All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 17, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:48
Episode 340 Scott Adams: Our Useless Congress, Climate Hoax, Flynn Pardon, Wall Funding
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ba-dum-bum-bum, ba-dum-bum-bum-bum-bum, Joanne, you're quick.
As always, Hello, everybody.
Come on in here. It's Monday.
It's 7am-ish on the Pacific coast of beautiful California.
And that means it's almost time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Technically, it's already time, but we haven't had the simultaneous sip.
And so, if you will join me for the simultaneous sip, it happens now.
Ah, are any of you aware of the controversy happening about the Patreon system?
Patreon is where people like me, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, etc.
We get most of our income from at least the video part of our lives through small donations.
People make a $1 donation usually.
And Apparently Patreon just kicked off somebody named Sargon of Akka.
I don't know anything about him.
But apparently he said something that crossed the line and he got deplatformed.
And that is causing a number of people to quit the Patreon platform.
So my Patreon account just plunged and I looked at it and I was like, what?
Why'd that go down?
It turns out there are a lot of people just quitting the platform over that.
Yeah, Sam Harris apparently quit.
And we're talking about people who are making serious amounts of money on that platform who are just leaving it without anything else lined up.
That's a pretty big statement.
I have not left it, so...
Don't leave me yet, but it looks like something might be happening there that would make the world a better place.
We'll see. Let's talk about the wall funding.
Once again, I find myself shaking my head at the massive incompetence of the press and the massive incompetence of our government.
And they sort of have to work together to sort of double the incompetence.
Because you and I are, you know, we're sitting here today, and if I said to you, how much of the border should be a wall, and how much should be other stuff, fence or electronic, whatever, what would you say?
Well, you might say politically, well, it's all got to be a wall.
Or you might say politically, it mostly should be a fence.
But it's not a political decision.
It's an engineering decision.
Has your media source explained to you how much should be a wall because engineers say that's a good solution there?
Mine has not. I sampled media from both sides.
I've never seen any kind of an engineer even being interviewed about the wall, have you?
Can you think of any interview with somebody who actually knows something about border security talking about how much should be a wall and how much should be something else?
Nothing. You have been absolutely screwed with You and I, citizens of this country, absolutely screwed by our news sources.
Because our news sources need to tell us that because the citizens are the only ones who can break the logjam.
So right now our politicians are in complete gridlock because they can't decide to do anything useful because it would allow the other team to win.
So both sides say, I'm not going to budge because I don't want the other team to win.
The only way that can really change, at least in a productive way, the only way it can change is to inform the public.
And there are no news sources trying to do that at all.
So the biggest thing missing here is not, you know, who wins, the president or Nancy Pelosi?
Who's the winner? None of that.
It should just be the citizens looking at some experts saying, oh, it should be this much wall, or walls don't work, or why don't we try some wall?
There are a whole bunch of rational things you could do with the wall question.
And so far, we're doing none of them.
There are lots of ways this could be a rational process, but we're not doing any of them.
We're just talking about who's going to win.
And because the business model of the news is not to tell you boring but useful information, it's to get you to click and buy things and to interact, we don't have a way to get from here to there.
There's no path.
From where we are, which is the public is completely uninformed about what we should or should not do with the, as I call it, the whence.
If you say it's a wall plus a fence, it's a whence.
So I say, build that whence.
Some of it's wall, some of it's fence.
Let the engineers decide.
But just think about how underserved you are by your news sources that you don't know that.
You don't know how much should be a wall.
You don't know how well it would work.
You don't know if it should be tested.
You don't know if they're, you know, have an experience with something.
You don't know any of that.
And yet... You know, you're supposed to be an informed citizen.
So it's criminal how under-informed we are.
Let's talk about Flynn.
So I guess there's some stuff going on with Flynn and sentencing and whatnot.
And the recommendation is for no jail time from Mueller, I guess.
Now let's say that Flynn gets no jail time, or even if he does.
We're trying to figure out the odds that the President of the United States will pardon him.
I want to see your predictions first.
What are the odds from 0 to 100% that the President will pardon Mike Flynn, General Flynn?
Give me your percentages.
I see 100, 100, 100, 100, 100.
99, 100.
Well, you guys are pretty confident.
25, 100, 100.
So it seems the vast majority of you think it's something close to 100%.
Some people saying zero.
It's a binary world.
Here's my estimate.
100%. In fact, if I'm wrong about this, I would be so surprised.
Sometimes you make a prediction and you think you're right, but rarely have I ever been this confident in a prediction.
This is a confident prediction.
Unless there's some new information.
So I can always throw in the hedge.
Unless there's something new that comes out, this is the most pardonable crime I've ever seen.
In fact, can you tell me any crime that is more deserving of a pardon than this?
I've never heard of one.
In fact, everybody that I know who gets pardoned has committed a pretty serious crime.
Has General Flynn committed a serious crime?
It's not even clear that he did anything but get trapped.
In fact, I would argue that this is one of those cases where there is a serious crime committed by the government.
And when the government commits a serious crime against a citizen, as is apparently the case, maybe not in the legal sense, but certainly in a moral sense, against General Flynn, who has 30 years of service to this country, I think a pardon is a no-brainer.
It would be the safest, easiest, best pardon the president ever gave.
Secondly, it allows the president's story to get more attention.
So what could be a better way for President Trump to discredit the witch hunt than to pardon Flynn because he's a victim of a witch hunt?
It's exactly the right story that you want to have as much air as possible.
Because if the president pardons Flynn, the news business has to talk about it non-stop.
And they can't avoid talking about the fact that it looked like it was a setup and he was squeezed to get the president and it was a massive, just massive...
What would you say?
Miscarriage of justice.
So given that we want our justice system not just to follow the law, although that's always the prime directive, but we also want justice.
And this is one of those cases where it seems to any reasonable observer, I would think, that following the letter of the law in this case It's a miscarriage of justice.
That's exactly when you do a pardon.
So if you look at it from the moral standpoint, you should get a pardon.
If you look at it from a legal standpoint of how unusual it is that the government would pursue this, I would say from a legal perspective, it looks like a pardon is due.
And then from a political perspective, it's perfect.
It's literally just perfect.
The president couldn't be in a better position to give this pardon.
So on every dimension that matters, pardon.
If I'm wrong about this, I'll just be amazed.
Now, I don't know when it'll happen.
You know, Mike maybe has to wait a little while or something.
But if I were Mike Flynn, I would be worried just because you should always be worried in these situations.
But I would be personally I would be really disappointed in my president if this is not a pardonable situation.
I would be very, very disappointed in my president.
So I think it'll happen.
We're talking about Obamacare again because of the judge who struck it down, but probably that'll be overturned in Supreme Court or whatever, so we don't know how that's going to go.
But I say again, what is it that prevents the United States from simply having more than one system?
Why can't the people who want something like universal health care have it?
And the other half just not have it.
Because we have records, we have databases, and as long as you make sure there's a wall between the people who have to pay for the free healthcare and the people who don't have to pay, isn't there a way to work that out?
Isn't there some way to just say, okay, you're in the A group, you're in the B group, the B group never has to pay for anybody else's healthcare, but nobody's going to pay for yours either.
The A group, they get to live their socialist life, and they get to tax themselves for that.
What possible problem is there with that?
Is there a problem? Does anybody see a problem with that idea, by the way?
I suggested this a while ago, and it's so out of the box because we're just programmed to think that there should be one set of laws for the United States, but there is no reason for that.
Somebody says cost.
I don't think that's such a big deal, because whatever economies of scale you can get with 325 million, you can kind of get with 100 million.
If you have 100 million customers, you've got some economies of scale, and you would also be competing against another system, so that's probably good too.
I would still love to see somebody put together what I would call a poor person's insurance plan which would have the following items and I'd just like to see them put in one place an article or a blog or just in one place something that's like a catastrophic insurance only so just for the hospital stays and the big stuff some kind of insurance for that what would that cost and then a direct care doctor situation where you only you maybe pay $150 a month and you can use the doctor all you want but just this one doctor Or some combination of telemedicine where people talk to their doctor on their app.
What would that look like?
How much would that cost compared to the other alternatives?
I'd love to see that. Anyway, so, switching topics.
People like to send me links to climate skeptics.
And one of the things that you will learn if you listen to climate alarm skeptics, and you also listen to climate alarm alarmists, the one thing that you should find is that no matter which group you're listening to, they're very persuasive.
So if you're only listening to the pro-climate alarm people, they're completely persuasive, if that's all you heard.
Now if you listen to only the skeptics, the skeptics are, wait for it, completely persuasive.
Because you and I can't tell the difference.
You and I can't tell who's lying in terms of science.
How can I know if somebody's graph is correct?
How would I know? And then I've said for, I guess I've been saying this for three years now in public.
Unless you put the skeptics and the climate scientists who say there's a big problem in the same room and give them as much time as it takes for them to talk about it in a way that you can follow along, unless you do that, you're not even really doing anything useful.
So let me put it that way.
There's no conversation about climate that only shows one side That is even a little bit useful.
If you don't see both sides, you're just not seeing it.
Now, why do you think it is that we have not seen that kind of programming?
Well, it might be because it's complicated and boring and nobody can judge who won anyway.
So, I would propose that we break down this climate thing into the smallest chunks.
Just take one claim at a time And see if you can get a climate scientist and a skeptic to talk about just the one point.
And let me suggest a one point that fits that category.
And that is the question of how much ice there is in the glaciers and such.
So apparently, I'm listening to a skeptic here recently, and the skeptics claim, which I can't confirm or deny, and that's my whole point.
You can't confirm or deny it if you're just looking at graphs.
You're like, well, okay, that's a graph.
I don't know who made that graph.
I don't know if the numbers are real.
It's just a graph. And one of the things the skeptic claims is that if you look at NASA's graph of ice, it looks like it started high and it's declining.
And if it kept declining at that rate, it looks like the ice would melt and the oceans would rise and there'd be problems.
But the skeptic says that they picked a time to start looking at it that gives you a completely misleading idea of the trend.
In other words, if you went back to the 70s, you'd see that the ice was...
was it lower?
But anyway, the trend is completely obliterated if you go back another couple of decades.
So everything that the graph tells you about the ice decreasing in recent years is completely debunked if you go back a few more years, because you can see that it's cyclical.
Now, I'm not claiming that that's true.
All I'm telling you is that there is a skeptic, I don't know who it is, I don't know what their qualifications are, who has made a claim that looks very persuasive when I see it out of context.
So as long as I'm only looking at the critic, it's totally persuasive.
That does me no good at all.
If I can't put that guy in the same room with the NASA person who says, oh yeah, there's a perfectly good reason why we didn't start looking until this date.
And the reason is, let's say the old information was apples and oranges, so we don't really have a predictable history based on the same criteria, so we just started where we could, and that's why we did it.
Until I hear why, I don't know anything.
Don't know anything. But I will tell you this.
There is a financial scam that works exactly like what the climate alarmists are doing.
That doesn't mean that what they're doing is a scam, but it does mean that their communication plan is packaged exactly as a scam.
Here's how the scam looks.
Let's say you're a financial investment firm and somebody says, oh boy, with eyes rolled, you haven't even heard what I'm going to say.
So, if you're, let's say you're an investment fund, and you're presenting yourself as a fund that can pick stocks and can do it better than average, and so you should put your money into this fund because they're really good at picking stocks on your behalf.
Do you know how they advertise?
Let me tell you. Stock funds tend to have good periods and bad periods.
They're up a little bit, they're down a little bit.
They're up a little bit, they're down a period.
When do they show you the chart?
They don't show you the whole period of the last five years.
They wait until there's a period where their stocks have gone up.
And then they take a snapshot of just that period, especially if it's the recent period, and then they say, look what we've done.
Everything in this chart is true, and we could back it up.
Look at this chart.
In the past two years, we've killed the market.
We're just absolutely obliterating the market.
In the last two years, here's my chart.
You can't argue with it. These are real numbers.
But, it's a scam.
Because what they did was, is they ignored the last five years where they were underwater or just average, right?
Everybody's going to have a good period with stocks.
So when you see the climate information presented the same way as a well-known, well-understood, no question about it, scam, if you have to package your truth in a scam package, my eyebrow goes up.
And I say, why must you package it in a way that is identical to known scams?
Why would you do that?
Is it because you don't know that it's identical to scams?
I need an answer to that.
And until I know the answer to that, it's hard to come up with a judgment.
If you look at financial scams, they have a lot in common with the way climate science is presented, which doesn't make climate alarm a scam.
But you have to ask, why is it presented exactly like one?
Here's another thing you would expect of a scam.
You would never put the critics in the same room with the people making the claim.
Right? You would never do that.
Because it can't survive it.
The reason that the financial people give you the chart of just the most recent year because it happened to go up that year is that nobody's going to give the counterpoint.
There's nobody who gets the other chart and says, I'm going to put an advertisement right next to yours that shows the 10 years before that that you lost money.
Because they don't have a counterpoint, the financial scam works.
Now, if you can't put your skeptic in the same room with the alarm person and still sell your point, do you have a point?
If you can't survive the skeptics, do you have a point?
I'll get rid of this.
So there's somebody saying that I'm buying the big oil story.
I think I just told you exactly the fucking opposite, idiot.
Sorry, I blocked him anyway.
I think what I just said is I can't tell if the skeptics or the alarmists are correct.
Does that sound like buying big oil story, idiot?
No, that's exactly the fucking opposite.
Sorry. Does it seem to you that people have gotten stupider in the last 12, you know, it feels like the last month the stupidity level has just gone through the roof?
There was some guy on Twitter that I ended up getting in an accidental controversy with yesterday.
Some guy who said that a recent poll said that 75% of people were in favor of immigration, so take that.
And I thought to myself, 75% of people are in favor of immigration?
Isn't it closer to 100%?
I've never even heard of anybody who isn't in favor of some form of immigration.
So he claims victory against all Trump supporters, I guess, by saying that a poll said that most people are in favor of immigration.
Well, big frickin' surprise!
100% of the world is in favor of immigration.
We just want to do it in some different ways a little bit.
I'm looking at stuff like this online and I'm thinking, what is wrong with people?
What the hell is wrong with people?
It does feel like they're getting dumber.
And I wonder if there's actually something to that.
Do you think that people are getting dumber?
At least in terms of critical thinking.
Or is it just that the dumb people used to be easier to ignore?
Maybe that's it.
Maybe it was easier to ignore the dumb people before.
Big oil versus the earth.
I don't know what that means.
And immigration is not migration.
Correct. Correct. Yeah, so then yesterday somebody told me that the critics like to say this, the trolls, they like to say, well, your boy, meaning President Trump, your boy is in trouble now.
He's got six different states are after him, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Here's the thing I'm wondering about the Trump situation with all of the hoaxes and investigations.
Isn't this guaranteeing that we'll never have an effective government again?
There's something about the way everybody's going after Trump which tells me that if it works and they take him out, won't the Republicans take out the next Democratic president?
And don't they have to?
You know, I'm typically not the one who says, oh, let's get revenge on them because they got revenge on us.
But if the Democrats are successful in taking out President Trump, or even just making him harder to do his job, don't the Republicans have to return the favor?
It's sort of a mutually assured destruction situation.
In fact, I will go further.
I would say that if President Trump...
Were to, let's say, go to jail.
I think that's deeply, deeply unlikely.
But if it did happen, don't you think they'd have to take Hillary Clinton to jail?
Over something. I mean, you could always find something, right?
It feels like they'd both have to go to jail if either one of them did.
So there's that. But I have a funny idea for you.
Alright? So we've got this lame duck...
Congress, which is still, at least on paper, Republican Congress.
So they could pass something.
So they would be able to pass something, but only under the conditions that the next Congress doesn't overturn it, right?
There'd be no point doing that.
Let me suggest a law for the existing lame duck Republicans to pass.
Are you ready for this? It would be hilarious if And completely doable.
This would be completely doable.
There's nothing that would stop them from doing it.
And the law would look like this.
We would state that it is legal in all cases to pay somebody for a non-disclosure agreement In the context of an election.
And that it would never be called an election expense.
So you narrow it so it's very specific to paying somebody to be quiet.
It doesn't matter if it's a girlfriend, it doesn't matter if it's a coworker, whatever.
Now the requirement has to be that it can't be over an illegal act.
So maybe you can't pay somebody to be quiet about something that was illegal.
But if somebody was involved with a woman or something that would just be embarrassing but wasn't illegal, wasn't illegal, why can't Congress just say, we make that legal?
In all cases, that will never be prosecutable as a As an election crime, because we just made it legal.
Now, I don't know how it works in terms of retroactive laws, because if something's already happened, if something's already happened, can you say it's not illegal in the past?
Well, as a practical matter, it doesn't matter.
Because if you imagine that something became legal During the time that somebody was in the legal process, by the time it got in front of a judge, the judge would, I think in every case, say, yeah, it used to be illegal.
Congress made it legal now, so it would be a miscarriage of justice to prosecute you for something that is completely legal now.
So in effect, couldn't Congress, the Republicans, take the entire Cohen situation off the table just by making it legal?
Tell me that wouldn't work.
Somebody says that's unconstitutional.
It's not unconstitutional.
How in the world could that be unconstitutional?
Somebody's saying that it's already legal.
And I think you're probably right about that.
But wouldn't it be funny for the Congress to make it completely codified in law instead of sort of leaving it for lawyers to argue about whether it's legal or not?
So understanding that some of you say it's already legal, and I agree with you, but you do understand that some big portion of the country who are trained lawyers think but you do understand that some big portion of the country who are trained lawyers think So whatever it is that they think has been broken in this, imagine, if you will, that the Congress just said, all right, it's legal.
Let's make the non-disclosure agreements, paying for them with your own money, even if you think it will help you in the election, just make it legal.
You know, I'm not saying legal but not explicitly legal, right?
Now, am I wrong that this would be hilarious?
Because it would just take the entire issue right off the map.
Now, what would the Democrats argue about that?
So here's the other clever thing about it.
Democrats would have to argue that it should be illegal To pay for a non-disclosure agreement.
It's a terrible argument.
Nobody wants to make that argument because the entire world revolves around non-disclosure agreements.
It's the most common thing in business.
Everybody who has ever worked in business has signed a non-disclosure agreement.
There's no argument against it.
And it doesn't matter because the lame duck Republicans have a majority.
So I say, why don't we fix it for President Trump, just to get on with the business of the country, but also fix it for every future politician who might be in the same situation.
It's got to be a common thing.
Yeah, and Congress spent millions for that same purpose.
why not make it legal for them too?
It's funny, I don't see much pushback on that.
Now, there may be some procedural or other reason why it's just hard to do.
All right.
Yeah, the Uyghur topic.
So the Chinese do seem to be pretty dead set about keeping religion out of their country.
You know, it's hard to judge China because China is an insanely successful situation.
And part of it is because they're such badasses.
In other words, they rule their own country with a harshness that we find offensive in this country.
But you have to ask yourself if China would be succeeding if they had the same set of laws that we have here.
And I think the answer is maybe not, but we'll see.
So on one hand, It's of course a terrible tragedy if they're singling out ethnic groups for bad treatment.
On the other hand, what would the world be better off if China was in some state of perpetual civil war?
I don't know. How do you know if the reports are true?
Good point. We do not know if any reports about the Uyghur minority are true.
It's exactly like the situation where the people coming out of Iraq before the Iraq wars would say, well, bad things are happening over there.
or take my word for it.
Yeah.
All right.
All right.
Your comments are being read by me, in case you wondered.
Isn't better human rights always better?
Well, that's the question.
Let's say you had a, and I'm not comparing anybody to Nazis here, but let's just say That China had a Nazi movement that was starting up.
Would China be better off suppressing it or letting it go in the name of freedom of speech or something?
I don't know. How would we know?
Somebody says, you really don't believe in climate change?
That is a stupid question.
Somebody said, do you believe in climate change?
Is there anybody who doesn't believe in climate change?
That is a stupid question.
They say there are no stupid questions, but that was a stupid question.
Everybody believes in climate change.
Do I believe that the climate models are accurate?
No. No, I don't.
Do I believe that there might be a risk?
Yes, I do.
Do I think we should treat it seriously?
Absolutely. With that many scientists who are worried about it, I treat it seriously.
Do I think that a 10% reduction in GDP over 80 years is enough to panic about?
Personally? No.
According to the climate alarmists, their own numbers...
We may have a 10% hit on GDP during a time when the GDP will be up by five times.
So it'll go up by five times, but it could have gone up a little bit more.
That's according to the climate report the government just put out.
If that's the case, no big deal.
And we've got 80 years to figure out technology to take care of the problems as well as reduce it if CO2 is the big issue.
Do you believe in magic?
I don't know what that means.
So here's the worst argument against climate alarm.
And it goes like this.
It's all being caused by sun cycles.
Now, I told you earlier that I can't determine between a skeptical argument and a non-skeptical argument.
I don't have the ability to detect who's right.
But there are some special cases where it's pretty easy to tell what's right.
One of them is the claim that The Sun Cycles have perfectly predicted warming, and therefore that's all that's going on.
You have to just look at the Sun Cycles, or it's mostly what's going on.
Here's the thing. That seems like the easiest thing that NASA could ever check, right?
Could there be anything easier to check than the Sun Cycles?
Because I guess we'd all be looking at the same data, right?
If NASA has looked at all that data and just says, no, there's nothing here, I can't check their work because I'm not a scientist.
But the odds of them getting that wrong?
Very small. Not impossible.
Not impossible.
But if you're going to bet on it, I'd say the odds of getting the sun cycle thing wrong from NASA? Very small.
Now, what are the odds that their long-range multivariate models are right and that they've taken account into all the things and they can really predict the weather?
Well, I think the odds of that are low.
But the odds that they got that sunspot thing wrong?
Maybe. Very small chance they got that wrong.
I'm talking about NASA here.
Now, when I talked about earlier that NASA had a graph that said that the ice is melting around the world, and then the skeptic says yes, but you go back a few years and you can see that it's just cyclical, what are the odds that the skeptic is right?
I don't know. 50-50?
I don't know how to handicap that one.
But it does look like it's a solid argument.
I would love to hear the counter.
If I don't hear the counter to it, I don't know what to think about.
Let me give you a challenge, if you will.
Maybe challenge is the wrong word.
I assert that people who are not climate skeptics Have never seen or be exposed to the skeptical arguments.
Let me say this as clearly as possible.
The people who buy completely into climate alarm, this is my speculation, have not been exposed to the better skeptics' arguments.
Literally have never seen them.
The people who are skeptical have been exposed to both sides.
And therefore, I believe that anybody who is a climate alarmist, let's say a citizen, not a scientist, not talking about people who can look into the data, but if you experienced both sides, you would leave as a skeptic, or more skeptical than you started.
There may be various degrees of skepticism.
So I've looked at both arguments, and from a persuasion perspective, the skeptics have the strong argument.
Completely different from, and I know there'll be 25 idiots on here who say, oh, Scott, you're agreeing with the big oil companies just because you say the skeptics have the more persuasive argument.
No. No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that I have no way to tell who's right, the skeptics or the others.
I can't tell. But I can tell you who has a better argument, meaning what is more persuasive.
And the skeptics by far have a more persuasive argument, even if they're wrong.
And I can't tell the difference.
So you have to ask yourself why the skeptics have the stronger persuasive argument, even if they're wrong.
Did I know that Exxon discovered global warming?
I don't know that that's true.
So I'm going to say no to knowing that since I still don't know if it's true.
Well, it doesn't matter that zero of the models have been correct.
Okay.
Because the models are showing an increase in the rate of warming.
So if there's an increase in the rate of warming, it kind of doesn't matter exactly how precise that is.
In that sense, I agree with the climate scientists that if all the models go in the right direction, that would tell you something.
What we don't know and can't know is what did they do to the models that don't point in that direction.
If somebody makes a model that doesn't fit within this fairly wide range of all the other models, what are they going to do with that model?
They're not going to keep it.
They're going to tweak it until it fits.
People ask me about Mike Cernovich.
What do I think? Why should I have any opinion on that?
He has opinions about...
Trump and MAGA and all that and I would say he's got specific opinions on specific topics which is different from saying he's buying the whole model.
So I think it's perfectly reasonable for Mike to like some things and not like other things.
I don't know that there's any story there.
How to support this broadcast without Patreon?
Well, if you don't want to use Patreon, the super hearts that are built into this Periscope work.
So somewhere in the bottom of your screen, let's see if I can figure out how to point to it.
Somewhere down there, you should see an icon with a heart that's got little lines coming off it.
If you press it, it would tell you how to How to give me a super heart, as they call it, which means that you buy them for a few bucks and then you can give them away.
So that would be a great way to do it.
Where to send Bitcoin? I'm not accepting Bitcoin, but thanks for asking.
However, if you wanted to support me here, you could buy the WEN tokens that are part of my startup.
So that would be certainly the cheapest way that you could support me while also potentially becoming rich.
It's not an investment, but it could happen.
Yes, and you could buy a Dilber calendar, or you could buy Win Bigley as a gift, In fact, the best thing you could do for me would be to buy Win Bigly as a gift for Christmas.
If you did that one thing, that would be amazing for me.
Yeah, if you go to LAToken, that's an exchange, LAToken.com, I think.
LAToken.com.
you can buy the WEN.
The WEN are the tokens that are associated with my interface app, and you're going to hear a lot more about that in the next few weeks because we've got some big upgrades there.
Talk about France.
France just isn't interesting.
What kind of coffee do I drink?
Just Starbucks or whatever.
Whatever is laying around. I'm not a big coffee connoisseur.
Alright, that's enough for now.
▲
Export Selection