All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 17, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
50:48
Episode 305 Scott Adams: Swalwell Derangement Syndrome, CIA Leaks, Pelosi Votes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, get in here.
It's time for Saturday Morning Coffee with Scott Adams.
Who is Scott Adams?
Alexa, who is Scott Adams?
Scott Adams is the creator of the Dilbert comic script and the author of several non-fiction works of satire, commentary, and business.
His Dilbert series came to national prominence through the downsizing period in 1990s America and was then distributed worldwide.
Adams worked in various roles at big businesses before he became a full-time cartoonist in 1995.
True.
True.
So I've been living with a number of Alexa devices.
classes.
which it's hard to talk about it without triggering it.
So I got several of them and put them in different rooms and I've been trying to live with them for a while to see what I think of having these devices.
And I gotta tell you, I realize everybody's reaction is going to be different.
There's no product that everybody likes.
But I am so hooked on this Alexa thing.
I use it all the time.
I walk from room to room talking to it, asking it the weather, the time.
I make it tell me jokes.
I ask it questions of facts.
I ask it trivia. Now, there is one problem.
There is one problem.
Apparently, it's recording you all the time.
So if I commit a crime, the police apparently can get a full record of all my conversations in the house wherever I was within a talking distance of it.
Now you might say to yourself, my God, how can you live with that level of giving away your personal information?
And here's my explanation.
Have you noticed that there are no large crimes that go unsolved?
There's no such thing as privacy.
Privacy is so gone.
Yeah, privacy is so gone.
You know, imagine trying to get away with a crime.
They know where your phone is.
They know what you've looked up.
They know literally everywhere you've gone with your phone.
They know where you've purchased things.
They know who you've talked to.
They know every comment and picture you've ever published.
They can get a hold of your phone and find out everything you like, have done, every app, every communication you've ever had.
There are video cameras everywhere.
There's an Alexa and about probably 10% of the homes now, but that will be climbing over time.
I don't think my phone listens to me all the time, but it can.
Just the fact that, you know, if the deep state or whoever, the CIA already, wanted to turn on my phone and just listen to me, I believe they have the technology to do that.
I could be wrong, but I think they could just listen through my phone as it's sitting on my desk if they wanted to.
So, having discussions about whether we should or should not give up our privacy is so 2010.
Your privacy is gone.
You don't have any privacy.
The only privacy you have is based on being boring.
Being boring is the only thing that keeps you private.
Because if nobody cares, nobody's gonna look.
And by nobody, I mean the government.
Right now, we do have at least a little bit of privacy from our other citizens.
Alright, let's talk about President Trump going all bipartisan.
You saw that he went bipartisan on the prison reform bill, and that was a really good What I call the new CEO move.
It's the first thing you do after you take the job.
You saw that Trump and Pence did that when they first got elected before they were even signed in.
They were going to Ford and Carrier and trying to convince them to bring jobs back to the United States.
So on day one, Trump and Pence branded themselves as the one who were really going to fight for jobs.
That was good branding.
And now after the midterms, so the midterms happen, and that's sort of a new day, right?
It's a shake the box and start over again moment.
And the president comes right out of the box with prison reform.
So he sets the stage for being bipartisan.
And the best part is that he just promised, I guess yesterday, he just promised that if Pelosi needs more votes to become speaker for the Democrats, that he would help her get Republican votes because he says he likes her and she's smart and she's tough and she's good at her job.
It's really kind of amazing.
Now, you know it's politics and you know that people are saying things for effect, but did you ever think you'd see the day?
Now, who was it who predicted to you that President Trump would become more effective with a split House and Senate?
Who told you he would become more effective, not less?
I did. Dana Perino did it too, so I'm not the only person in the world.
I'm sure other people have said it too.
But remember, here's sort of a principle that you can always take to the bank.
The person who has the most power is the one who can change sides.
That's why Flake has so much power at the moment.
He can change sides. It's one of the reasons that Rand Paul, it's one of the reasons that he's more effective than other senators, because sometimes he'll change sides, and likewise Manchin and some of the others.
So, President Trump is the ultimate dealmaker, meaning he will go Where it makes sense to go.
And at the moment, given the composition of Congress, it makes sense to make friends with Nancy Pelosi and find out if they can get stuff done.
Because all of the remaining stuff is stuff he needs some Democrat votes on.
Immigration, health care, etc.
Now, I have an interesting thought experiment for you.
What I'm going to say next is very unlikely to happen, so it's not a prediction.
It's just a thought experiment.
It kind of crystallizes some of the concepts I talk about.
Imagine, if you will, this is not going to happen.
This will not happen, but just imagine it.
President Trump announcing that all of the remaining big things we have to solve, from the budget deficit, to healthcare, to immigration, all of the big stuff, and even climate, all of the big stuff that's remaining has to be bipartisan.
And I think most people would say, okay, that's true.
Even education, etc.
So everybody's going to agree with the statement.
That the only way to get this next bunch of stuff done is by bipartisanship.
Now, we didn't need bipartisanship to beat ISIS, to stomp them down.
We didn't really need it for trade negotiations.
We didn't need it for a lot of things that the president has accomplished.
But for the rest of the stuff, we need it.
Imagine if you will, and again, this is not going to happen.
This is just for fun. Imagine if President Trump made the following offer.
That if by the end of his term, he had deals signed, meaning bipartisan deals, for healthcare, immigration, and maybe he throws in a couple more.
And he says, if I get a bipartisan deal on these three or four big things, and maybe the deficit has to be in there somewhere, you know, That he would not run for a second term.
Think about it.
If he got a bipartisan deal on all of the remaining big topics, he would not run for a second term.
Now why is that so powerful?
Because the entire sort of force organized against the right is really sort of personal.
It's really more about Trump than it is about anything else in the world.
So if he were to offer to get out of the way under the following condition, that he had accomplished more in one term than any president has ever accomplished.
Because that's within grasp.
Am I wrong? If he did get bipartisan deals in the next two years on the big remaining stuff, Could you not argue that he was the most successful president of all time?
I think it would be a slam dunk.
Yeah, so somebody's saying judges, judges, judges.
So he might get maybe one more judge.
So I think that would be a good head start so that people maybe could live with the deal.
Now, people are saying they don't want him to resign, and I realize that.
So there's also, you know, you have a personal investment, you like your president, etc.
But just think about, because right now, what's the biggest thing that's stopping bipartisan deals from getting done?
And again, I'm not selling you this idea.
I'm not telling you he should do it or it'll happen.
I don't think any of that's going to happen.
But it's fun to imagine it, because it would remove the biggest obstacle to getting the biggest thing solved in this country, which would also allow the Democrats to have more of a clear chance at the presidency, while the Republicans could still run a strong candidate, maybe win again.
And the president would take himself out of the picture, Allowing himself to enjoy his grandfather years as the best president who ever lived.
That would not be a bad deal.
Alright, I'll just put that out there.
So watch the bipartisanship happen.
I think it's going to be fun to watch.
I think it will be fun.
Let's talk about Jim Acosta.
So the president humorously is talking about restoring decorum.
You have to have rules.
And so you could say that the president lost this round by did he?
You know, the White House was trying to stick to their guns and have Acosta's permanent, I guess, the hard pass revoked.
But did it really matter to the White House?
Let me ask you this. Do you think the White House is better off winning or losing that?
They're way better off losing.
The best possible outcome for the White House was to lose.
And I think they know it.
It's one thing to fight it because it's always good to fight it because you don't want to be the one who rolls over.
So it's just permanently good to be the one who fights.
Just fight everything because that establishes your brand.
But this was a good one to lose.
Because Acosta and Trump both understand the nature of what they're doing, which is that there's a theater on top of government, and that they both count because the theater does inform what you're going to be able to do as a government.
Acosta is a big part of the theater.
I've referred to him as a rodeo clown, But you know that the rodeo clown is the star of the rodeo.
I'm not saying bad things about the clown.
The clown gets a lot of attention.
People like the rodeo clown.
That's why you have one. It's not the only reason.
But how much do you want to see President Trump call on Jim Acosta?
Well, some of you are going to say, never, never call on him again.
Show him To which I say, I don't think that's gonna happen.
Can you imagine this president not calling on Jim Acosta, knowing what it will mean in terms of the show?
I think you always go with the show.
You gotta go with the show.
And the show is calling on him and seeing what happens.
Now, if he does call on Acosta, Will Acosta be perfectly well-behaved and maybe then drift in the future, you know, get a little more dangerous over time?
Or will Jim Acosta come right out of the chute as aggressive as before like nothing had happened?
Tell me you don't want to watch that show.
I can't imagine what I wouldn't put down if I heard that was on TV. Like if I checked my Twitter and it said, you know, hurry, get to the TV. Acosta is going to ask the president a question.
I would walk out of a meeting.
I would pull my car over.
There's nothing that would stop me from watching that.
That's not a bad thing.
I think people have observed and I've observed that citizens are more engaged in the whole theater and even the education about how government works than ever before.
We're loving this stuff now because we have people on both in CNN Fox News too, and all the big news media, MSNBC, and the president all simultaneously understand the importance of the show.
It's a show. And they all do a good job at it.
So people are criticizing the president for being so hypocritical.
How could you be so hypocritical to be To be the person who never recognizes decorum and then to insist on decorum.
Well, there's a big difference between what the president does and what Acosta was doing.
The president is provocative, etc.
Nobody is complaining about Jim Acosta being provocative.
Nobody is complaining about Jim Acosta saying stuff.
That you don't like?
Well, we complain about that, but that's a separate category.
People are complaining about him taking up time and violating the unspoken rules within the setting of the White House.
The decorum is the people's decorum.
It's not really about the two people.
It's not about the, you know, it's not about Trump versus Acosta.
They're in the people's house.
They're in the White House. In the White House, The voters, the citizens of this country, have an expectation that things can be done somewhat coherently and in an organized fashion.
So you need a little decorum.
It doesn't really have anything to do with Trump.
It doesn't have anything to do with Acosta.
It has to do with the business of the country.
So if you're saying that Trump is being hypocritical because he says provocative things and he's complaining about somebody else acting provocatively, that's not really what's going on.
In the context of a press conference, you have to have some rules.
That's completely different from saying things that make people unhappy.
They're not even slightly related.
Let's talk about Mr.
Kellyanne Conway. Are you watching this drama where top advisor to the president, Kellyanne Conway's, her husband is becoming one of the most vocal anti-Trumpers?
Now, I don't know if he would have been this high profile had he not been married to Kellyanne.
So, some of it is the fun of the fact that, you know, they're a couple.
And it reminds me of Was it the two people whose names I can't think of?
It reminds me of them. I guess I'm not very reminded.
Carver? No. Mary?
Mary and...
How come I'm blanking on names?
You know who I'm talking about. Carvel.
Yes, James Carvel and his wife were opposite on the political spectrum, and that worked.
But they were also just, for the most part, pundits, right?
No, that's not true. Carvel was actually working for the campaign, so it's pretty similar.
I can't decide if any of it matters.
I think this story is interesting, but it does make you curious about how they deal with each other at home.
How does Kellyanne Conway go home to her husband and then they just kick back and have dinner and talk about the day?
That feels awkward to me.
So, next topic.
CNN reports that there's somebody in the CIA And I guess I would call this a leak.
They didn't call it a leak, but the reporting from a confidential source that the CIA has determined that Prince Salman was behind the ordering of the murder of Khashoggi at the Turkish embassy.
Now, you say to yourself, oh, that's normal business.
We already expected that that was true.
And the CIA looked into it and the CIA found out it's true.
It's no big deal, right?
No big deal. We're just finding out what we thought was true.
That is not the case.
Whoever leaked that...
I don't know if there's a legal basis for this, but just in terms of there should be a law against it if there isn't.
Whoever leaked that should be executed for treason.
Whoever leaked that should be executed for treason.
Because this isn't a normal leak.
This isn't like regular leaks.
Regular leaks...
are just embarrassing, or they make some news, people have to scramble a little bit, maybe somebody's career gets hurt.
That's a normal leak.
In this case, here's what happened because of this leak.
Until this leak, the government, meaning the president, had the option of pretending like we didn't know who did it.
If we could pretend like we didn't know who was behind it, We had the ability to work with Prince Salmon and say, look, we're going to pretend we don't know who did this, but you're going to have to step up for some other stuff we need to get done.
Maybe we need you to make a deal in Yemen.
Maybe we need to get some help with the larger Middle East peace.
So whoever leaked this took away from the President of the United States the option of having leverage, productive leverage, not in a bad way, but a productive working relationship with Saudi Arabia.
There's somebody in our government who took that decision, that option, away from the President and may have, may have, Removed the best chance we ever had for some kind of a comprehensive Middle East peace, including maybe nuclear weapons get created in Iran somehow, although I think that's unlikely at this point, but at least it's more of an option.
Now, I'm not sure that you could criticize the news organizations because they do sort of have a You know, a special role that if it's news and they hear it, they report it.
So I'm not sure that I would come down hard on CNN in this case or whoever else reported it.
But whoever leaked that And took that option away from the government when it was so, like, literally, it could have been the difference between Middle East peace and not.
Now, I know you're going to say, what are the odds of Middle East peace?
But we've never been closer.
And one of the biggest keys to make that possible was being able to say, okay, we don't really know what happened in Saudi Arabia, but let's see if we can get some stuff done.
And now that option's been taken away.
Whoever leaked that probably not legally should be executed, but in terms of how badly it damaged the country and how dangerous it was, And how completely inappropriate it was, that's the sort of thing you have the death penalty for.
There's a reason that treason is a death penalty.
Because if you're destroying the entire, you know, putting the whole country at risk, you need to pay for that.
So, that's one of the worst things, I don't know, one of the worst things I've ever seen.
Would you say? Now, it could be that whoever said it just figured, well, it's going to be obvious anyway, but he did take the option away from the government for treating it like it was no big deal, even though it was a big deal.
All right. Some of you...
Many of you saw a tweet by one of my California political representatives, Eric Swalwell.
You're all familiar with Eric Swalwell.
You've seen him on TV a lot.
Full disclosure, I've met him a few times locally.
He's friends of friends.
And he tweeted, so apparently he's got a plan for taking away people's AR-15s, their assault rifles, so-called assault rifles.
And somebody tweeted at him that they would never give up their guns without a fight.
And then Swalwell tweeted back, That the government has nuclear weapons.
So it would be a short war because fighting the government and their nuclear weapons would be a short war.
Now, a lot of people said, my God, my God, a congressman just threatened to nuke citizens.
That's not what happened.
And I felt so bad having to explain it to people.
Have we not just watched President Trump use this exact same play successfully?
It's the same play that AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is using.
It's the same technique that SWAWO is using.
It's this gigantic first ask in the context of getting ready to run for president.
If you're getting ready to run for president, you say stuff like, let's build a wall, let's deport 14 million people.
You say stuff like that when you're running for president, because who is he talking to?
He's talking to his base.
When you talk to your base, the only way you can get through the primary, cut through the noise, you've got lots of people running, is you say something that's so outrageous, That you can't look away.
You suck all the energy out.
That's what Swalwell did.
He said something that's so outrageous that he sucked all the energy away, and people are arguing about whether he really meant to nuke American citizens.
Let me tell you something with complete certainty.
He did not mean nuking citizens.
Now, I know what you're saying now, I'm ahead of you.
You're saying, oh, okay.
I knew he didn't literally mean nuking.
Nobody thought that.
Well, according to Twitter, a lot of people thought he was serious.
A lot of people thought he was serious about nuking US citizens.
I'm so sad that anybody thought that was serious.
But most of you did not.
Most of you said, okay, that's just sort of a colorful way of saying that the government would use force in whatever form, military and or, it doesn't have to be military, but law enforcement to take away your guns.
Now here's the thing.
What are laws if not enforceable?
The whole point of having laws is that if you don't go along willingly, the government will send people with guns to make you comply with the law.
That's what the law is.
The law is something that the government will enforce at the end of a gun.
All the laws, you know, all the important ones, not the jaywalking laws.
But all of the laws that are important Are enforced by guns.
So if the country passed some kind of a ban on AR-15s and if it passed some kind of constitutional Supreme Court test, and if they were enforcing it, it would be enforced like every other law at the end of a gun.
It wouldn't be different.
It would be just the law.
So saying that, Swalwell, how can you say that you would use the weaponry of the United States government against the citizens?
My interpretation is, that's how every law works.
Why is this the special one?
Why would this be the only law?
That you didn't enforce.
That doesn't make sense.
The argument here is not about using nukes, because that was just silly talk.
It's not about using force against the citizens to enforce a law, because that's how all laws are enforced.
They're all at gunpoint.
That's the point. The real question is whether or not that law should exist.
You're already talking past the sale.
If you're talking about what to do about it after the law has passed, you've already sort of uncritically accepted that maybe this happens and now I'm only dealing with the aftermath.
Are they going to nuke me? What happens when they come to my door?
Will I bury it in the backyard?
Have you ever seen this play before?
Yes! It's what the president used to become president.
It's exactly the same play that AOC is using by big asks with healthcare and with education.
She's asking for way more than she knows is practical.
Do you think that Alexandria Octavia Cortez, someday I'll learn to say this cleverly, do you think that she really doesn't know that we don't know how to afford that stuff?
Of course she knows!
Should she not say it because she knows we can't afford it?
Nope. Not if she's smart.
If she's smart, she will make sure that we can't look away.
And the way to make sure that you can't look away is by saying stuff that's just a little wrong.
And you know what's just a little wrong?
We'll figure out a way to pay for it.
How hard could it be? Other countries do it.
And your head spins and your hair goes on fire.
She's crazy. She's a socialist.
She's saying things that can't possibly happen.
She can't do math.
She can do persuasion.
Yeah. Maybe she's not good at math.
But she's real good at persuasion.
So if you don't see this coming...
If you don't see how strong the technique is from all of the players that I just mentioned, Swalwell asking way too much, confiscate the AR-15s?
It's not even a serious...
There isn't the slightest chance that could happen.
Do you think there is?
Do you think there's a slightest chance the AR-15s could be confiscated?
I don't. Likewise, when candidate Trump said he was going to deport 14 million people, forcibly, I said, don't worry about it.
That's not practical, and he doesn't mean it anyway.
And sure enough, when he got elected, he said, you know, that looks pretty hard.
Why don't we deal with our other problems instead?
It's the same play.
You have to recognize it as the same play.
You can hate what he's trying to do, and that's fair.
Completely fair. You can hate the ideas, but please recognize the technique.
If you're already saying that they're crazy, if you're already saying they don't understand how things work, if you're saying they can't do math, you're completely missing what's happening.
They can do math.
They are rational.
They're using persuasion really well.
And how can I tell they're doing it really well?
Because of your reaction.
Because I'm talking about it.
Because you care about it.
Because this week you thought about Swalwell and you thought about AOC and you didn't think much about anybody else.
That is good technique.
So if you want them not to get their way, the very first thing you need to do is understand what is technique and what is real things that might happen, 'cause they're very different.
You're projecting.
Oh, let's talk about projecting.
So often on Twitter arguments and in politics and social media, you hear people say, so and so is projecting.
Now the idea here is that people are using their own thought process and imagining that other people share it.
So in other words, if you happen to be a huge liar, Then you accuse other people of lying.
If you have some bad character flaw or opinion, you imagine that other people have it because that's what you would have done in that situation, I guess.
Here's my take on projection.
In the rare case that you're a trained psychologist and you've worked with somebody and you really know about them and they're your patient, There could be a good chance, maybe 40%, that you would accurately diagnose that a patient had some problem with projection.
If you are just a person on the internet, It is far more likely that you just don't understand why people are saying what they're saying.
So the fact that you're accusing somebody of projection is a completely irrational thing to say.
Because you don't know, you can't read minds, and you would not be able to tell the difference between somebody who just had an opinion and something that you think is projecting.
You can't do that.
It's not a thing.
You can't read people's mind.
Now, it is a thing.
According to psychologists, there's something called projection exists.
And that makes sense to me.
Because if your view of the world is that you're a liar and everybody in it is a liar, then it wouldn't matter who you're talking to.
You would kind of assume, well, that person's probably lying too.
So that's a real thing, because your worldview is determined by your own internal thoughts.
But to imagine that that's the likely reason for why somebody has an opinion on politics is completely irrational.
Because people have reasons for their opinions.
Lots of them.
Why do they need to project?
They may be projecting, but you can't identify it.
Not in the wild, anyway.
And then when I pointed out that Swalwell was not being literal, talking about nukes, and he really wasn't saying anything, except that if it were a law, it would be enforced like every other law.
That's basically saying nothing.
And to that nothing, and when I said, don't get worked up about this, it's just hyperbole, people said to me on Twitter, and a lot of people said this, they said, we must hold these liberals to the same standard.
That they hold us to, because when President Trump uses hyperbole, they all flip out and act like he's crazy, racist, or whatever.
So people are saying, why can't we treat them the same way?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know he's just using hyperbole, but we have an opening here.
Like, he left himself vulnerable, so why can't we attack as hard as we are?
And here's why.
If somebody, if you see somebody acting like a frickin' moron, Do you say to yourself, hey, if that person can act like a frickin' moron, why can't I? That would be a good idea, right? Because I'm seeing somebody act stupid and ineffective, so we should act stupid and ineffective.
What kind of argument is that?
You're watching people attacking the president completely ineffectively.
He became president.
All of their attacks did nothing but make him stronger.
Why would you do what doesn't work?
You know it doesn't work.
You know it doesn't work.
So, the reason that you don't do what they're doing is because you know it doesn't work.
That's why. That's the best reason.
All right. He will be treated as he treats other, an eye for an eye.
I don't have any reasons.
I don't have any reasons why he should be treated the same.
It doesn't help me. It doesn't help the country.
It doesn't help him. It doesn't help my dog.
There's no benefit of it whatsoever.
It only makes the world a worse place.
But I'm going to do it anyway because they did it.
They did it, so I'll do it.
Now, people are saying you're doing it because it feels good.
The most honest people in this conversation, and a number of people said this, said, okay, we know it's not rational, we know it doesn't change anything, but it feels good to attack him in the same way that your guy has been attacked.
It does feel good.
I would consider that, actually, the most honest person.
And practical thing anybody's saying is that we're doing it for fun.
Because what that does is it recognizes that we're in a reality TV show.
If you think you're in a reality TV show, then yeah, absolutely.
He said something about nukes.
It's an opening. Your side can get in a few digs.
We're winning because we get in a few digs in the reality TV show.
Well, that's fine. If you're doing it for fun, I support that.
As long as you know what you're doing.
If you're just doing it for fun, and it's team sport, go ahead.
But just be aware.
It doesn't help anything.
It doesn't help your side. It doesn't change anything.
All right. I'm just looking at your comments.
Did I hear right that there's some celebrities who are organizing an abortion celebration party to celebrate their abortions?
I thought I saw that and I thought, I don't even know how to form an opinion on that.
Because, you know, my...
My take on abortion is left of Bernie.
And when I say left of Bernie, what I mean is people on the right would like to limit abortions.
Normal liberals like Bernie would want to allow abortion under a certain set of conditions.
And I'm left of that, which is women need to work it out.
Meaning that the most credible laws are ones that women as a majority support.
And as soon as you throw in opinions like mine, I don't have responsibility for having babies.
It's not going to affect me the way it's going to affect women.
So I recuse myself.
I don't ask you to recuse yourself, by the way.
If you're male and you're listening to this, you can do it anything you want.
It's a free country.
We have a constitution. You can have opinions on anything you want.
I'm telling you my own opinion.
My opinion on abortion, whether it should be legal or not, Doesn't add anything to the process.
But it might subtract something.
It could subtract from the process, but it certainly couldn't add.
As a standard of civilization, I think the people who have the most responsibility for something should have the greater say.
In terms of the Constitution, every vote is equal.
But in a real sense, if people have more responsibility for something, they should have a little more say.
Let me give you an example. If I'm looking at, let's say, a police decision.
Let's say there's a law whether the police should do or not do something.
I'm going to look at the police opinion and take that as more important than my own.
They have responsibility for this area, policing.
And I would like to give them a little more say than my ignorant opinion having no knowledge about the police.
So I just take the same logic to the area of abortion.
And you're perfectly willing to have your own opinion and I'm not going to talk you out of it.
That's the whole point. The whole point is that I'm not going to add any opinion to something because it doesn't help women.
Women got this.
And that would be the best. Somebody says cowardly.
Have you been watching me for three years?
Do you think that cowardly would describe my personality?
If anything, it goes the other direction.
If I needed to change in some way, it would be to be more cowardly.
Because I get in more trouble by not being afraid of stuff than I get in trouble for being afraid of stuff.
I should be more cowardly, not less, if I had any sense of self-preservation.
Do you get death threats?
Of course. Yeah, all people in my position get death threats.
Now, usually they're not direct.
Sometimes, you know, I do get some that are direct, but usually they're like, better watch out when you go outside.
Goebbels, that sort of threat.
Have I tried cocaine?
Yes. I tried cocaine in college, maybe three or four times.
And each time I had the same reaction, which was, I don't think there was anything in that cocaine.
I don't know why.
I don't know if I did it wrong.
I actually don't know the answer to the mystery.
But it didn't have any effect on me that I could determine, and therefore, yeah, I didn't have any physical or mental manifestations.
Now, I don't know why, because it was different times with different people, different batches.
It just didn't have any effect on me.
Now, somebody's calling me a liar.
I think I would say that too, because I don't understand how that's even possible, because it went into my body, It just didn't have any identifiable effect.
none.
I don't know why.
Yeah, I don't want to talk about I don't recommend it, by the way.
I'm pro weed if you're using it medicinally.
And you might be surprised to hear that I don't recommend marijuana for anybody outside of medicinal use.
It's a terrible party drug.
If you're using marijuana to party, that's a bad choice.
LSD, I have not tried LSD.
The only hallucinogen I've ever done was mushrooms and I only did that once.
Best day of my life.
No, I've never done any meth?
Yeah, I've never done meth, but I have done in college some, I guess amphetamines would be the word for it.
I don't recommend them either.
There are a lot of things that people do in college that they shouldn't do or they shouldn't continue to do.
You left out the reason for which one.
Do you have a fire evacuation plan?
I do. I do have a fire evacuation plan.
It's called my ATM card.
Because for the most part, I wouldn't have a problem in terms of escape routes because where I live there are just plenty of exits out of town.
But if you can afford to live, that's sort of your escape route.
Let me show you the outdoors.
How many days in a row have I showed you this view?
I will remind you that everything beyond the trees would be 100% visible and there would be a ridge that's maybe five miles away.
So you would see a valley, a ridge, and you would see them even on foggy days.
You'd have to have a really serious fog not to be able to see that far.
So right now you can't go outside in California where I live.
Schools are closed.
People are walking around with masks.
You can drive places in your car and sort of go from, you know, car to building and close the door as soon as you can.
But you can't breathe outside now.
And in a healthy sense, you can't breathe outside.
And I guess 71...
I guess 71 people have been lost so far.
600 people were missing, although I don't think most of them are injured.
Yeah, you see people driving with masks, right?
How often does it rain?
Where I live, rain is unusual.
From around May through November, it's actually unusual to have rain.
But we're expecting rain for Thanksgiving, so maybe that'll make the difference.
Doesn't the smoke get drawn in through the AC? It does.
There are filters in the house which are probably completely clogged by now.
I don't sense much in the way of smoke in the house, but I'm also...
Yeah, Malibu is pretty messed up.
Do you believe in directed energy weapons?
I don't know what you mean by believed.
Any opinion on the Julian Assange story?
Yes, I do have an opinion on the Julian Assange story.
I have a feeling that where the Julian Assange story is going looks like this.
You will remember that Assange offered that in return for, what's the right word?
Not asylum, but what's the word when you don't get charged for something?
Immunity. So Assange had said that in exchange for immunity, He would give the government information on, I'm not sure what, but apparently he has some good information.
So I have a feeling that if Assange actually got picked up by the United States and put into our legal system, that the net effect might be that he would either have a very small sentence, almost trivial, Or he would get completely out based on the information he has.
So I'm not entirely sure that Assange doesn't want to get arrested in the United States.
Assange might be setting up a situation where getting picked up by the United States is the best thing that could happen to him, but he'd probably have to pre-negotiate what that looks like.
So, don't assume, do not assume that if Assange gets picked up, he'll just be tried and go to jail for X number of years.
That's possible. And obviously, he would have to worry about that.
But I think it's more likely that the things he knows have value.
Um... He's a publisher, not a hacker.
Yeah, we don't really know.
Any opinion you have on Assange is gonna be based on lack of information.
So it's hard to have an opinion on whether, in my own, my personal take on Assange is I have not personally seen something that would suggest he should go to jail.
But I'm not saying it's not there.
I'm just saying I'm not aware of it.
By the way, what exactly?
Joe Rogan got schooled by Weinstein?
I'll watch that. Somebody else told me to watch that, so that must be good.
When does Mueller end?
I don't have any special insight into Mueller except that everybody who's watching seems to think that things are winding down.
I think that's probably true.
Saudi equals Assange.
We don't know. Well, I wouldn't bet on that.
Secret texts say Julian asks people to gather ducks.
Well, that's what they do.
That's just what WikiLeaks does.
Seems like espionage.
I know. So the question is, Is Assange a publisher?
Because if he is, he's protected like everybody else.
Alright, that's all I got.
▲
Export Selection