All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:19
Episode 246 Scott Adams: The FBI Report, Bullies and Male Privilege
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey Joanne.
again.
Hey Jillian.
Hey Dirty Uncle.
Hey Unixrab.
Hey Russell. Hey Olga.
Come on in here. If you get in here on time, it will be time for you to enjoy The unparalleled pleasure that's called the simultaneous sip.
Oh, you know how it goes.
It goes something like this.
You grab your mug, your cup, your vessel, your chalice, your cup.
You fill it with your favorite beverage.
You lift it to your lips, and you simultaneously sip.
On my mark.
Go. Mmm.
Alright, so, in the headlines, the FBI has submitted its report.
This report is not an investigation.
It's just a write-up of some people they talk to.
And, of course, all of the conversation will be about, hey, was that FBI investigation good enough?
Now, as I said before, the Democrats sort of...
Trap themselves with this whole demand for one week of an FBI investigation.
Although the following conversation never took place, I want you to imagine it as if it had.
One of the characters in this one-act play will be Dale, Dale the anti-Trumper.
You can imagine Cory Booker or anybody else.
And the other character will be President Trump.
It's a one-act play and it goes like this.
President Trump, you have to have a full investigation.
A full investigation with the FBI investigating and looking into this.
Otherwise, we can't vote.
It's all wrong.
We have to have an FBI investigation.
Well, are you just trying to delay?
Because it feels like you're just trying to delay.
Delay! Are you kidding?
Us? Delay? We just want one week.
Just one week of an FBI investigation, just like they did with Anita Hill.
Just one week, that's all.
And then, got to be a full investigation.
President Trump.
So, if I let them investigate for one week, then I would have satisfied the main thing you're asking.
That's right. I know you'll never do it.
You'll never do it. You're never going to investigate because you don't want the truth.
All we need is one week.
President Trump. Okay.
How about I say yes.
Let's have that one week investigation in which we talk to people.
There must be three or four people we haven't talked to who apparently have nothing important to say or we would have already talked to them.
But we will do that.
I think you're absolutely right.
Let's get to the bottom of this.
Let's have one week of one full robust week of maximum FBI investigation and then you'll be happy, right?
What's happening here?
I don't understand what's happening here.
Well, what's happening is you asked for something, and you said it was very important, and I'm offering it to you.
The FBI, and I'm granting it a one-week investigation.
Oh, I see the trick.
It's going to be overly narrow.
You're narrowing it.
It's too narrow. It's too narrow.
Well, good point.
I think I'll tell the FBI to make sure they do what they need to do.
We won't narrow it too much.
Just talk to the people they think are necessary.
What's happening? What's happening here?
I don't know what's happening here.
Well, Dale, I'm giving you what you're asking for.
I don't like this.
And scene.
So, the funny part here as I look for my power cord is that the Democrats totally walked into a narrow ravine and surrendered.
Well, we're in the narrow ravine.
What happens now?
I like being in this narrow ravine.
Who are those guys up on the ledge?
They seem to be armed.
I don't know. I think it'll work out.
That's sort of what's happening now.
So it's a hilarious theater, and the claim that the Democrats had that the process wasn't fair just went from a reasonably good claim To a pretty weak claim.
Because now it's not you haven't investigated them.
Now it's just, well, maybe you could have talked to some other people or maybe those people who investigated for hours at a time, the people who testified, Kavanaugh and Ford, maybe we needed to ask them more questions as if they had something else to say.
So, the Democrats have a very weak hand here.
It's another good week for the President.
I would say that Kavanaugh will certainly be approved, unless there's some new surprise today.
Now, here's an interesting factoid.
Because the Democrats treated Kavanaugh as a solid block of no votes, There were no Democrats who were saying even maybe.
Because they voted along party lines, and it was clear that they would before any accusations came out or anything else, it made it safe for the administration, the Trump administration, to do any kind of power play they want.
Because the Democrats...
Had signaled so completely their lack of willingness to be part of the system as we know it, the advice and consent.
Once they gave up all legitimacy as part of the process, it was no longer reasonable to negotiate with them.
So while they're asking for, can we have some other, give us another nominee, you could imagine that in some earlier time, imagine if you would, for example, that half of the Democrats had a problem with them, and maybe a few Republicans were wondering too.
In sort of a normal, working-together, collegial situation, you can imagine where the president might say, you know, maybe a different president, but might say, you know, there are enough people concerned.
We've got to get this right.
We're going to take all these opinions into consideration and maybe move on to another person.
But because the Democrats were a solid bloc, it is absolute permission to For the Republicans to vote as a solid bloc and to simply counter the other side.
Because you want a little bit of balance of power, right?
You don't want one side to be able to walk over the other outside of the system.
But it's less of a problem if the majority is getting what it wants, which looks like that's going to happen.
So the Democrats gave up all credibility by voting as a solid bloc without regard to really any information.
And so the Republicans have the same free pass.
It's a total free pass to vote event.
Now I would say that the larger question of can we let somebody like Kavanaugh be taken down by Kavanaugh Can we live in that world?
And the answer is solidly no.
Solidly no.
I also suspect that male voters, a lot of male voters are going to be defecting the Democrats.
I don't know if you'll have a lot of female voters defecting Republicans over this.
Probably some, because it's a big country, so there's always somebody doing something.
But I would expect that for every Republican woman who might say, ah, I'm going to go with the Democrats on this one because of this issue, there might be 25 men who say, I don't want to live in a world where an accusation is enough.
So there was a great article by Bret Stephens in the New York Times about how apparently he's no Trump fan, but in this particular case, He prefers a bully.
It's one of those strange situations where if the bully's on your side, you kind of like a bully, because you don't want to get bullied, and the best person to stop you from getting bullied is a bully.
I will tell you that in high school, you know, bullying, of course, is a thing in every school, but in my high school, the biggest, physically the biggest, Most dangerous, toughest bully was a friend of mine.
I liked him. We did a lot of stuff together.
We played sports together and stuff.
And so when lesser bullies attempted to bully me, it didn't really work because the biggest bully was on my side.
I don't think I planned it that way.
I don't remember my thinking.
But Trump is kind of like that.
He's the bigger bully. So there are a lot of men who are looking at this situation and saying, I'm not sure this is fair anymore.
Because you remember, it wasn't long ago that the complaint against men sounded like this.
It was, you know, male privilege, white male privilege.
And when I hear stuff like that, I say to myself, okay, that's actually a real thing.
Not in every situation.
I don't think the unemployed ex-steelworker in the Rust Belt has got a lot of white male privilege.
But I do. So I would say that there's definitely a white male privilege that exists.
So if somebody complains about it, I'm going to say, well, it's not some kind of universal thing.
I don't know what to do about it.
It's not necessarily fairness to try to adjust that.
There are a lot of things you can say about it.
But at least you're talking about something that's a real thing.
And you can say, all right, I may not agree, but it's a legitimate conversation.
But doesn't it feel like it went wrong?
It went past that to outright anti-male behavior.
To me it felt like the Kavanaugh thing was proxy revenge.
Proxy meaning a stand-in.
That there were a lot of women and probably a lot of Democrats in general who felt like victims.
A lot of women who were literally victims of men in their past And a lot of Democrats who probably feel like victims just because their party is not in power and they're afraid of Trump, etc.
So it feels to me like the attacks on Kavanaugh were partly naked politics, as you'd expect them, but they seemed to be fueled.
The energy behind them, the enthusiasm, wasn't just about abortion.
Because as I've said before, the states would probably keep the abortion laws largely intact in most places, not everywhere.
But it seemed to me that this was more of a revenge situation.
Did it feel that way to you?
To me it felt like the people I didn't know were taking revenge on people like me, people like Kavanaugh, Because they were very angry about other things that have happened.
And that is such a big important thing that you have to stop that.
You can't have a civilization where people get proxy revenge.
This was revenge against Trump.
It was revenge against every man who'd ever wronged them.
It was hatred of white people, by some people, not everybody.
Nothing I'm saying is true of every person.
These are generalities.
But it felt like anti-white, anti-male, anti-Trump.
It was just proxy revenge.
At least for the public.
For the public, it felt like revenge.
For the politicians, it was more of a power grab in which they were manipulating the emotions of their people.
Did any of you see an interview that Alyssa Milano gave on, I think it was MSNBC, in which she actually speculated that Trump had some kind of cult-like mind control going on?
And as she said it, you actually saw the hosts on MSNBC. MSNBC, the group that probably hates Trump more than anybody.
And they just looked at each other like...
When she's talking about his cult-like mind control abilities, the hosts are just like...
You know, even they weren't even on board.
So... Once again...
We see an overreach that is almost certainly going to activate more men than women.
And to the degree that the Democrats have branded themselves as the anti-male party, and that's what it is now.
I would say that it wasn't long ago that I would have said that the Democrats were more pro-women, and I would have said that might be a good idea.
It could be healthy.
I like the competitive democratic process where there are parties that are different, they've got a distinct point of view, they might be advocates for some group more than others.
As long as it's explicit, as long as we can vote against it or for it, I'm okay with a good healthy competition of ideas.
So there's nothing inherently wrong with having one of the major parties Be far more heavily female-centric.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But I think they overshot the mark.
And they've been emboldened and become bullies.
And they've become flat-out anti-male at this point.
In a way that the Republicans are unambiguously not anti-female.
The Republicans do have a number of policies about reproductive rights and stuff that women would not prefer by a majority, I believe.
I think that's true, that women by a majority would not prefer those things.
But there's nothing in the Republican philosophy that's based on a dislike Or an animus to women.
In fact, it's the opposite.
The reason conservatives are pro-life includes women, or female fetuses, shall we say, if you want to be specific.
The Republicans are specifically trying to protect women from immigration crime.
They're trying to protect women from being aborted.
But they do not give them the same, they would prefer that women not have the same options for reproductive rights in some cases.
But there's no hatred about it.
It's just a difference of what's the best way to organize society.
On the Democrat side, there's actual hatred.
And when was the last time you saw anything that looked like, well, I'll hold back that question.
There's always something. So that's enough about that.
So the anti-male party has probably made one of the, probably, this Kavanaugh situation, there's a non-zero chance that historians will look back at this as the worst mistake a political party ever made.
Now you could argue that when Hillary Clinton said her deplorables comment, that was a gigantic problem.
But that was one person, making one comment in one place.
So it turned out poorly, but you can't say that was the party.
The whole Kavanaugh thing really is about the whole party, because it's an organized, party-wide attempt.
And I think historians are going to say it just looked so anti-male That they just killed themselves.
They just shot themselves in the foot.
There's a story today, moving on, about apparently China managed to cleverly insert a very tiny grain of rice sized chip on a lot of circuit boards that ended up as components in a lot of different technology in different countries and this little chip would give them the ability to control those machines or monitor them or spy on them.
Apparently it's a really big deal because there's so many devices that have this spy chip on them.
Now I have two reactions to that.
Number one, apparently it was a pretty awesome Spy accomplishment.
So if you're just trying to assess how good a job it was, how capable the Chinese are, how well do they spy, A+. Sort of an A-plus spy operation until they got caught.
Who knows how it helped them until then.
But man, that's some good spy work.
That's some good spy work, except that they got caught.
Now, If you were looking at that in isolation, you would say to yourself, you know, all the countries are spying against each other.
If we could have done it to them, we certainly would have.
We didn't have the opportunity.
I'm sure we're spying on them, they're spying on us.
It's a tie. But when you throw that in with the fact that the majority of the artificial fentanyl is coming from China, and we assume that they could do a lot more to stop it, It may be intentional.
So they have a massive, you know, hacking and spying operations against us.
They're killing 10 to, I don't know, maybe 10 to 40,000 people a year with their fentanyl that they could stop.
And they're stealing intellectual property, which is the basis for our entire economy.
And, you know, I hope they're being helpful in North Korea, but one has some doubts about that.
Now, given all of that, how interested am I in reaching a trade deal with China?
A lot less interested than I was a week ago.
A lot less interested.
So, China, I just want you to know that you've certainly lost face because of the fentanyl situation in particular.
You got caught with the spying, and you're not willing, apparently, to do a good trade deal with the United States, and you're encroaching on the South China Seas and expanding.
I would say, China, your brand is the worst I've seen it in years.
And China, you should be ashamed.
The proper feeling for Chinese citizens should be shame because you're exporting death to your customers, the United States, people who should be your allies.
Shame on you. Shame on China.
Shame on President Xi for this situation.
And I certainly don't want anything bad to happen to U.S. companies because of a trade war with China, but my vote...
And the government might need to prop up some of the US industries because of this.
I'd be in favor of that.
But I say go hard on China.
As hard as we need to go, for as long as we need to go.
And if that takes down the Chinese economy by 20%, it's not our problem.
It's time to put China on notice.
I had been not a China hawk.
Until they were implicated in the death of my stepson this week, who died of a fentanyl overdose, for those of you who don't know.
We'll be burying him on Saturday.
And there's no way to know that that specific dose of fentanyl came from China, but apparently most of it does.
Most of it does.
And so China... You are my enemy, as long as this is going on.
And you should be ashamed.
You should be ashamed. And I've never been more supportive of President Trump's trade war than I am right now.
So the other funniest thing that's going on is that we've been watching for, I don't know, how long have we been watching...
President Trump criticized the FBI because of politicization, is that the word?
Because the FBI was allegedly politicized about the election, and people like McCabe and Strzok and Lisa Page were allegedly politicized, and it made the FBI look politicized.
But what did the Democrats say the whole time?
The FBI is not politicized.
You should trust the FBI. Stop criticizing the FBI. And then the FBI does this extra interviews for the Kavanaugh situation and what does the left say?
That's not good enough.
What kind of FBI investigation is that?
Well, the first thing is it's not really an investigation.
It's just a background check.
And although these two situations are entirely different, logically there's nothing in common with what Strzok and Page and those people were doing with these interviews, completely different people, completely different situation, right? But in our minds, In our minds, the credibility of the FBI is still sort of the summary of both of those stories.
And so now the left, who has been defending the FBI for all of its goodness, and my God, they would never be political, has to look at this situation and completely reverse their opinion.
So, assuming Kavanaugh gets approved, it's gonna make Trump It's going to make Trump look more like he is fighting on the side of the underdog, the falsely accused.
It's going to make every accusation made against Trump himself, you know, the various women who made accusations against him, it's going to make all of them look less credible just by osmosis, you know, just by association with the story.
Because the stories coming out of the Kavanaugh story were extraordinarily non-credible, at least two of them were, One of them had at least a credible person who has no eyewitnesses to her story.
And that's the most credible one.
So all of this lack of credibility on Kavanaugh sort of transfers to all of us, and Trump in particular.
So I would say that women In terms of the believability of women, well, let me say this as clearly as possible.
What the Democrats would like is that women be believed when they make claims.
So that would be, I would say that would be on the top of the stated list of what they want.
The unstated stuff is, you know, they want power or they want to win and stuff like that.
But of these stated objectives, the things clearly and consistently said by the Democrats We need to be in a world where women are believed with these accusations.
What is the outcome of all this Kavanaugh stuff when he gets approved and confirmed, which I think is going to happen?
What will happen to the credibility of women?
Way, way down, wouldn't you say?
Now again, I'm not talking about truth.
Truth, we're not going to really ever know what happened 35 years ago.
So the truth is beyond our grasp.
But in terms of credibility, do you believe it enough to act on it?
Do you trust the person saying it enough to act on it and find out the real facts?
In terms of credibility, women have taken the biggest hit to credibility I've ever seen.
So if you were a woman and you wanted...
To be part of a party that was helping you, you would have to see that the Democrats have destroyed the credibility of women with this Kavanaugh thing only because of the overreach, only because at least some of the claims, and I'm specifically talking about the gang rape claims, are so wildly unbelievable that That they sort of morph in your mind as one big, not credible, false accusations.
My God, women will do anything to stop this white man.
You know, none of this is necessarily fact-based, but it's how it feels to all of us.
So I think women took a gigantic hit on this because their credibility will be forever Kavanaughed, forever Christine Forded.
You know, every time a woman makes a claim of this nature, a man who has gone through this system is going to say, well, that sounds a lot like Christine Ford.
That sounds a lot like those accusers of Kavanaugh that I didn't believe because those particular ones didn't reach my own level of credibility.
So women taking a big hit on this, which is not good for anybody.
All right.
Yeah, it's going to be harder for women now.
So do you agree with me that for every woman who may have changed sides because of this, for every woman who may have gone over to the Democrats because of this issue,
don't you think that the number of men Who turned against the Democrats might be 10 times, at least?
I don't think it's close.
It looks like this is just massively positive for Republicans, like massively.
Because the people who are anti-Republican pretty much are going to stay there.
The people who are on the fence are going to look at this and say, that is an ugly party.
Did the Democrats literally organize fake sexual abuse accusations against a white male in public to stop him?
We'll never know, but it sure looks that way.
So it's going to register that way to a lot of people.
Yes, and I don't know if I have the name right, Hirano?
Is that the senator from Hawaii who said that men should shut up?
She might be the worst thing that ever happened to women.
Let me ask you this.
And I don't know if this is a question just for men, but you can all chime in.
Is it Harani?
I forget the name of the senator.
But when she said men should just shut up and step up, It started with shut up.
You know, that was sort of the first part of that thought.
The step up part, nobody can disagree with stepping up, right?
So there's no man who says, oh, men should not step up.
But when the first part of that is shut up, I would say that was the worst catastrophe for women.
Might be the worst thing that's happened for women, I don't know, in 10 years?
Can you think of anything else that was worse for women than a senator believing it would be okay to just go anti-male and not take it back?
No apology. No nuance.
Just men should shut up.
Probably the most destructive thing any woman did for the cause of women in I can't think of anything worse.
Can anybody come up with anything that was worse for women than that?
Because it was one thing to sort of suspect that women were just hated men.
It was one thing to suspect that there were a lot of man-haters on the Democrat side, but to actually have a Explicitly stated and then not taken back and not...
I believe nobody on her side really criticized that, did they?
There must have been somebody.
Let me not say nobody.
But I can't remember seeing a lot of Democrats saying, yeah, I think she went too far.
She should take that part back.
Not that I care either way, but I didn't see it happen.
So I would say that this is largely a catastrophe for the power of women in society.
Women have massively lost credibility.
The Democrats have shown themselves as anti-male.
They've shown a willingness to embrace guilty until innocent.
As long as it's a man who's involved.
You know, I always hate the arguments that say, well, imagine if this had happened to Obama, or imagine if somebody else had done this, or what if a Republican had tried this?
I hate all of those arguments.
But I think we could agree in this case that if the candidate for the Supreme Court had been a woman, and had she been accused with flimsy charges, There isn't the slightest chance that Democrats would say we should have believed the accuser.
Let's say the accuser was a man and the candidate was a woman.
I don't think there's any chance Democrats would have said the standard here is that you should believe the accuser.
Not a chance.
You know, I've said before that the Black Lives Matter was both genius And terrible as a slogan.
Forget about the movement itself and what you think about them.
Just talking about the persuasion benefit of the slogan itself.
If you can compartmentalize for a moment.
I've said that Black Lives Matter was genius in the sense that it makes you immediately say, well, what about other people?
Other people matter too.
And then you're immediately called a racist because you have not embraced that Black Lives Matter.
So as a clever trap, sort of like, do you still beat your wife?
It's like, no, I don't.
Oh, but then you used to? Yes, I still beat my wife.
Then you're a wife beater. There's no right answer.
There's no right response to Black Lives Matter.
So on one level, it's genius, and it got tons of attention.
It became a national brand.
So on all of the levels that, or at least most of the levels that a brand and a slogan work on, it definitely worked.
But here's the problem.
It was also racist.
It's just racist.
Because when you say Black Lives Matter, You are indicating that there's something special going on there, race-wise, which is exactly the opposite of a colorblind society.
We'll never be colorblind, but it's the opposite of everybody being treated the same and working toward some more practical level of equality, not just a legal level of equality.
I think that for that Black Lives Matter thing, people tried to be polite and embrace it because if you don't get caught up in the actual words, there's a good point at the bottom of it.
I've told you before, I've backed Colin Kaepernick for being an effective advocate for improving the situation for black people.
And I think that As a protester, A+. But I think the situation with the Kavanaugh is sort of the same problem as Black Lives Matter.
And again, I'm not talking about black people.
I'm not talking about women. I'm only talking about the persuasiveness of the slogan.
We're only talking about the persuasion layer here.
You can have your own opinions about the politics of it and the morality of it and everything else.
But when women started to characterize this as believe women, that didn't look like believe people, did it?
If you see somebody carrying a sign that says believe women, isn't that just sexist?
Because there are lots of victims in the world and I think I don't know if this is true, but I would guess the majority of victims of violence are probably male, just because men are closer to violence all the time.
And I don't see anybody saying, believe the accuser, because that would be a non-sexist way to say it.
But believe women is really registering my mind as don't believe men.
My brain can't process that as being an objective statement about believe the accusers.
It just sounds like you should believe women over men.
That is such an overreach and such a violation of what the Constitution was about, such a reversal of hundreds of years of progress towards something closer to equality, that I've got a feeling men reached their limit.
I have a personality characteristic and I always wonder how common it is.
And my personality characteristic is this.
I am not bothered by things as they get worse and worse.
It's like, ah, that's trivial.
Okay, that's more than trivial, but I'm still not bothered.
Ah, that's pretty bad, but I got other things to worry about.
Until things reach a certain level.
And then I just sort of, unlike a bit that got flipped, I just go from zero to one.
I don't have any in-between.
It's just always been true.
And I've got a feeling that men, Looking at this Kavanaugh situation, had always been sort of, you know, they had empathy for both sides, they were trying to see the logic of it, trying to put it in a framework of civilization and the Constitution and the rule of law and, you know, the shoe on the other foot, how would you like it to be?
And I think they were, you know, thinking of the conceptual stuff and what's best and stuff like that.
But by the time you get to believe women, And you look at that sign and you say to yourself, believe women?
How about believe accusers?
Where are the men in this equation?
Do we not believe them?
It feels like men are just going to snap.
I think that we missed all of the in-between pushback because society doesn't let men push back.
I'm not saying that should necessarily be different, but we live in a world where men don't really speak freely.
I suppose that's true of women, too.
Just people don't speak freely.
So between the levels of, you know, you have a good point, let's talk about your point.
There may be some unfairness here.
I'd like to help you get to the bottom of it.
So between the reasonable, oh yeah, I hear you, And let's be reasonable about this.
And believe women.
And deny this guy a job and ruin his life based on an accusation.
That's a big gap.
And I think men were just largely sort of silent during that whole gap.
But when it hits the point of believe women over men, which is really what it turned into, I think men just...
I think a bit just flipped.
And... I'm not yet ready to predict a red wave.
But it is lining up that way.
It's lining up that way as maybe the Certainly it will be the biggest...
I'll give you a prediction that's a safe one.
It'll probably be the biggest gender difference in the vote that we've ever seen.
So you're going to see far more men voting for Republicans, far more women as percentage voting for Democrats.
And I think that will solidify The Democrats as sort of the anti-male party.
They used to be more pro-women, pro-ethnicities.
They've just completely forgotten about black people, as far as I can tell.
When was the last time you saw the Democrats talk about something that would be good for African Americans?
I don't remember. I don't remember seeing it.
It's been a while. So let's talk about, so Kanye, speaking of Kaepernick, Kanye has tweeted he's offered to broker a meeting between Kaepernick and President Trump.
How great is that?
That's like the coolest thing that's happened all year.
How much do you want to see Kanye West literally introduced Kaepernick to President Trump in the Oval Office and then closed the door and then they have a chat.
How much do you want to see that?
I mean, I want to see that a lot.
And that doesn't mean they have to agree.
They could walk out and Kaepernick can say, you know, this didn't work out for me.
But it's definitely the right thing to do.
The wrong thing to do is to keep complaining and not get in the same room and talk about what you could do about it.
That's the wrong approach.
Unambiguously has the right approach.
Let's put them in the same room.
And look at the space that Kanye has carved out in society.
I've been telling you this since 2007 or something.
I've been telling you that whatever you think about his capabilities, you need to increase that opinion.
Because you have a seriously effective person here who's been seriously effective in a number of different fields, and he's not stopping.
He's not slowing down.
You're not going to get less yay.
Let's call him yay.
He's changed his name from Kanye to yay.
I'm not quite on board with the change, only because when I talk about it in public, I'm not sure all of you know of the change, so he's still in transition.
Let's say Ye pulls this off, and it seems like he should be able to do that.
It would be exactly the right thing for Kaepernick to do, and it would be exactly the right thing for the president to do.
It would be an example of citizen activism.
In this case, I'm talking about Ye.
That would be one of the best examples of citizen activism you'll ever see.
You know, why would Ye do this?
You know, it's not music.
It's not designing clothes.
Seems like it's out of his field.
Why would he do it? Because he can.
Because he can. That's the reason.
He has the ability to do this thing that maybe nobody else has.
In the whole freaking seven billion people in the world, can you think of one other person Who could put those two people in the same room and sit there with them and be considered a reasonably objective arbiter, a third party?
Where did Dennis Rodman go?
Dennis Rodman has sort of a substance problem, I think, that can't be ignored.
But I have a lot of respect for Dennis Rodman.
This is weird to say.
This will be the strangest thing you've ever heard me say.
I have a lot of respect for Dennis Rodman's political opinions.
He doesn't go deep on the policies, but he's a very open-minded, practical...
I have a lot of respect for Dennis Rodman for his politics.
So I wouldn't mind seeing him in the room either, but not on this issue.
Okay, that's all for now.
I'm going to go do something else, and I'll talk to you all later.
Let's keep checking the news, find out how this FBI investigation turns out, and we'll talk to you later.
▲
Export Selection