All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 5, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:21
Episode 208 Scott Adams: Socialism, Woodward’s Book, Nike, Airplane Fear Persuasion
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
What's taking you so long?
I'm finally on time?
You should be too!
Hey Tyler! Hey everybody!
So I'm putting together a new studio system pretty soon.
I've got a couple of components I'm waiting for in the mail.
And then I'll be able to do some split screens if all works out.
I'm using the Sling Studio setup.
This is not it yet.
This is still just running off my iPad.
But if I can get that going in, let's say, in less than a week or so, if things go well.
Then these podcasts could get a lot more, or these Periscopes could get a lot more interesting, because I'll be able to split screen and have somebody call in on anything, FaceTime or Skype or whatever, and I can have them on.
And then, oh then, then we're going to have some fun.
Think about this for a minute.
You've seen me interview some people, and when I have interviewed people on here with my bad technology, people have loved those episodes.
But they've also been friendly interviews.
How much would you like to see me interview somebody I disagreed with?
So far, the only people I've had on with you here on Periscope Or people who I knew in advance would be pretty compatible with your thinking and mine.
But just imagine somebody who disagreed with me.
Yes, it would be just as fun as you think it would be.
All right, we got a few comments, a few topics.
Most of you saw that Amy Siskind and other people were tweeting about Judge Kavanaugh's assistant, who allegedly had her hands, and I'm not going to put my hands in those positions, because then you'll screenshot me.
But let's just say her hands were in a position with the okay position, But it looked accidental.
It was just a random placement.
People said, my god, it must be the white power, the white power signal, which was a little bit crazy.
And I think it did reveal the level of Trump derangement syndrome.
But I tweeted out that the 48-hour rule was in effect.
People said, for whom?
For Amy Siskin, who blamed her for being white power?
Or was the 48-hour rule for, what's her name, Bash?
Last name is Bash, who allegedly did that sign.
And I said, both.
It's optional. The 48-hour rule is optional.
So anybody can clarify anything they want.
It's just the rule is that if they clarify, you accept the clarification.
So Amy Siskin took down her tweet, I noticed this morning, which I would take as a retraction.
That's the reason you take down a tweet.
Should she apologize?
Of course. Of course she should.
But that's not exactly what the 48-hour rule is for.
If she doesn't want to, well, that's a personal decision.
I don't really care.
But she did retract it, and that was the more important part of it.
Now, likewise, the husband of...
Kavanaugh's assistant tweeted that it was disgusting, basically, and that they didn't even know that symbol existed until they read it in the news.
So, normally I wouldn't accept someone else's clarification.
You need it from the person themself.
But a spouse...
My ruling is I accept that.
So I don't think she needed to clarify.
She certainly didn't need to apologize.
I'm talking about Kavanaugh's assistant.
But it's nice that she did clarify.
She clarified that it was exactly what you and I thought it was, which was a random thing.
So the 48-hour rule Hasn't, in my opinion, worked?
Yeah, Xenobash. Because both the people involved have clarified.
That's good. Next topic.
I haven't seen the exact quotes, but apparently Trump was soft on Nike and Nike signing up Kaepernak.
Now, it's pretty clever For Nike to do this, because they did get tons of publicity.
But we'll see what that does to their long-term revenue.
I have reason to believe it may have been a clever play, but I don't think we can know in the short term.
In the short term, it'll knock their stock back.
I just don't know if it'll have any long-term effect.
I've been reminded that I have not shared the simultaneous sip.
I think it's time.
Oh yeah, it's time.
Grab your mug, your cup, your vessel, your glass.
With the beverage of your choice, I like coffee.
And join me for the simultaneous sip.
Ah, good stuff.
So Trump went soft on Nike, and one of his reasons was that they rent a lot of space in one of his buildings.
That's actually a perfectly good reason, because he has a conflict of interest.
He said it right up front, conflict of interest, and he played it soft.
Because it was a conflict of interest, which he told you right up front.
I don't expect anything else from him, right?
He doesn't need to do more on that topic.
He said what he needed to say.
Let's talk about the Bob Woodward book.
So, the Bob Woodward book, although we might assume that because of his resume, That it's the most scholarly and the most credible and the most dependable of all the insider Trump books.
That's what you think should be happening, right?
That's what should have happened.
Is that what happened?
Because it's feeling like the Woodward book is like the poor man's fire and fury.
Too little, too late?
Doesn't it seem like if the Woodward book had been first, well, it might have been big news, just like Fire and Fury was.
But now it feels like we already heard of this book.
But here's the bigger framework I want to put on it.
I don't know if Woodward has ever worked, or even Michael Wolfe, if they've ever worked in Proper big companies.
I think Michael Wolff has.
He's been an editor of something and certainly Woodward's been with the Washington Post.
So they should have experience with at least one or more big companies apiece.
Here's the context that they're not giving you.
When they talk about all the underlings who are allegedly Saying bad things about their boss, and as somebody pointed out, Madison, Kelly, and I think Dowd as well, have all basically said they didn't say the quotes that are attributed to them in the book.
Now, we're in a world where nobody can believe what anybody says, so whether or not some of the quotes were true or not true is less important than the following point.
Here's the point that I haven't heard anybody say.
The stories that you heard about the president are identical To any story you would hear about just about any CEO of any major corporation.
The stories you're hearing about Trump, where he's so dumb he doesn't understand things, totally normal.
That's everybody talking about their own CEO, their own boss.
People saying that they managed what information they gave him, that they were stealing documents from his desk so he wouldn't sign them.
Is that unusual?
Nope.
Nope. Totally normal.
Everything Woodward reported, which I believe a lot of it is fake.
We don't know what percentage, right?
So I don't know if 80% of it is made up.
Probably not made up.
I imagine his sources actually told him this stuff.
But I'd say maybe it's possible that up to 80% of it is not true.
His sources may have actually said that, and he might actually trust his sources.
But as you see the denials coming in, the denials sound fairly credible as well.
So, it's hard to know.
But let's say it's only 20% incorrect.
I don't know.
But let's say it's 20% incorrect, and that it's true that underlings were saying unkind things about their bosses, which if they had been quoted, they wouldn't want anybody to hear.
What does that describe?
Every large organization everywhere.
Now trust me, I literally am the guy who wrote the book on this.
Right? I'm the Dilber guy.
I spent 30 years writing about this.
The reason that Dilber is one of the most popular comic strips in the history of humankind is because people recognize the situation.
I have an entire comic that's about people managing what the boss sees and manages what he knows because they think the boss is an idiot.
To me, this looked like the most normal situation I've ever seen.
Everyone thinks the boss is less smart than they are.
But here's the thing.
Those other people didn't become president.
And they couldn't.
So one of the problems that I have as a person who has studied persuasion is that if you put me in a meeting, if you just airdropped me into a Fortune 500 meeting and they didn't know who I was, I was just anonymous. They just plunked me down in the middle of any business meeting, any government meeting about anything.
And then they go around the table and everybody says, tell us what you think we should do in this situation.
When they get to me, and I say what I think we should do, remember, I'm always dealing on this psychological persuasion level, and the people in the room are not going to be familiar with it.
They won't understand it, you know, initially, because I haven't explained it to them, they're not exposed to it.
What would my ideas look like?
If they were just unfiltered, and I didn't have any time to explain any context, and I just said, here's my idea, and compared it to the other ideas in the room, what would my ideas look like?
Crazy. Stupid.
Uninformed. Childish.
All of my ideas look like that to people who don't know where they're coming from.
Systems, not goals!
Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing! We have a winner.
When I talk in systems and people are goal thinkers, what do they think of me?
They think I'm crazy.
They think I must be inexperienced.
They think that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Do you know, so most of the things that I talk about on this Periscope are very similar to things I've been saying all of my life because I've been, you know, studying this thing for this field for decades.
What do you think people said to me in my corporate life when I was, they'll say, you know, 30 years old, relatively young for big corporations?
What do you think people said to me when I was 30 years old and I would have a wonderful idea?
There was either persuasion-based or systems-based versus a goal.
They didn't get it.
Didn't get it at all.
It wasn't what we used to do.
It's not what everybody else is saying.
It's not what my boss wants to do.
It just didn't make any sense, right?
You just couldn't understand it.
It was so far out of left field.
When President Trump ran for president, What did people say about just about every single thing he did?
They said it was stupid, uninformed, ignorant, can't possibly work, destructive, crazy, stupid, racist, right?
So they said he's not spending enough money.
They said he's using Twitter too much.
They said he was too mean.
They said he didn't know enough.
They said he was lying.
If you had sat somebody down and said, hey, look, I got a plan.
I'm going to run for president.
And let's say that you've got some good advisors.
You've never been president. You're going to run for president.
You've never even been a politician.
And you bring your advisors in, and your advisors are Gary Cohn, You know, Kelly, Mattis, all the top guys, right?
And top women as well.
All the top people.
You bring them in and you say, here's my plan.
Here's how I'm going to win the presidency.
What would they tell you?
They would walk out of the room and they would talk to the first person they saw and they'd say, good lord, this guy's an idiot.
He is so stupid.
Oh my God.
He doesn't, he's crazy.
He doesn't know that none of this stuff makes sense.
He's going to tweet himself into the presidency?
Are you serious?
That's his plan?
Just imagine how stupid that would sound.
When President Trump said, yeah, I think I'll go talk to Kim Jong-un.
What do you think everybody said?
What do you think all the smart people said?
Something like that, right?
that.
What did that get us?
Well, it got us a lot further than we've been before.
Now, of course, critics will say, but we're stalled now.
You know, he got played like all the other times.
And maybe, maybe, maybe nothing comes of it from this point on.
But it looks to me exactly like the way I mapped it out for you.
There had to be walkaways.
In this process, North Korea had to walk away at least once, but almost certainly more than once.
So we're in a walk-away period where nothing much has changed.
There's still pressure on them.
Maybe we get China to do a trade deal and then China plays better with us on North Korea.
We might just need to do them in order.
But while we're waiting, are we in a more dangerous world or a less dangerous world?
To me, it seems unambiguously less dangerous.
Much less dangerous, right?
So who was the smart one who said, let me just talk to Kim.
And who were the dumb ones who had all the information and they were the experts who would have said, no, no, no, you don't talk to him until we've got a deal where he gives up everything and we give up nothing.
Worst, stupidest, dumbest idea anybody ever had, which was the common idea.
So here's my thing.
President Trump continually, continually makes systems work That the experts say won't work.
Do you remember what everybody said about trade deals?
End of the world.
He's stupid. He's crazy.
Don't start all these trade deals at once.
Now, we don't know how it all ended up, but when I heard it, I thought to myself, I'm pretty sure this is a good play.
To do them all at once when our economy is the strongest it's ever been.
That's when you do it.
And if you can do them all at once, you show everybody how serious you are.
If you try to pick off one at a time, Well, it just doesn't look serious.
He just said, let's do them all.
Let's do them hard.
And if some of them start falling in line, the other dominoes are going to fall.
I assume that's the strategy.
I'm not a mind reader. And it looks like that might happen.
I think we might get Canada lined up pretty soon, etc.
Alright, so...
The other thing I want to say about the Woodward book is look for the mind reading.
Look for how many times the book starts with a fact that is either true or untrue.
But then it devolves into mind reading.
So what that would look like would be something like this.
This or that aide was quoted as saying this or that.
And then the next sentence will be something of the nature of the staff were panicked that the president might do this or that.
And I think to myself, well, the panic is not in evidence.
The panic is not in the quote.
You've taken the fact, but then you've sort of exaggerated it into imagining what people were thinking or imagining what the president was thinking.
Now that we've seen that the president's completely non-standard method for getting elected was totally good, totally right, now that we have some retrospective perspective here, What does that tell you about what he's doing in office?
Is it all dumb and stupid and wrong?
Would anybody have advised him to insult Jeff Sessions repeatedly in tweets and in interviews?
Nobody would tell him to do that.
Literally no one would tell him that's a good idea, right?
But I'll bet it's working.
I'll bet it's working.
I think Jeff Sessions will probably resign if the president keeps the pressure on him.
And resigning makes the president not the bad guy.
He's just a guy who had an opinion and he was transparent about it.
Can you hate him for being transparent?
Can you hate him for being transparent?
No, you cannot. You cannot hate him for being transparent.
And if Jeff Sessions quits because he doesn't like the pressure, well, now you have a gray area.
Was that obstructing justice, or was that just the president giving you his opinion?
So anyway, let's talk about socialism.
And I'm hearing people say, Well, I've been asked this question today.
What is the counter-persuasion to socialism?
Because socialism suddenly became very popular, at least on the left.
My cat is just attacking me for love here.
I'll put her in the picture so it doesn't look so weird.
And... I've heard people say, you know, how can we make socialism sound terrible?
Hey, we'll compare it to Venezuela.
We'll call it communism.
We'll call it Marxism.
We'll say they can't afford it, etc.
But if you notice that it doesn't seem that any of those counterattacks are effective, have you ever seen anybody who said to themselves, oh, Venezuela, I guess I don't want health care?
I've never heard that.
Because when people think democratic socialism, the kind that some wing of the Democratic Party are pushing, when people think about that, they just think of Europe.
And Europe, especially if you've been there, looks fine.
Europe looks fine.
So I would say the Venezuela thing doesn't work because people think that's a special case and they don't think that's about socialism per se because there's so many other countries that have health care and better education and everything else.
So people just say, well, obviously it works because of all the countries it does work in.
You can't pick one that had a special case with bad management.
So I don't think the Venezuela thing works.
I don't think calling it communist or Marxist or some other word or Stalin or anything, comparing it to Hitler or saying that Hitler was a socialist, I don't think any of those work.
Because you just have too much of an example of the European countries who are doing it.
Yeah, Greece doesn't work.
You know, as long as there are big successful European countries making it work, people are going to say the problems are the other stuff.
The problem is that you elected Hitler.
That's your problem. So let me make a suggestion.
Arguing against socialism, even to my ears, and remember, I'm not a socialist per se, even to my ears sounds like greedy rich people who don't want poor people to have education and health care.
And none of those other things like, oh, Venezuela, Hitler, Marxist, Communist, none of that really changes what I'm hearing.
But here's what would.
Here's what would.
From a Republican.
We also want everybody to have quality health care.
But the problem is the cost.
The problem is the cost.
And we can bring costs down the same way we've boosted the economy.
We can get rid of regulations that are unnecessary, speed things up, maybe make medical devices get through faster, maybe make it do some small trials of medical things, maybe do more direct doctor stuff,
maybe tweak the rules around health insurance, who can insure, So you make a story where you can get to low-cost healthcare, and you make a story where you can get to lower-cost, better education without all of the debt, and maybe that looks like vocational training.
Maybe it looks like apprenticeships.
So the apprenticeships You know, job training stuff for the people who don't really need the four-year education.
That's a strong counter.
So I think you need to pace and lead.
For those of you who are new, pacing means to agree with the side you disagree with first.
So you find anything you can agree.
So when somebody says, we want socialism because we want better healthcare options for people who don't have money, and we want better education so people don't have to have crushing debt.
You don't say, how do you pay for them?
You're going to be Venezuela.
That just doesn't work.
It might be true, but it just doesn't work.
It's not persuasive. Here's a better way.
We want those things too.
We have a plan to get there.
You don't. So we're about similar on both wanting health care for everybody at a reasonable, affordable price and education that doesn't require student loans.
We all want to get there. Here's how we're doing it.
Here's how you're doing it.
Your way literally doesn't have a plan because the numbers don't add up.
You would never get this approved.
The country would be weak without it.
Now people will say, what do you mean?
Why would the economy be weak without it?
Why is it that the European countries can afford all this stuff, some of them, but we can't?
What's wrong? Here's the answer to that.
The reason that the Europeans Can afford all that is because we pay for the big part of their defense.
The reason that the Europeans can do this is because we don't.
We have different priorities.
So we're putting our money into military defense so they don't have to.
Probably at least half Of all the money that they're putting into their healthcare, these are just guess numbers, but just to make the point, probably half of that would not be available to them if they had to have their own robust individual defenses for their countries.
Alright, so that's the argument.
The argument is first you pace.
Yes on health care.
Yes on getting rid of student loans and lowering the cost.
Here's what we're doing about it.
Here's what they're doing about it.
Their plan can't work.
Numbers don't add up.
Our plan already works.
You can see it working.
Let's take the example of the direct pay doctors.
If you were to propose having more of that, you'd be in good shape.
One of the other ideas, this is from Dr.
Shiva, I believe. I think this is his idea.
Currently, the law or the regulations, I'm not sure what boundaries we're talking about, but there's some requirement that to become a doctor, you have to go through more than four years of education.
But we don't do that for other things, so why don't you just have a four-year medical degree so that doctors can come out of it without huge crushing debt?
Is that a good idea?
It sounds like something we should try.
We should at least find out.
Now, somebody, you know, it may be that the doctors with more experience do different types of specialties or something, but it's the sort of thing that could lower the cost of medical care.
All right. Physician's assistance, yes.
All right. So that's the point, is you don't say socialism is scary.
Say that you have a better plan to get the same benefits.
All right. Alright, I'm going to give you a little persuasion lesson that's a generic lesson.
I'm going to talk about fear of flying.
Let's say you wanted to help persuade somebody who had a fear of flying.
One of the ways that people always do that is if you have a friend who doesn't want to fly, they just have an irrational fear of flying, what people often do is say, it's more dangerous to be in a car.
There are more car accidents.
It's more dangerous to, you know, slip and fall in your shower.
That's the way people usually do it.
That is a bad technique.
Let me tell you why.
It's a bad technique because the people are operating from a starting place of fear.
If you mention more things to be afraid of, that does not reduce their fear.
They're starting with fear of flying, and then you add to their mind, what about the fear of having an accident?
What about the fear of falling into your bathtub?
What about the fear of being robbed in your home?
When you're done, they're more fearful.
You're not trying to talk them out of an irrational feeling with data and facts.
That's not going to work.
So there's no easy way to get people more comfortable with flying.
But don't do that.
That's probably the wrong approach.
Here's a better approach. It's basically the positive way to say exactly what I already said.
So instead of saying these other things are way more dangerous and you do those all the time, you say, you're afraid of flying?
That's interesting because one of the reasons I love flying is it's the safest, easiest thing I do.
I'm just curled up in this thing.
It's literally the safest place in the world based on any kind of statistics.
And when I'm there, I feel so safe because it's just the safest, It's just the safest place in the world.
There's nothing safer than being on a plane.
In fact, I can't even think of anything safer.
Can you think of anything safer than being on a plane?
It's probably safer than lying on a beach.
It's probably safer than taking a nap.
It's so safe that it's the place I'd like to go if I'm afraid of things.
I'll go there because it's so safe.
Now, one little speech isn't going to change somebody's mind, but if you're trying to take the edge off of their fear, that would be a better approach.
So that's my only point.
And I think I hit my big points for today.
It's so safe, that's how they move the president around.
That's a good one. Yeah, it's so safe, that's how they move the president around.
I probably wouldn't use the president one, because the president is literally a target for assassination.
You know, any president is.
So, and then when you throw in the president, if they're afraid of President Trump to begin with, they've got a whole other set of presidential fears that they just got reminded of.
Elon Musk is going to be on Joe Rogan's show on Thursday.
Interesting. And I'm going to have Dr.
Shiva back on.
Let me make sure I know when.
On Friday. So Friday I will have a guest.
I'll still have my bad technology then.
I might need a few more days to fix things up.
But we're going to learn a lot more about health care options then.
Yeah, I probably won't be able to do this split screen yet.
I won't have all of my equipment working.
Maybe. I might. Do you think he has a chance to win?
Yes, he has a chance. Don't know the odds, but he has a chance.
So we're renewing our, this is total change of topic, but if you're following my startup, the app is called Interface by WenHub.
It allows you to immediately connect to an expert who is online right then on any topic in the world, and the expert sets their own price.
So we've just updated the app so it will allow you to pay by Apple Pay.
We still have some approvals to get for the Google side.
So we'll have the Google version in probably just a few days.
But right now we have the Apple Pay.
So if you wanted to talk to, right now we're building up our expert list.
So the more experts that join the system and are available We'll get to the point where with your thumb you'll be able to connect in like a minute with an expert on any topic.
Now I told you I was trying to put together my split screen studio thing.
You cannot find Directions on how to do what I want to do.
It doesn't exist. You can find instructions on how to use their equipment, but in the specific thing that I want to do, which was specifically I wanted to have my app on one screen, so you can see an expert calling in, but also be able to do any other app, whether it's a FaceTime call or anything else, or a web thing.
You can't find that instruction.
It doesn't exist. But, a very nice person saw me complaining about it and offered to help me and I've talked to him and he answered all the hard questions.
So I think I have enough to put together a system, had to order more equipment that I never would have known about.
To do something that completely surprises me that that's the way you would use this equipment.
So I solved my problem talking to an expert in five minutes that just was unsolvable any other way.
And imagine now you need medical advice or you're a low-income person.
You want to know how to start a company.
You want to know how to incorporate.
You've got a tax question.
You've got an investment question.
And it's just a short one.
You just need 15 minutes.
If you've got a thumb and an iPhone, pretty soon you'll be able to get any question answered by someone who actually has the answer in minutes.
Some of your biggest problems in your life solved with your thumb.
Boop! There's my thumb.
I'm paying my credit card, the price that they've set, and their prices could be low.
And by the way, that's not the only problems that this kind of app will solve.
Think of all the lonely people in the world who would pay just to have company for a while.
So you could be an expert at just being good company.
You could be an expert at listening.
You don't have to have actual expertise at anything else.
You could just be good at listening.
You could just be attractive.
People just want to talk to you because you're attractive for 15 minutes.
People might want to eat dinner at home, but not alone.
So they might put their phone in front of them.
Call up somebody who has offered to eat dinner with them or have a snack with them just to keep them company.
You might have somebody who's going to visit your grandmother, let's say a healthcare professional, and the healthcare professional is visiting your grandma to check in on her.
There's a number of services that would do that for a number of reasons.
And you want to be able to talk to your grandmother at the same time you're talking to the professional who is visiting so that you've got a personal connection.
Well, that professional might want to get paid for that extra service, so they just use the interface app and say, for another $10 an hour or $20 an hour, whatever it is, you can call in.
And I'll just talk to you and your grandmother at the same time.
We'll make sure she took her pills.
I'll ask her the questions you tell me to ask her.
And it's just like you're in the room.
When you think of the range of problems that can be solved, imagine you're a parent and you are not a good student, you're a low-income person, and your kid is unusually bright, and your kid needs help with homework.
And if your kid can get help with homework, You've got something there.
Well, maybe you can find a tutor.
Maybe you can find somebody on the app who will be there in literally 60 seconds, live on the screen, talking to your kid while you're there, right?
You don't want strangers talking to your kid while you're not there.
And they don't have each other's phone number.
That's another thing our app does.
So you don't have the connection.
You know, there's no way to connect with each other unless you shared information.
Somebody says it's creepy.
It's not creepy if the adult's in the room.
So I wouldn't recommend kids using it without an adult.
Find some speech therapists.
A speech therapist would be a perfect application.
Thank you for that. I had not thought of that one.
A speech therapist would be a perfect application.
How does it work if you're an expert on two topics?
You can list as many topics as you want.
So when you sign up as an expert, you just put in your different keywords and anybody searching for any of those keywords can find you.
And you can change your price anytime you want.
You could be bored and say, I'm bored.
I'd rather talk to somebody than charge a lot.
So you lower your price because you're stuck somewhere and you're just bored.
Might as well make a few bucks.
Alright, so it's called Interface by WenHub.
Today we've added the credit card payment option.
So far it's only on the Apple version.
It's available in stores.
Just use your thumb to pay.
You don't need to.
You could put in your code as well.
And the Google version should have been available by now.
We're just waiting for some approvals.
There's a little extra red tape involved.
But the work is done.
Are the experts rated?
Yes. The experts rate themselves when they sign on.
So if you're a top expert in the field, you give yourself five stars.
If you're pretty good, four stars.
But you might give yourself three stars.
You might say, well, I'm a pretty good gardener.
And that's more than most people.
So if they just have a basic question on gardening, I'm a three out of five gardener level.
I could probably answer that question.
And then once people have used, have connected to you, they can also rank you.
So you'll have a rating from users and you'll have a rating from yourself that people can see.
Let's see if Dershowitz signs up.
Yeah, I don't think Alan Dershowitz will sign up.
But I do expect you will see some well-known people very soon because we're already talking to names you have heard, people that you would be familiar with to be early users.
I see a good suggestion about stars on there, and I will take that into consideration, actually.
*laughs* Somebody says I associate with too many creeps.
That's my brand.
So my brand is if you think somebody's a creep, I'm gonna talk to them.
If you think somebody is awesome, I'm gonna talk to them.
If you've never heard of somebody, I'm gonna talk to them.
If you really hate that person, I'm gonna talk to them.
That's my brand.
And that protects me.
Because if I would only talk to good people, but talk to one bad person, you'd say, oh, I can't get it out of my head.
You talk to a bad person forever now, I will feel bad.
Who's the Farrakhan?
So if Farrakhan wanted to talk to me, Or even wanted to appear with me.
Would I have him on?
Yes. Yes, I would.
I would have anybody on.
Now, I had a RICO violation.
Would you talk to David Duke?
I would love to. I would love to talk to David Duke.
Remember, my brand isn't that I agree with you.
My brand is that I'm going to talk to you.
It doesn't matter who it is.
I'm going to talk to you. Nobody can take that away from me.
I assert that as my inalienable right to talk to anybody I want.
I'm not going to agree with them, and you'll know that.
So, there you go.
And by the way, can you tell me you wouldn't enjoy me talking to an actual, you know, white supremacist?
Come on, you know you'd like that.
That would be good watching.
For those of you who are new, I'm not a white supremacist.
That's what would make it fun.
Sure, I would talk to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I think that's the closest I've ever gotten to pronouncing her name correctly.
I would absolutely talk to her.
She'd be very interesting. And that's why we all talk about her, because she's so interesting.
Like her or hate her, she's interesting.
Bad optics. So what I probably would not do is if I were only talking to three people that year, you know, under that situation, I wouldn't have somebody on who was too provocative because that, you know, it's hard to explain that.
But if you have lots of people, then definitely I would make it the most diverse group that possibly could.
All the nuts that Tucker Carlson talks to.
Well, there's a perfect example.
Tucker Carlson talks to people he agrees with and people he completely disagrees with.
Kim.com?
Absolutely. He'd be fun.
I could do all the people that other people do.
My girlfriend. Everybody wants to see Christina on here.
All right. I think that's enough for now.
▲
Export Selection