All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 21, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
49:38
Episode 228 Scott Adams: Kavanaugh and Coffee
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, we have so much to talk about today.
And when I say so much to talk about, I think you know what I mean.
Coffee! That's part of it.
It's not just about coffee today.
It's about Kavanaugh too.
It's about Kavanaugh and coffee.
And when I say we have a lot to talk about, it's all Kavanaugh all the time.
Nothing but Kavanaugh. We're going to go deep dive.
Full Kavanaugh. But not until we have the simultaneous sip.
I believe you're all ready.
I know you're well prepared.
It's time for the simultaneous sip.
Oh, that's good.
Before you talk about Kavanaugh, you gotta have coffee.
It looks like it's gonna be coffee and Kavanaugh for a while now.
Let's talk about all the Kavanaugh news.
Where do I start?
Let's start with, you probably saw a tweet by a gentleman named Ed Whelan who published a tweet thread in which he detailed his hypothesis That the actual attacker of Christine Ford was not Kavanaugh, but somebody who looks like him, who was a classmate.
And here's the jaw-dropping part.
I'm sure you've all seen this by now.
He named the classmate.
And I read that and I said, Now, we weren't there.
So we don't know who did what to whom back 35 years ago, but naming a classmate as a probable rapist, or attempted rapist I guess, based on the fact that some people think he might look like Kavanaugh did back then, that's a pretty big stretch.
Now, somebody just said he apologized this morning.
I'm not sure it was an apology in the usual way.
He said it was horrible what he did.
Which is different from apologizing.
I was gonna give him a pass and say, okay, 48 hours, you did something bad, you apologized.
But there are two problems.
There's a real victim here.
Saying what I did was appalling is not an apology.
It's close.
It's in the same zip code as an apology, but it's definitely not an apology.
And it doesn't help the victim at all, because he didn't recant the speculation.
So what kind of an apology keeps the original insult?
The original insult is, I'm putting you in the list of people who might be rapists, based on essentially no credible direct data.
And he didn't change that.
So Whelan said he shouldn't have named the person, but he didn't change the fact that he still thinks that this is a reasonable hypothesis.
So, wow.
Now, the weird thing is that Whelan's job, according to his Twitter banner, is he's the head of some kind of ethics group.
So the head of an ethics group Published something.
Oh my god, there's a bad fire right in my view.
I'll show it to you. I just discovered that there looks like a pretty bad fire outside.
Let's see if you can see.
It's in that part that looks white right now.
Can you see it? It'd be hard to see, but right, right, let's see, if I can get my finger over it, right there is actually black smoke, which indicates a building fire.
So somewhere right out there there's a large building on fire.
All right.
But enough on that.
There we go.
Why are we talking about fires when we're not done with Kavanaugh?
All right. Now the president tweeted this morning that facts don't matter.
Like literally that sentence.
Facts don't matter.
Talking about the Kavanaugh case and it looks like in context he was referring.
He was referring to the question of whether they should do a little more investigating.
And the president noted that it's a political thing and the facts of the case actually don't matter.
Why would you bother investigating when the facts aren't going to matter anyway?
Now, I believe I've said that with a little book called Win Bigley, subtitle, Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter.
So the whole world is coming around to this realization that facts don't matter.
But let's talk about that.
The idea behind why these facts should matter, assuming that we could ever determine what the facts are.
Now I don't think that's possible, but in a world where we could determine The facts of what happened 35 years ago.
Just bear with me.
Imagine it's possible.
I don't think it's possible, but imagine it is.
You could concoct a scenario where there's three separate witnesses come forward and they all have the same story and they haven't talked to each other.
So you could imagine a scenario where we might learn the facts in a way that we're all convinced, but I don't think that's likely.
But here's the thing.
What is the reasoning behind why those facts would matter if we can get them?
And the reasoning is that Kavanaugh is running to be the head of the highest court, and this would be an indication of his qualifications for the court.
Is it? But is it?
Does that reasoning fit?
That what Kavanaugh did at age 17, or didn't do, let's say hypothetically that some facts came out that showed that he did something essentially like what he was accused of doing.
Would that matter to his confirmation?
Now, let's talk about the Code of Hammurabi.
I know, when you clicked onto this Periscope today, you said to yourself, God, I hope he talks about the Code of Hammurabi, because we need more of that.
I'm reading the book Sapiens on and off.
I've been reading it for a while.
It's a big book. And they talk about, back in Babylonian times, there was this leader called Hammurabi, and there were no codified laws, or at least ones they didn't like.
And he came up with a code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi.
And this was before there was a United States Constitution, before there were well-agreed laws.
And one of the laws that Hammurabi came up with that he considered just, and apparently people of the time also considered it just, is if you killed somebody's daughter, then the parent of whoever's daughter got killed could go kill your daughter, and then you'd be even.
Do you know what's wrong with that?
You're not punishing the person who did the crime.
The idea is that you would kill the other guy's daughter if he killed your daughter and then that would be called justice under the Hammurabi Code.
Now, I bring that up because apparently human beings who had essentially the same evolved minds as we do, the same ability to reason that we do, roughly speaking, thought that sounded pretty good.
They thought that sounded like justice.
And the backdrop of that is that children in general were considered property.
So I said the daughter was property, but it would have applied to the son as well.
I believe it would be the same penalty.
And so my point is that what we regard as obvious and clearly justice is really a social construct because human beings in Hammurabi's time saw something completely different than what we consider justice and they all looked at it and you know I'm speculating here a little bit but since it was popular and it took hold I have to think that people back then thought well I don't like it maybe I don't like all elements of it but yeah that's fair That's fair.
So the first point is that what we imagine to be justice is a social thing.
The idea that you blame the person who did the crime seems perfectly reasonable to us because we've been raised that way.
But let me suggest this.
Was 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, was he the same person?
As current day, 2018, Brett Kavanaugh.
Now most of you say, duh.
That's why we're having the conversation.
Yes, he is the same person.
He was 17, he got older, the same person.
Duh. Really?
That's a legal construct.
We have decided as a society that you are the same person as your child was.
You're the same person, you're a continuation.
But these are things we come up with because it makes things convenient.
It allows us to have a justice system with a set of rules that are just always the same.
It allows us to own property, because if you own property when you're young, it's still yours when you're old.
It allows us to assign blame and responsibility in a variety of ways.
So there are all these practical reasons Why young Brett Kavanaugh is the same person as old Brett Kavanaugh and therefore we extend that to say therefore anything the young person did has to be applied to the old person.
But keep in mind that we're not talking about the law because nobody says that legally current Brett Kavanaugh would be responsible legally For anything that his 17-year-old version of himself did.
So the law is off the table.
It's not part of the conversation.
Even the critics would agree there's a statute of limitations.
It is passed.
So if we're not talking about legal responsibility, we're not talking about property ownership, What are we talking about exactly?
Well, the argument as I understand it is that we can know something about current-day Kavanaugh by looking at his 17-year-old version of himself.
Can we? Because it seems to me that science is pretty solid on this.
That young people don't even have a frontal cortex developed, fully developed, until around 25.
So, scientifically, 17-year-old Kavanaugh should be making worse decisions and different decisions than current-day Kavanaugh.
We know that.
That particular fact is not in dispute.
Nobody argues that their 17-year-old self with a partly developed frontal cortex makes the same decisions as their 50-year-old self.
Nobody makes that case.
Why are we concerned about Kavanaugh in 2018?
Because of the decisions we think he'll make.
Because of the decisions we think he'll make.
He's being considered for a job to make decisions.
Are we asking him to make decisions today?
Or let's say he takes the job and he gets nominated.
Are we asking him to make decisions with his 17-year-old brain?
Is that what is being asked of him?
Nope. Nope.
We're not asking him to make decisions about his 17-year-old brain.
We're not asking anybody to do that.
It doesn't make any sense.
The only way it makes sense to connect modern-day Brett Kavanaugh to anything his 17-year-old self did or did not do, the only way that makes sense to connect that chain and say that that event matters to today is is if we think he's the same guy or if there's a legal responsibility and we don't think that's true.
So there is no reasonable connection between why we should care in terms of the nomination.
We should certainly care if there's a victim.
So we can have maximum empathy for the victim.
We could have maximum caring for any victim.
Whether or not there was one in this case, we don't know.
We'll probably never know the facts.
But we could have maximum empathy for any victims, whether there's one here or not.
And it still wouldn't connect.
To 50-something-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, who just doesn't have that brain and wouldn't make the same decisions.
We don't know what decisions he might make, but he does have 20 years or whatever it is of legal opinions that we can read through.
So when the President says facts don't matter, I think that's a supportable statement in this case.
Because even if the FBI... Let me put some context on this.
I was watching last night Chris Cuomo's show on CNN. And I know you don't like to hear this from me.
I know you don't want to hear this.
He puts out a really good show.
I know there are a lot of Fox News fans here, and I am as well.
I think Fox News just generally is a better talent, better production values.
Whether or not you agree with opinions, whether or not you agree with their fact-checking, etc.
Separately, the quality of the Fox News shows are just produced better, it seems to me.
But Chris Cuomo's show, I gotta say, is for CNN, it really stands out as being the closest thing to Balanced that you'll see on that network.
And he was talking about Kavanaugh, this Kavanaugh situation, and again, to his credit, he did a good job of explaining in his own words what the other side has as an argument, which is rare.
You know, it's weird that you don't see that.
That would be the obvious thing you think people would do, right?
If you're going to make a point, you say, here's what the other side says, here's what I say, and then here's my opinion based on all that.
He does that.
It's actually, when I see it, it's so refreshing because it feels rare.
What you normally see is one side just developing one side.
They don't even reference accurately what the other side says.
If they reference the other side, they misinterpret the other side and then reference it.
Cuomo doesn't really do that.
If you watch, you're going to be impressed, I think.
When he describes the other side's argument, he actually describes it pretty much the way it exists.
Very rare. You're not going to see that everywhere else on CNN. You don't see it on Fox News much either.
You see it, but it's a rare thing.
So I give him credit for that.
So I'll take his argument and then I'll extend it.
So his argument was that you want your Supreme Court to be credible.
So far so good. Everybody wants their Supreme Court nominees.
Whoever actually gets on the court, you want them to be credible.
You want the country to say, okay, we did everything we could to pick a good person.
And his point is, why wouldn't you just make the three-day effort to have the FBI look into some of the accusations and see if there's any there there?
Why would you not do something so trivially easy To have such a big benefit, which is you have a better idea of comfort with the final vote.
No matter what the information kicks up, you would have more comfort that you knew what could be known about something that happened 35 years ago.
Now, on its surface, that's a pretty good point, right?
If you could do a small investment, a few days of an FBI investigation, a very small investment, To get a very large benefit, which is you get a candidate for the Supreme Court, nominated probably, who has been checked out as well as it is practical.
So that's a good argument.
Here's the counter to that, which sort of takes it to the next level, which is what happens if you do?
Like, what are all the ramifications of that?
Number one, does anybody believe it would last three days?
Because the argument is that it is transparently a delaying tactic.
If it is transparently a delaying tactic, and there's a pretty good argument that from a political point of view, the politicians involved are using it exactly that way.
And there are people on the left who have said specifically, well, just keep that seat open until the government changes so we can get the people that we want.
And given that candidate Judge Garland was delayed for so long, it's actually not completely unreasonable strategy.
You might hate it, but it could work.
So in that context, spending a few days having the FBI look at stuff probably would just kick up more things that they haven't looked at.
So if they looked at it for three days and came back and said, okay, here's what we found, what are the chances that somebody else would come forward?
There'd be one more thing.
We heard one more person.
We got one more effect.
You better take another week.
It feels like that would be close to 100%.
That the odds of it really only taking three days, because I guess that was the case with the Anita Hill situation.
Today's politics, probably not three days.
But suppose it takes a month.
Is that too long, given the severity of the situation?
I'd say no.
I'd say if you even extended it to a month and said, why not let the FBI have a month?
And we'll really... Dig down and we'll know something more in a month.
Well, that's still a small investment for a very large gain if you could get a more credible situation in the outcome.
And here's the problem.
Facts don't matter, as the President said.
Can you imagine, realistically, can you imagine any situation Where the FBI could come back with an opinion on what happened 35 years ago that would change anyone's mind.
I can't imagine that, can you?
Because if they came up with, let's say they came up with another eyewitness who said, oh yeah, I was totally there and Christine Ford is right, that's exactly what happened.
What would the second part of that be?
Who did that witness vote for?
And then we would find out, in all likelihood, because this is the way these things go, we'd find out that that one new witness voted for Hillary Clinton.
Now what are the facts?
Are the facts still the facts?
Is that eyewitness now credible?
No. No.
That eyewitness would not be credible because that eyewitness would have voted for the other side and the whole issue is whether the original claim is politically motivated.
Why wouldn't we just say the same thing about the next witness?
Why would that make any difference?
Now we just have two people who want to change the outcome of the Supreme Court instead of one.
There would be no credibility that came out of any FBI investigation.
Now, Let me ask you this.
How credible would the FBI be for this particular investigation?
Now, let me say my personal opinion of the FBI. Mostly meaning overwhelmingly good patriotic Americans doing the work of patriots.
So the employees of the FBI, solid employees doing a solid job keeping the country safe.
But, in this very narrow question of President Trump and the things that Republicans want and the Supreme Court and all things Trump related, on that very narrow question is the leadership of the FBI, and of course the leadership would have to be involved in something at this level, right?
This is not a low-level thing.
It would have to be the leadership.
Is the leadership of the FBI sufficiently credible that anything they came up with that indicated possible Kavanaugh guilt could be accepted by the public?
And by the public, I mean in this case, Trump supporters who also want Kavanaugh to get put on the court.
I don't think we live in that world.
In Anita Hill's day, Well, she's still alive, but let's just say in Anita Hill's situation, back with Clarence Thomas, we had an FBI who could do an investigation, present a result, and the country would say, oh, well, if the FBI says it's true, that's probably pretty true.
Came right from the FBI. Back in Anita Hill's day, what do we have now?
Right now we have a whole bunch of emails from FBI Department of Justice types who are clearly biased.
Clearly very biased.
So if the FBI did a three-day investigation and came back and said, yeah, we have some good indication there might be something here, What would that do?
Facts don't matter anymore.
In this situation, it would have no persuasive power.
It's a very unusual situation.
It's, you know, that the FBI would have no persuasive power, no matter what the facts were.
So when the president says there's no point in delaying it to get what Chris Cuomo would say would be a perfectly reasonable small investment, just asking the FBI, hey, just take a few days.
Just take a few days and see if we can get closer to the truth.
That sounds completely normal in Anita Hill's time.
Back in those days.
That would be a completely reasonable thing to ask.
In 2018, asking the FBI to determine whether President Trump's person is of good character or not is frankly ridiculous.
It's kind of ridiculous.
So the notion that the FBI would be a credible filter to put on this story is ridiculous.
They are not a credible, trusted institution on this specific question.
Again, I'll say as clearly as possible, and I hope you all agree, that the vast majority of them working on the vast majority of issues, like 99.9% of things, are just patriots doing a good job keeping the country safe, and we support them completely.
But on this very narrow question, the FBI has no credibility.
And they earned that lack of credibility through their actions, I would say.
Let's talk about some...
All right, so here's my point.
Just summarizing this.
17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh had a different brain than modern-day Brett Kavanaugh.
He has no legal obligation for something that happened that long ago.
So if you take the legal part out of it, you're only asking yourself, is this the brain that we want on the Supreme Court?
And what you can tell from his 17-year-old brain...
It's nothing. Because it wasn't the same brain.
It just wasn't the same guy.
In terms of his personality, his decision-making, it was a different guy.
He just has the same DNA, and he has the same sort of legal ownership, socially determined identity as that last guy, but he's not the same brain.
And we're putting the brain on the Supreme Court.
All right. Let's talk about Judge Jeanine's comment.
So you probably saw her on Hannity's show, or at least a lot of you did, or you may have seen the clip, in which Judge Jeanine tossed out the word hypnosis in talking about the context of why Ford, the accuser, may remember something that some people think didn't happen.
Now, there's no evidence...
On the table that anything called hypnosis is any part of this story, to the best of my knowledge.
If we ever found out that Ford went to any kind of a therapist who did anything like hypnosis, then I would say that would very much change my opinion of the quality of her memory.
If it was a sort of recovered memory under hypnosis, Those are not real.
That's not a thing.
So that would be a case where you'd say, oh, red flag, red flag, red flag.
But there's no evidence of that.
So I think Judge Jeanine was using it in more of a hyperbolic way, not a stopwatch putting you under hypnosis, but maybe just that she had been influenced to the point of remembering something wrong.
And if she had been influenced by some professional therapist type, that would be important.
But there's no evidence that any kind of formal hypnosis happened.
I'm just saying it.
There's no evidence of it.
All right. Here's my other big observation for today.
You're seeing a lot of people argue on both sides of this Kavanaugh story, people who are pretty sure that they have the answer of whether something happened or did not happen as described by Ford.
And here's the form that most people are arguing, and it goes like this.
If your story is correct, how can you explain why?
You've seen this on both sides, right?
Both sides say, well, if this is true, how can you explain why?
You even saw the president do it in a tweet this morning.
He said, if Christine Ford's story is true, why didn't she report it to the police back then?
And you've seen the other side say the same form of things.
Well, if it's not true...
Why is it that she mentioned it to people ahead of time?
If it's not true, why did she tell her therapist it was?
So both sides have the same construct, which is we don't have any direct evidence.
We don't have anybody's DNA. We don't have video.
We don't have a second witness to clarify.
So there's no direct evidence.
So both sides have the same construct.
Well, if you're claiming X, how can you explain Y? And here's the problem with that as an argument.
It's not an argument about the evidence.
It's an argument about your own ignorance.
You can't convince me to change my mind because you've also convinced me you're an idiot.
Alright? Insisting That you can't imagine another explanation for something is not anything about the situation.
It's an explanation about you being an idiot because you can't imagine another explanation.
That's not how you change people's minds.
Hey, I'd like to change your mind.
Let me start by saying I'm an idiot and I have no imagination about things.
We're done now. Have I changed your mind?
Well, you haven't even talked about the facts.
I don't need to talk about the facts.
I can't imagine any facts that would not be consistent with what I already believe.
Now wait a minute. Are you saying that the evidence supports what you're saying?
No, no. I don't have any evidence.
No evidence. What I'm saying is, I personally, I can't imagine how I'd be wrong.
Because if X is true, I can't imagine why Y would have happened.
That's not about the evidence.
That's about you.
Let me give you an example.
I'll use President Trump's tweet just so you know that I'm being objective about this point.
Now keep in mind that the president is doing the work of persuading, right?
So he's not trying to pass the fact checking.
He's not trying to be rational on this point.
He's trying to persuade.
But the argument looks like this.
If this event really happened, why didn't she report it?
Now if there are other people who are adopting this argument and saying the same thing, well, if it really happened, why didn't she report it to the police?
That's not facts.
That's not evidence.
That is you not understanding that there are plenty of reasons a 17-year-old doesn't report things to the police.
One of them might be that she was passed down drunk and she was underage.
One of them Might be that it would only make her life worse.
One of them might be, she was a 15-year-old girl.
What 15-year-old girls make good decisions?
The whole context is that a 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh made a bad decision.
Suddenly a 15-year-old girl is supposed to be making good decisions?
In what world do we expect that to be true?
Have you ever met a 15-year-old girl?
They don't make good decisions.
You know who else doesn't make good decisions?
15-year-old boys.
15-year-olds. They don't make good decisions.
So if your argument is, why didn't a 15-year-old do something that I would have done as an adult?
That's not an argument.
That's something wrong with you.
You can't persuade me by telling me how ignorant you are and how bad your imagination is.
That's not an argument.
But still... It can be persuasive to the people who want to believe.
So the president is consolidating his base, persuading his base, and plenty of his base will adopt some version of his arguments which are, well, if it's not true that it's made up, how do you explain this?
And then the other side is doing exactly the same thing.
Exactly the same thing.
They're saying, well, how can you explain this unless this really happened?
So let us agree that the how do you explain this thing is a failure of your own imagination.
I have not heard anything from either side that I personally couldn't imagine several explanations for.
So take anything you think is in evidence here.
Take anything you think is in evidence.
Like, why would she report it if it weren't true?
Well, how about for political reasons?
How about she misremembered it?
There are lots of good reasons.
I can imagine lots of reasons that would be perfectly normal.
How about...
How could she describe...
How is it possible that she could misidentify somebody that she knew?
How is that even possible?
I'll tell you how.
Happens all the time.
If you don't know that...
That even that level of misidentification, literally somebody you know, if you think that's impossible, That's your problem.
Because it's not impossible.
It's actually fairly common to misidentify people, even within the small class of people you know really well.
That doesn't mean she did it.
I'm just saying that if you're asking the question, how do you explain this?
There's plenty of explanations, and they're all pretty normal.
Pretty normal. It's easy.
So don't confuse your own lack of imagination Your own lack of knowledge as some kind of evidence that somebody else did a crime.
So given all that, I think the only thing that makes sense is to say, look, we're not blaming people for anything that happened when they were 17, doesn't have the same brain, and we're putting the brain on the Supreme Court.
We're not We're not putting some legal entity which coincidentally shares DNA of a creature that existed 35 years ago that makes completely different decisions.
Whether or not this event happened or didn't happen, it's a different person.
In terms of their mind, in terms of their decision making, it's a different person.
Legally, it's the same person.
All right.
Yeah, then others are saying, hey, look at the yearbooks.
She was a partier.
The fact that she is a partier means what?
It doesn't mean anything.
Yeah, nobody is arguing that people who are drunk make good decisions.
So I don't know that that has any relevance that her yearbook says she was a partier and that the school was a partier.
Now, if Judge Kavanaugh is not confirmed, and this also goes to Chris Cuomo's point of why not just take three days and look into it.
If you take three days to look into it, you'll probably find other things.
They may not be evidence of crimes or wrongdoing, but there will be more questions, won't they?
And so we'd be heading down a path Where nominating a man for the Supreme Court becomes hard.
Now what if we reach a point where nominating a male for the Supreme Court is so impractical, because you know there's going to be stuff like this coming out, what if it's so impractical we just stop doing it?
Because nobody wants to deal with it.
Is that the world you want to live in?
Maybe you do. I think you're seeing the same thing I'm seeing, but let me characterize it.
I'm seeing in social media primarily opinions primarily from women or exclusively from women that are basically are just pure anti-male.
And it seems like there was a time Some people are saying we lost the video.
I'll wait a second. If you lost the video link, sometimes you have to get on a Periscope and get back in.
But everything is fine for me and some of the people listening.
But I think I saw women saying in public and not backing down from it that men are sort of the problem.
And I thought, that's new.
I mean, it's one thing to think it, but it's one thing to be able to say it out loud and to not have any repercussions.
Apparently there's no repercussion for saying that men are just sort of bad.
Go back 30 seconds and repeat.
Yeah, sounds like we lost some time here.
The last 30 seconds I was just pointing out that it seems to me that in the news we're seeing women coming out and just essentially demeaning men in general and that that's now acceptable.
So it has become acceptable behavior to just paint men in general as horrible beasts.
It's not new that people thought it, but I've never seen it so brazenly spoken in a political context without repercussions.
Oh, just old white men.
Yeah, so the notion that a bunch of old white men Would be incapable is exactly the Judge Curiel situation, isn't it?
You know, the accusation against Trump when he said Judge Curiel might be biased because he has Mexican heritage and the president had of course been painted as the enemy of all people in that category.
And people said, are you saying that judge can't be objective because of his race?
Well, that's exactly what the president was saying, but it was limited to the specific question, because the question was about race and Mexican immigration.
So in that specific case, yes, that was exactly what the president was saying, that a person's life experience It causes the potential for bias, and you would like to get rid of that in any kind of a legal context, which in the legal context is actually allowed in its good form to do that.
But why would we use a different standard for the Senate?
It is true.
That having, in my opinion, as I said in a different Periscope, that this is one of those cases where some diversity is almost certainly a benefit.
Because if nothing else, it would give you more credibility for whatever decision comes out.
So I've argued that diversity in the Senate and in other places is a powerful thing for the United States because we have a diverse country.
So that you're just matching your form of government to the population and that makes you stronger than if the population puts less credibility in the government.
So just sort of a standard, obvious statement.
But in this case, these old white senators are being accused of being old white people.
Old white males, specifically.
Yeah, old white men.
When did it become okay to say that?
Because if it's okay to say that, is everything on the table now?
Are we allowed to say that some other group can't do their job because of their ethnicity or their gender?
It feels like some kind of line has been crossed, wouldn't you say?
And I saw somebody else on social media say, How could a man be a Democrat?
That's still an exaggeration.
It's still a little hyperbole to say that, but not a lot.
It's not a lot. I would say that now that's a legitimate question.
Whereas that would have been a crazy thing to say not long ago.
The question, how could you be a man and join a party that doesn't like you?
How can you? Really?
How the hell, how the hell would a man become a Democrat when the leaders of your party, who are women, and let's, I think we'd agree with that, when you say the leaders of the Democrat party are women, let me do a fact check on me, okay?
So I've made a claim of fact, That the leadership of the Democratic Party are women.
Now, that doesn't mean all the men.
Obviously, there's a Chuck Schumer, there's a Keith Ellison.
There are males in important positions.
But wouldn't you say that the opinion of the Democrats is whatever the women want it to be?
True or false? Democratic philosophy is what the women want it to be, the women who are Democrats.
Am I wrong? It's not what the men want.
Because I'm pretty sure that the white men who are also Democrats don't really want to live in a world where they can be told they can't do their job well because they're white males.
I mean, if they do think that, that's a strange situation.
I'm sure there could be some people in that group.
Um... Pale, male, and stale is what I've heard.
Okay, I gotta say that's pretty good persuasion.
So somebody's using the phrase on the Democrat side, talking about Republicans, pale, male, and stale.
That's pretty funny, even though it's offensive.
Chuck takes his lead from the women.
that appears to be true alright I'm not going to read that comment And Well, how long will it be before we see a national level politician say what I just said?
Do you think that'll ever happen?
Do you think you'll ever see a national politician say that the Democrats are a party for women?
Because I think I said this, I don't know, months ago, maybe a year ago, that it seems like the Democrats were starting to evolve into a gender-based political group.
Sort of a gender-focused group.
Because, let me ask you, can you name the Democrats' plan for helping black people?
Just take your time.
Can you tell me what the Democrats want for black people?
What is the big program they're working on to help all the black people who are Democrats?
They've got a plan, right? They must have some plans because they're the inclusive party.
Oh, what? We can't think of one.
Now think of what the Democrats want in terms of gender.
And suddenly, you know, you can think of lots of things, right?
So, it is not my point of view That the thing that Democrats are asking for is wrong or that they shouldn't get it.
I'm not making that case.
Because, you know, you've heard my opinions before, in particular on the question of Abortion, I have recused myself because I don't have a womb.
And I think that women are more capable than men of deciding how society should treat this.
They have more skin in the game.
And I defer to what I would consider a more credible, durable opinion, which is whatever the majority of women come up with.
So if the majority of women want the abortion law to go one way or the other, I'm gonna keep my mouth quiet and I'm gonna say if women collectively have supported this, then I'll support it as well.
I'm not saying men shouldn't have an opinion.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion.
I'm not saying men shouldn't have an opinion on how they spend their money.
That's fine. I'm just saying that I'm recusing myself.
So anyway, my point is I'm not arguing The politics or the points coming out of the Democrat side.
I'm not arguing them on their merit.
I'm simply saying that as a brand and as a political force, they become a gender force.
And that's unmistakable now.
They're not really about inclusivity, they're about gender and power, I would say.
Alright, I think I've said enough, and I'm going to sign off for now, and I'll talk to you all later.
▲
Export Selection