands and said, who are we favoring?
Trump. Only Trump.
We'll do only ads for Trump.
And some ads for Hillary Clinton?
No. No ads for Hillary Clinton.
We do not like her. We prefer a President Trump who has a 2% chance of winning.
But we like to gamble.
We drink. We gamble.
Maybe we don't always gamble on the best side.
But we have all of our ads.
Must be pro-Trump.
And some of them, some of them will be pro-Hillary Clinton.
No, you are not listening to me.
No ads, pro-Hillary.
And then, you know, like every other business in the world, somebody hears it differently and creates a pro-Clinton ad and then it's all confusing.
Well, maybe that happened.
Maybe, but it seems a little more likely that there was somebody who was just trying to inject some, let's say, some negative energy into the process and maybe make our system less credible or something like that.
But it doesn't seem to me that what we have in evidence is that Russia favored Trump.
Because the only thing that we the public have seen, correct me if I'm wrong, the only thing that we the public have seen is evidence that they were on both sides with the ads.
Now, what about these people in public who said stuff like, oh yeah, we're definitely Trump people, we love Trump.
Well, look at our own media.
Isn't there somebody in our own media who's saying absolutely anything?
There's always somebody saying something.
That doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
But who in the world, in Russia, would have gone in public, whether they're a news organization or just somebody close to the top, who would have said, who in any world would have said, yes, we sort of prefer the candidate who tried to overthrow Putin once?
Yeah, we're okay with that.
Let's just say that in public.
Because Putin, you know, he doesn't watch television.
He won't even notice that we're on the other side from our own leader.
All right. Kale.
I'm reading your comments.
What else is going on?
Even Fox is in on the ruse.
Well, here's the thing.
There might be, let me say this as clearly as possible, there might be, you know, maybe the intelligence is perfectly good, and maybe Russians just preferred Trump, but it doesn't make sense in terms of how they acted, at least in the parts we know about.
Saudi Arabia reduced oil prices, somebody says.
Is that brand new?
Yeah, Statue of Liberty.
So a woman tried to climb the Statue of Liberty to a protest.
You know the protests about the children in cages?
There are two sides to the children in cages story.
On one side, there's a group who says we must do something to stop separating families and putting children in cages.
On the other side, there's people who completely agree with that side.
Those are your two sides.
One side that says don't separate families and the other side who totally agrees with them and is trying to get it done.
Now what do you do in a situation where both sides completely agree?
Well, if it's me, I risk my life climbing the Statue of Liberty.
Wouldn't you? I mean if you have a situation where the debate has boiled down to two sides agreeing with each other as hard as possible, of course you're going to risk your life to protest that situation where everybody's on the same side.
Somebody asked me to talk about poor versus poor.
P-O-R-E versus P-O-U-R. As you might know by now, the president wrote a tweet in which he said that his random capitalization was not random at all, but rather used for emphasis, and he's actually a very good writer.
Now, he made the mistake that you see on Twitter more than just about any other mistake, which is, how many times have you seen somebody on Twitter say something like, you know, you're so dumb, you think you're a genius and they spell genius wrong?
You know, when somebody calls themselves a genius and they spell genius wrong, how many times have you seen that or some version of that?
A lot. So the president, in that same tweet in which he was bragging about his writing skills, which are very good, by the way, he does have something to brag about, said that he pours over something,
but he spelled it P-O-U-R. Now, Ben Shapiro called that out and said, Ben said, there's a 100% chance that the president was aware That he misspelled poor and that that was part of the trick and he was attracting people to his tweet and everybody would talk about, oh my god, he spelled this word wrong and that would just give him more energy and more attention and it's all part of his trick.
Now, I feel a little guilty about this situation because, correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't know if I'm right here, But most of you have been paying attention to politics and following me.
Am I the first person who suggested that the president's tweets sometimes have intentional mistakes?
Did that come from me originally?
Because it's a common thing you hear now.
I hear it all over in the news.
People say, oh yeah, that mistake is put in there to attract attention.
I believe I was the first person that said that.
But that doesn't mean...
That every mistake is intentional.
And so when I saw this mistake of P-O-R-E versus P-O-U-R, my first thought was, I totally would have made that mistake.
And I'm pretty sure, I'm pretty sure, That I have made that mistake.
I believe I've written that exact sentence, you know, to pour over something.
And I have like a vague memory of my editor changing it back and thinking to myself, well, that makes no sense.
Why would it be P-O-R-E? It's not like a pour of my skin.
That sentence wouldn't make sense.
But you could pour over something, you know, to cover it.
If you were pouring over something, that would make perfect sense.
Now, of course, there must be some old historical reason why P-O-R-E makes sense in the saying.
But in modern times, it no longer makes sense.
So would I have made that same...
I guess it would be a spelling error.
Not exactly a spelling error.
It's more of not knowing which was the correct way to spell it.
I guess that's a spelling error.
And so I said, well, not so quick, Ben Shapiro.
To me, this looks like an actual mistake.
And then I understand that he deleted the tweet and reissued it with poor spelled correctly.
It's Old English meaning pedantic.
So it's perfectly reasonable that well-educated people...
I include myself in that category.
Well-educated people would not necessarily know which was the right word to use in that situation.
It would be normal. So I think that was just a case of the president literally just had the wrong word there, and then he corrected it.
I don't think there's any more of a story to it.
Yeah, it could have been autocorrect.
Yeah, I'm not sure that that was autocorrect.
It's a common spelling error.
Yeah, it was pretty common.
So Scott, you take you can't take credit for everything.
Well, that's why I'm asking.
I've said enough things that are now part of the normal conversation that I can't tell exactly when I was the source of some way of thinking and when I wasn't.
Can you remember way back in 2015?
That people were not often, often is the key word here, it was very rare for somebody to say cognitive dissonance on television or in an article about politics.
It was kind of rare to use the phrase confirmation bias.
Now, yeah, in 4D chess and 3D chess, those are all me, right?
I mean, it feels like I changed the conversation permanently.
And the question about whether facts matter and whether people use facts to make decisions, that's sort of all me.
Again, not the first person who had that idea, but in terms of Trump and the political situation, I'm pretty sure that was me injecting that into the conversation.
Yeah, that's the mainstream way of looking at it now.
I believe it's true. What else have I... I'd like to see your opinion.
What else have I changed in the way people see politics?
What in your opinion have I added to the conversation that I didn't already mention?
The two movies on one screen.
Yeah. How often have you seen the two movies on one screen?
Sometimes they don't say movies.
They use different ways.
But the fact that we're living in two different perceived realities, that's pretty much me, right?
Yeah. Removing the reason.
Exactly. I think that was me.
In terms of North Korea, removing their reason for wanting to attack the mental prisons.
I don't know.
That's an interesting one.
I know I was early on talking about escaping from mental prisons, but I don't know if I was the first one to introduce that to the current conversation.
The Golden Age, of course, that's me, but I wouldn't say that has swept the country, but we are seeing it pop up.
You've seen the words Golden Age pop up more lately.
The simulation. Yeah.
So, again, I'm not the one who...
I'm not the one who started the idea that we live in a simulation, but I talk about it a lot.
I would say I'm one of half a dozen people who talk about it enough that it got out there.
Was TDS me?
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Well, let me ask you.
Was Trump Derangement Syndrome me?
Because I don't think that one was.
Was that Mike Cirovich?
I had an alternate form of that.
I was talking about Trump hysteria and mass hysteria.
I think Trump derangement syndrome was someone else.
It might have been Mike Cirovich.
I don't know.
TDS was 4chan.
That could be.
So some people will think that one is me because I was an early adopter, but I don't think that was me.
Simultaneous sipping.
Oh, there was already Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Yeah, okay.
So then I would say that definitely wasn't me.
Was it Charles Krautheimer, somebody saying?
Oh, it could be. Yeah, it might have been Krautheimer.
Linguistic kill shot.
Well, that was certainly me. You know, nobody thought that Trump's nicknames were important until I said so.
So I think that was me.
Thoughts on Strzok being told to show up?
So, didn't Strach...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Strzok started out by saying, I will totally testify anywhere you want because I'm so innocent and I will not require anything, any guarantees in return.
I will go testify anytime you want.
And now he's saying, well, this testifying could be a trap.
So, you know, maybe I'm not so flexible on this because it could be a trap.
Where have you seen that play before?
Where did Strzok get that play where you start out by saying, I totally want to talk.
Nothing will stop me from talking.
I don't even need any guarantees.
I am that innocent.
Only to pull it back because his lawyers said he should.
Where did you see that before?
President Trump.
Right. What is the best way to deal with a situation in which it's a public trial and people are wondering, are you willing to testify or are you afraid that you'll be trapped and you'll be shown to be the criminal that you are?
There is only one way to approach this situation.
You start by saying, I totally want to.
I'm all about the testifying.
Please bring me in.
I'll go in myself.
I will volunteer. I will testify so hard.
I won't even have lawyers there.
You don't even need to tell me the questions in advance.
That's how innocent I am.
I will walk in there with no guarantees, no lawyers.
Don't tell me the questions in advance.
And I'll stay there as long as you want.
I'll answer every question you want.
That's what I'll do.
What? Oh, my lawyer is telling me something.
What? Oh, you're saying I shouldn't do anything like what I just described.
I so wanted to, but my lawyer says it would just be bad and it's a what?
It's something called a Perjury trap.
That's probably legal talk.
I don't like any of this legal stuff.
If it were up to me, I would testify so hard tomorrow.
Today. Right now. What are you doing right now?
I'm ready. Go on.
Let's go. Let's go right now.
Interview me. Ask anything you want.
No lawyers. What?
Okay, I can't do that either.
My lawyer says that's a bad idea.
Some lawyer reason.
I don't know. But you've got to do what your lawyer tells you, otherwise you're an idiot, right?
I mean, I'm not an idiot.
I'm just an honest guy.
I'm not an idiot.
Idiot would go in there and fall into that perjury trap.
But an honest guy like me, I'd volunteer to do it without any restrictions whatsoever, if I could.
But, you know, lawyers, what are you going to do?
Mainstream media says the hashtag walkaway people are bots.
What do you think?
Chances are there are some bots involved on every major movement.
Wouldn't you expect that there are bots involved?
Every time there's something that's an important thought or hashtag or political event, I would assume that there are bots organizing these.
Well, let me ask you this.
What are the chances that the protests about the children in cages, what are the chances that's all organic?
Don't you think there are some bots At work, getting people into the streets to protest the children in cages?
Oh, I think so.
Do I have any inside information?
No. But if you were a bot, you know, a bot master, who are the people who run the bots?
If you were a bot master, a bot puppet, wouldn't you say to yourself, oh, anything that looks like a Kind of a protest in the streets.
I'm going to bot all over that.
I'm going to bot that so hard.
Children in cages. Bot it.
Bot those children in cages.
So yes, of course there are bots working on both sides.
That's what bots do.
What would be the point of having a bot if they were not focused on a point?
They're not random. They are bots used for particular purposes.
So I would assume that the walk away has bots.
I would assume that the children in cages protests have bots.
I would assume that anything Black Lives Matter does that's national is going to attract a bot or two.
Bots everywhere.
Thoughts on the Quote to Fart Act?
Yeah, there's an act whose acronyms are F-A-R-T. And the question is, did they do that intentionally?
My answer is, probably not.
I'm thinking probably not.
Because whoever names a bill wants it to pass.
And if you want something to pass, A fart is not something that you want to pass.
That's something everybody doesn't want you to pass, if you know what I mean.
So I don't think somebody would name their own bill after something unpleasant.
that doesn't make sense.
If this is a simulation, what are bots?
Well, bots could be a simulation within a simulation because the simulation would write its own programs within the simulation.
What is a verbal poison pill?
I don't know.
Well, I don't know what a verbal poison pill is, but you saw that the weed bill that Schumer introduced had a poison pill in it, in which it was going to add a tax.
So that the Republicans couldn't get behind it.
So Republicans are likely to want to get the federal government out of the business of weed enforcement.
So Republicans are probably going to be fine with that.
But Democrats need a win that looks like just a Democrat win, something the Republicans objected to.
So they added a tax You know, a weed taxon with the weed decriminalization, federal decriminalization.
So it was very clever and very weasel-like, but that didn't make it any less clever.
All right, I think we've gone far enough.
▲
Export Selection