All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:52
Episode 157 Scott Adams: Cohen, EU Trade, Shadow Banning
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Cranium Cracker.
Come on in here. I'm going to read some of your names while you're coming in here.
We've got Ray.
Hey, Ray. Hey, Mark.
Hey, everybody. You know what time it is.
I think you do or you wouldn't be here.
You did not randomly show up here.
Today will be a very fun coffee with Scott Adams, if I do say so myself.
Hey, you're from upstate New York.
You happen to be in upstate New York one of the three months of the year that that's a nice place.
I can say that because I came from upstate New York.
All right, everybody, grab your mug, your vessel, your container, your cup.
It should have some kind of liquid in it, your favorite liquid.
Mine is coffee.
And it's time for the simultaneous sip.
Now, if you've been watching CNN lately, as I have been, you'll know that there's a mystery that they're reporting about, mostly Anderson Cooper, you'll know that there's a mystery that they're reporting about, And here's the mystery.
Anderson Cooper, after hearing the Cohen tapes, is trying to figure out why the president might have lied about an extramarital affair.
Specifically lying about some payments involved, but Anderson Cooper and CNN, they seem genuinely puzzled about why would the president Why would somebody lie about an extramarital affair?
I don't understand it.
Now, that's not the only mystery they're working on.
There are some other stories coming up, and these are other mysteries that CNN is trying to figure out the answers.
So, in addition to why would somebody lie about an extramarital affair, there are other episodes coming up are Why Do Hungry People Eat?
We know that hungry people do eat, but what are they thinking?
What is their motivation?
Is it some kind of gaslight thing?
They're hungry, and then they just eat?
I don't know. There's a mystery here.
We've got to figure this out. The other one CNN's working on is, why do sleepy people take naps?
We see them taking naps and we observe they're sleepy, but we don't know what they're thinking.
Like, what are you thinking when you're taking that nap when you're sleepy?
And also, why our next topic CNN's working on is, why do dead people never dance?
We notice that dead people just mostly just lay there.
But what are they thinking?
Why don't they just get up and dance?
I'm dead. I'm dead.
So these are some of the big mysteries that CNN's working on.
Why does somebody lie about an extramarital affair?
I gotta admit, I can't think of a reason.
Can you? Can any of you think of a reason anybody would lie about an extramarital affair?
I mean, what possible motivation would you have for such a thing?
Alright, so in our Yanni vs.
Laurel world, in our world in which there are two movies on one screen, sometimes, sometimes there are three.
So the two movies that everybody's watching about the Michael Cohen tapes are Did the President Say Use Cash?
Or did the president say, don't use cash?
Now, the way it's being reported is, it's hilarious, frankly.
The fact that, who's the president's lawyer?
New York mayor, whose name I'm forgetting at the moment, ex-New York mayor, Giuliani.
So he's saying the tape very clearly says don't use cash.
Do any of you hear that?
Do any of you hear him say don't use cash?
Is there anybody out here who actually hears anything like that on that recording?
So, what's funny about it is it's such a bold, ridiculous thing to say.
But I've been watching this situation and I'm trying to figure out what really is happening here because you can't...
The snippets of the conversation don't quite make sense, do they?
So no matter what your interpretation is of what was said or what was not said, it still doesn't quite make sense.
There's something that doesn't all fit.
I wanted to offer you a third interpretation.
So the two interpretations we have is that Trump said, should we use cash?
Now Lonnie, what's his name, the lawyer for Cohen, says that he's talking about like an actual physical dollar bills.
If you can imagine, $150,000 worth of just cash, you know, big pile of cash.
So Lonnie Davis says, well, you know, that's what he means.
He means cash like a big bundle of money.
And of course, Giuliani is saying, no, he's saying don't use cash, which is clearly, well, I'll leave it to your judgment, but I don't hear that when I listen to the tape.
So I'm going to give you a third interpretation.
And by the way, here's my challenge to you.
When I give you the third interpretation, I want you to see if you can even think the other two are possible anymore.
So I'm going to erase from your mind, maybe not all of you, but for many of you, when you hear the third interpretation, you're just going to say, oh, why did it take so long for somebody to explain that?
Okay? And here it is.
So we're going to the whiteboard.
So here are some words we heard on the tape.
We heard Cohen say, we need to finance this company, the company that would be used for the payments to the ex-Playboy model.
And you heard Trump say, finance what?
So when Cohen says finance, we all would agree that Trump had a question about the word finance.
Finance what? And then there was a clarification.
Later, there was a second word, cash.
And you heard again that there was a question.
You know, Trump said something about cash, and then there was some clarification.
And then there was a point where Cohen was saying, no, no, no, no.
But there's some ambiguity about what was he saying no about.
All right? Let me clear this all up for you.
If you're Cohen, and you say we have to finance this new entity, what you mean is we have to fund it.
In other words, put money into it.
If you are Trump and you hear the word finance, what's that mean?
What does finance mean to a developer?
It doesn't mean fund.
Yeah, it means loan.
So now this one makes sense, right?
Because Cohen has said, hey, we have to fund this entity.
But he used an ambiguous word.
And Trump says, finance?
Finance what? Because to somebody like me, I've got a background in finance and economics, when I hear finance, I hear it the same as if somebody's going to buy a car.
If you're going to buy a car, they say, are you going to finance this?
Meaning, get a loan.
So that was the first point of ambiguity.
They used the language differently.
Then... Came the word cash.
If you go in to buy a car and they say, how do you mean to pay for it?
Are you going to finance it?
Meaning get a loan.
Or are you going to pay cash for your car?
When the car dealer says, do you mean to pay cash?
Does he mean a big pile of dollar bills?
He does not. He does not.
Cash, the way Cohen, I believe, heard it, this is just my hypothesis, probably meant currency, like dollar bills.
Or it might have been immediate.
So there's some ambiguity about what Cohen thought about cash, but I don't think there's any ambiguity about what Trump thought about Cash is the opposite of finance.
So cash is really just write a check.
Now what really happened, do you remember how it was actually funded?
I don't think they did fund it, but the plan was going to be that Cohen would put the money in and then he would be reimbursed through normal lawyer payments or something like that.
Which would be effectively a way to finance payment over time.
So, when you get to the no, no, no, I believe what's happened is something like this.
This is just the third interpretation.
And by the way, I wouldn't bet my life on this.
The point of it is to show you how many interpretations you can get out of the same set of facts.
So, Cohen says finance.
Trump says, what do you mean by that?
Because he's thinking loan, but Cohen is just thinking we need to put money into it.
Then the question of cash comes up.
Trump asks the question, because he's still trying to determine, did you mean really finance as in pay over time, or do you just mean we need to put money in, which is cash, which is also a check.
It means the same thing in this context.
And by the time Cohen says no, no, no, what is he talking about?
He's probably talking about they both got confused with their terms, and he wants to make sure that Trump doesn't think he's talking about a big pile of currency.
He might be just saying, no, no, no, I'm not talking about actual cash.
I just mean we have to put money in it.
Now, having heard this description, that these two people, a lawyer and a person who gets loans for a living...
Doesn't this seem a little more likely what's going on is that they had some confusion over their use of terms.
Now listen to it again after I've given you this description.
And you can hear that they're grappling with what do you mean by the terms?
What do you mean by the term cash?
Because it has different meanings.
And what do you mean by finance?
Because these two people see them differently.
And by the time you get to no, no, no, I think this is the point where Where Cohen is realizing that they might be using terms differently.
And he's just trying to clarify.
But it's still a little unclear at that point.
All right. So other people say they heard it that way too, right?
Now, have you seen this explanation on CNN or even Fox News?
I haven't seen it. Have you? At one point, I heard somebody saying the White House was saying something about payment over time, but I think they abandoned that explanation.
Now, here's the other confirmation, and Giuliani said this.
Every once in a while, you hear something that you say, oh my God, that's right.
So Lonnie Davis has said, hey, when they're saying cash, That's only something that drug dealers or basically criminals do.
Only criminals and drug dealers use cash.
Do you know who else uses cash?
Rich people, but they call it writing a check.
So when Lonnie Davis says only drug dealers use cash, He is a huge liar.
So let me just say it as clearly as I can.
So Cohen's lawyer is a gigantic liar, and he's lying to you because he's trying to make you think that the word cash, as used in that, could possibly mean as if either Trump or Cohen were actually talking about a big pallet of currency, of dollar bills.
So that's Lonnie Davis trying to make you believe something that's ridiculous.
And he did a pretty good job.
I have to say, as an advocate, a lawyer, he's doing a good job, but he's totally lying to you in a way that is so transparent, it's kind of funny.
So that's my analysis, okay?
Cash does not mean hard currency, that's what I'm saying.
It means both things, but in this context, obviously it meant write a check.
Alright, so have we totally settled that question?
And here's my real question to you.
Have you seen this explanation before?
Because I keep expecting I'm going to see this.
I look at the news and I think, oh, somebody's going to do this.
They're going to explain what cash means in this context.
They're going to explain what finance means in this context.
And then it will all make sense. Somebody's saying I'm contorting myself.
I think we should agree that when people tell me that I'm contorting myself, that that's a tell for cognitive dissonance.
Why did I have to do this?
And somebody says you're a businessman.
That is correct.
So my background is business school and economics.
So that's my educational background.
And then of course I worked in business for a long time.
And I worked on things like finance deals.
I literally worked in a department called the finance department.
So to me this is a little more obvious than it would be if you don't work in that world.
Alright, let's talk about a few more things.
North Korea is set to return the remains of 55 fallen servicemen.
I believe they're all men.
And I have these real weird questions about, I guess there are about 5,000 unaccounted for service people from North Korea, American service people.
And I think to myself, where are they?
I'm trying to say this in the most respectful way, but does North Korea actually know where they are?
And if they do know where they are, does it mean that they're buried?
Does it mean that they've already, you know, were they already collected in one place in case they needed to give them back?
I've got real questions about how is it that when we ask, they can produce 55 bodies?
Like, from where?
I don't know how they did that.
Anyway, that's more of a curiosity thing.
You saw that the representative from the EU, did you see the picture of him literally putting a kiss on President Trump's neck?
And then the president tweeted that out, and I saw it on Instagram as well, saying how much they loved each other.
That was just great.
Of course the two sides of the news, the left and the right, are going to report that story completely differently.
The right will report it, you know, Fox News types.
We're reported as great progress and that the bones of a deal, the framework of a deal are largely agreed to and now they have to put some meat on it but that's just ordinary business so that it's a big breakthrough and that the tariff, let's say the trade war slash negotiations were successful at least insofar as the EU where it looks like they will be.
And the left will say, well they haven't agreed to anything yet.
So you're going to see two movies on one screen, one saying nothing has really happened, the same as they said about North Korea, while the right will say, my God, it's a big breakthrough, which it might be, but it's a little bit early.
We'll see. Now, here's my prediction.
Imagine, if you will, the situation we have been in, which is the President of the United States says we're going to put tariffs on everybody from Canada to China to the EU, you name it.
We're going to tariff, tariff, tariff, and we're going to start a trade war.
And everybody's on notice.
We're not going to do any bad deals anymore.
All right, so that's the situation we're in.
Now, in that situation, what is the likely arc of how things are going to go from that point?
So the setup is the President said we're tariffing everybody, trade war with everybody from Canada to China all at once.
What's going to happen?
Well, it's very likely, because the United States is the biggest buyer, the biggest customer, That we have more leverage.
We have a strong economy.
We can withstand some pressure on the economy right now.
And we have the biggest bank, so to speak.
We have the most money. So the chances are we were going to get at least one of those entities Whether it was Canada, EU, China, some country, one of them was going to agree to a deal first.
So somebody had to go first.
But nobody goes first until they have to.
So here was my prediction, that for the first X weeks or months or whatever it would be, Nobody would want to go first because nobody wants to be seen as folding.
They don't want to be seen as the one, ah, they buckled.
They buckled. You know, the first one already went.
Nobody wants to go first.
But here's the part I wish I'd said earlier, but I guess it's still time to say that.
After the first one makes a deal...
The pressure on the rest of them to make a deal goes way up.
Why is that?
Because everybody in their own country will say, hey, the EU just made a deal.
Why is my business suffering when the EU just solved their problem?
Why can't my government solve its problem?
You just did. The EU just did.
So the psychological pressure Just went because the EU just agreed to something.
And I don't know if anybody is saying it's an unfair deal that they've arranged to.
I don't know the deal. But I don't see anybody saying, hey, that deal with the EU and the United States, the framework of a deal, is going to be unfair.
I don't hear that. So what you're seeing is other countries who are going to have pressure internally to also make a deal because the first one did.
It also makes it safe because everybody can watch the EU and they can say, uh-oh, what's going to happen to the leaders of the EU? Are they going to lose their jobs?
Probably not. Probably not.
Now why was it easier for the EU to make a deal than China or Canada?
Anybody? Anybody? Why was it better for the EU to make a deal than China or Canada?
See if you know this one.
In retrospect, I didn't predict this, but in retrospect, this was the way it was going to go.
They're appointed. Exactly.
The EU's negotiator, Janik, what is his name, is not the elected leader of any country.
You get it? That's why this worked.
Because he's not the elected leader.
So if you're the leader of any of the countries in the EU who are part of the deal, it wasn't you.
So the individual leaders of the EU will not have to say, I folded, or I made a deal.
Nobody has to lose face because they had this common person who did a deal for a bunch of people.
But now that the first one's done, and in retrospect, that was the one that makes the most sense to do first because of that effect, that it's not the individual leaders.
That makes it safe for Canada.
I'm just using Canada as an example.
Now Canada can say, okay, the EU made a deal.
Let's make a deal, too.
You know, probably there'll be a little give and take on both sides.
Nobody's ever going to know if these deals are good or bad, by the way.
They're all too complicated for we, the public, and even the press to know if the deal was good.
So that gives some cover for Canada to say, look, I'll make a deal, but, you know, you've got to do this on cheese.
We'll do this on maple syrup or whatever the hell.
So it's going to look complicated.
Trump will be able to claim that it worked.
Canada will be able to say, we did a good deal for our people, because it'll be complicated.
We won't know. We'll say, I don't know, one of them is telling the truth.
I'll believe our leader this time.
And then probably China will be last...
My guess is that China would be among the last to make a deal.
There's no guarantee to any of these things, too many variables.
But the normal course of things would be nobody makes a deal for as long as possible until the first one does.
And the first one being the EU made perfect sense because, you know, that's not a single leader of a single country.
It's just more comfortable politically to do that.
All right. So here's what I expect.
I expect that the trade will go from, oh my God, worst thing in the world.
Now that one has made a break, it'll be easier for the others to break.
The other dominoes will fall.
Somebody said dominoes.
I literally had the word dominoes written here.
I was going to say that next. Damn it, you beat me to dominoes.
But yes, it's the domino theory.
I have seen this exact theory in a court case that I don't know if I can...
I can't tell you what it was about, but there's somebody I know personally who was involved in a very large, you know, billion-dollar court case, and it was against a number of entities.
Now, all of the entities, these were big corporations, so there were a number of corporations being sued by a smaller entity, and all of them, of course, fought, fought, fought like crazy.
Nobody was going to give an inch until one of them did.
And the moment that one of them broke ranks, all the rest of them got in line because that made it easy for the rest of them to say, all right, that's the way it's going to go.
It's going to look like this first one.
Let's just get it over with.
We'll just do what they did. So it's a domino theory.
You saw Nikki Haley give a speech to some kind of students, I forget who they were, in which she said, don't try to, quote, own the libs.
In other words, don't try to make, you know, just don't be dicks, basically.
You know, don't be mean to the opposition.
And it was a real good message.
Got a lot of play. Got a lot of attention.
And remember I told you that I thought CNN has turned some kind of a corner?
And that CNN, it looks like they've made some kind of a decision.
It could be, this is preliminary, and I could be completely, yeah, I could be completely off on this.
But It feels like CNN has decided to be a kinder, gentler version of CNN. I don't know that that's true yet, but I'm seeing some signs of that a little bit.
And we'll see if the Summer of Love is back on.
Because if you imagine, there's a really good chance that trade deals will start looking good, the children in the cages will be reunited with their parents, and the Russia collusion thing will be more obviously a big nothing.
And we just saw that Israel did a major strike in Syria that apparently was either coordinated with or for the benefit at least partially for Russia.
So we're watching the Russian and Israeli military coordinating in Syria.
How would you like to be Iran right now and watching Russia and Israel coordinate militarily?
Now I'm sure they've already been doing that, but the more they do it, the more it has to be worrisome for Iran.
So Iran is being further isolated.
How do you check your summer of wishful thinking?
Well, I'm wishing it into existence, which is different from normal wishful thinking.
When I do it, it causes it.
Alright, now let's talk about shadow banning.
Yesterday, a lot of you know, there was an issue on Twitter where if you put in a search for somebody, if they were conservatives and prominent conservatives, often they would not show up in the drop-down box that auto-populates.
That affected people like me.
It affected Mike Cernovich, for example, Jim Jordan, Matt Goetz, Representative Matt Goetz.
President Trump tweeted this morning about this issue.
Now, what's interesting is when Trump gets his jaws on something, he doesn't really let go.
So I think this issue is going to have to be dealt with.
Now, of course, Twitter's response was that...
I actually appreciated Twitter's response in the sense that what Jack Dorsey responded was that obviously they need to do some work.
And I thought, oh, that's very disarming.
It's actually exactly the right thing to say, which is, you know, they're recognizing the complaint.
They're not denying it.
and they're recognizing it, and then they're saying, oh, I guess we need to do more work to gain the public's trust.
And so they're working on that.
So we'll see if in the next few days, if anything changes in terms of the drop-down box.
I think it might have already changed.
I'm not entirely sure.
But some people were reporting that mine started to auto-fill.
Now I think the issue was if you follow somebody, you'd auto-filled fine.
But if you were looking for something you did not follow, and they were conservative, there was a good chance they wouldn't even show up in the autofill thing.
How do you do some work on expressed censorship?
You look at your algorithm and make sure that it's not accidentally discriminating.
It's not easy, but that's the basic idea, I guess.
All right.
So I'm looking at your comments.
Uh-oh-oh.
and All right.
I've got another suggestion to make the world a better place.
It's called the clarification rule.
You know the rule where if you drop something on the ground, people say, oh, five-second rule, and they pick it up and eat it?
Now, of course, there's no science to the five-second rule, but it does make life better, right?
Because people don't want to think, oh, I dropped something on the floor, now it's ruined and I can't eat it.
So a lot of people will just tell themselves this little story, oh, a five-second rule didn't count.
Now, science says debunk that.
The five seconds has nothing to do with anything.
But is it a ten-second rule?
If you're really hungry, it's a ten-second rule, not a five-second rule.
Somebody says there is science to it, but I believe I've seen stories saying there's not.
But in any case, that's not the point.
Here's the rule I suggest for politics.
If someone says something provocative, and maybe there's some ambiguity to it, or maybe people think there's no ambiguity to it, but it's very provocative, and it's very, let's say, upsetting.
Here's the rule. That when you ask them to clarify, that you accept the clarification.
That you report the first thing as something puzzling and you need more information.
And that you report the clarification as the truth.
So if your politician says, hey, I'd like to kill babies and eat them.
And then the news says, oh my God, he says he wants to kill babies and eat them.
And then you ask him, did you, you know, in the subsequent clarification or another interview, somebody says, we thought we heard you say you wanted to kill babies and eat them.
Can you clarify that? And then the politician says, oh, I didn't mean that.
I meant I want to take care of babies and, you know, feed them.
The rule should be That's the story.
The story is what they said with the clarification.
The first story should not be, what are they thinking?
Let's read their mind.
Let's figure out what their dog whistle is all about.
Let's just forget all of that, because that's just guessing.
Let's just ask for the clarification.
And then once it's given, that's the news.
And then you report, okay, this politician says this, the clarification.
Not the original thing.
The original thing is just people being confused.
Somebody says, has Hawke accepted Papa John's CEO's clarification?
I didn't know what clarification he made.
I think his clarification was he was talking about the word as opposed to using it, talking about the n-word, that he was talking about it and not using it.
Now, as you know, if you've been in this world more than 10 seconds, that doesn't count.
The rule is that you just don't use the word.
Now, I know what a lot of you say, damn it, I live in a free country, and in my free country I will use any words I want.
And I hear ya, it's a free country, but people are also free to treat you differently for the word that you've used.
Now, my take on that, specifically the n-word, is that it's one word.
It's just one word.
And you do have a very special case going on here, right?
There was only one slavery situation, and there's only one word that's sort of the banned word.
You know, is that a big deal?
Are you giving up your freedom because you, you know, that some of you and not all of you can't use that word?
I'm going to say that that is such a small thing to ask.
That I'm happy to give it.
And I would think that anyone would be happy to be kind and considerate over this one tiny, tiny issue.
And arguing that it's okay to use the word because you're just talking about it instead of using it, don't go there.
Just do not go there.
There's nothing productive there.
Somebody says, give an inch, take a mile.
Thank you.
I'm going to add that to my list of bad thinking.
Slippery slope. I'm writing something now and I needed examples of bad thinking.
The reason the slippery slope is bad thinking is because it literally applies to everything.
There is nothing that you could not apply the slippery slope to.
Hey, I'm giving a periscope today.
It might last 45 minutes.
Uh-oh! That's a slippery slope.
What happens if I start giving periscopes for hours and hours and then I starve to death?
It could happen.
As soon as you start giving periscopes, it's like, oh, first one's 10 minutes, then it's 20 minutes.
What happens if I keep giving them until I stop eating and I die?
All right? Slippery slope is not thinking.
It's just not thinking.
And so if you think, oh, I see a slippery slope here.
I've made a decision based on the slippery slope.
You have not been engaged in any form of mental cognition of any importance.
If you give a mouse a cookie, that mouse will want a full cake.
Banning words regardless of context isn't thinking either.
Sure it is. Here's the thinking.
It's a very, very small request by specifically the African American community who, I remind you, if you're American especially, are on your team.
That's the important part.
They're your team.
Members of your team have asked you for tiny, tiny little Piece of good manners.
Is that a big deal?
Put it in perspective.
Well, there are lots of racial words you shouldn't use.
I agree. Somebody says, you believe that?
I don't know what you're talking about.
But if you would like to ask me what it is that I believe?
So I think somebody's saying, do you believe that if you let them ban one word that they won't go and start banning more words?
Of course they will.
Of course they will. Will it matter?
No. Somebody said watermelon.
What if they banned watermelon?
Well, depending on the context that you use in the word, it could be offensive.
Ah, that's good coffee.
Okay.
Should your team forgive you for using the word?
Should is one of those words that are never interesting.
When people say somebody should do something, that's either lazy language or lazy thinking, maybe both.
But they're just things that are.
That if you do this, you'll get a good result.
If you do this, you'll get a bad result.
To say, I should be able to do this thing, what does that mean?
The reality is if you do that thing, you're going to get a bad result, and nothing will change that.
Your use of the word should is useless talk.
It doesn't mean anything. All right, I'm going to give you a...
Toward the end of the periscopes, I like to get provocative.
It's time to get provocative.
I'm going to give you a little psychology test, and I want you to all play along.
Alright, are you ready? It's a little test.
We're going to do this in public. I don't know how this will turn out, by the way.
But I want you to...
I'm going to ask you to picture a person who is a Trump supporter and then a person who is an anti-Trumper.
And don't pick a famous person.
So not a politician, nobody you know.
I want you to conjure up in your mind your best picture of a Trump supporter.
You can put this person in any kind of clothing you want, but it has to be, you know, in your mind, somebody who's not famous, nobody you've ever seen before, but a generic Trump supporter.
And just hold it in your mind for a moment and remember what you're thinking.
I think you've all got it now.
You're thinking of a generic Trump supporter.
Give that person, you know, some appearance, some clothing, but get a picture.
Now do the same. Picture an anti-Trumper, or it could be a Hillary Clinton supporter, but an anti-Trumper.
Actually, let's make it somebody on the left, specifically, not an anti-Trumper, because that would include people on the right.
So somebody who's on the left, a Democrat, now picture them.
So picture this person's clothing, picture their look, maybe add a face.
You know, you might put some accoutrements around there, you know, some glasses or whatever if necessary.
Now picture that person, okay?
Does everybody have their two pictures?
Here's my question.
What was the gender that you imagined for the Trump supporter?
So that's my first question to everybody.
What gender did you imagine For your Trump supporter.
Give me your gender.
Trump supporter.
I'm seeing male, male, female, male, male, male, female, female, male, male, male, male.
Male, female, male, male.
Male for both.
Male, male, male.
Male for both.
Male, male, male, male.
Both female. Male, male, male.
So, obviously this is not the kind of test that you would get all the same answer.
But I think is skewed male.
Now, when you imagine the female...
I'm sorry. I'm leading the witness.
Now, did you imagine a female For the Democrat.
How many of you imagined a female for the Democrat?
There's a little delay in the comments, so it's hard to tell.
It's hard to tell. Male for both.
So a lot of you...
Okay, so the new answers are coming in.
So, female for both, female for both.
All right, so it's a little hard to tell.
It could be that the Democrat was either way.
All right.
So here's the basic test.
Obviously, you're all individuals and you're all over the place.
Some had male for both, some had female for both, some had all kinds of combinations.
Do you think it's true That there's sort of a male bias for the Trump side, which doesn't mean that only men like it, et cetera, nothing like that, versus a female bias for the Democrats.
Now part of it is the leadership choices, right?
So the Democrats are very female-centric in terms of actual and potential leaders.
Somebody said they anticipated the question, so you were ahead of me.
It was a very non-scientific question.
Yeah, it feels like It's starting to feel like if you could project into the future, it makes you wonder if the, and I think there is a male-female difference already, right, in terms of voting.
Didn't most women vote Democrat and the majority of men voted Republican?
Not by a gigantic majority.
That's true, right? But I'm wondering if that trend will continue and accelerate until you have two parties, the male party and the female party.
I wonder if that could be a thing in the future, 10 years from now.
Alright, that's just speculative.
Yeah, there is a male bias in my audience, probably.
I think that's true. So we did not learn anything today, scientifically.
I just wanted to try that test and to see how stark the differences were.
They were not nearly as stark as the hypothesis would have suggested, so maybe that's good.
So maybe that's good.
No controls in my experiment.
You're right. It is very non-scientific and you should not make any judgments based on it.
Yes, and obviously there are tens of millions of female Trump supporters and tens of millions of males supporting the Democrats.
That is without saying.
Goes without saying. All right.
▲
Export Selection