All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 18, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
47:20
Episode 341 Scott Adams: CNN is Creating News out of Nothing
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey Joanne, hey everybody.
Get in here. Sharona, you're always quick.
Tyler, another quick one.
Sam, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the best part of your day, except for all the other parts that are going to be pretty awesome too.
And so join me. Grab your cup, your mug, your chalice, your glass, your stein.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And raise it to your lips.
and join me for the simultaneous sip.
So, I've been watching CNN try to make news out of nothing.
problem.
And it gets funnier and funnier the more nothing there is.
Because they don't have the option of doing what I do some days, which is I get on here and I say, you know, not much happens, so I think I'll cut it short.
They don't have that option.
They have to do the same amount of news every day, whether there's news or not.
And for the next few weeks, there probably won't be a lot of news unless we get surprised.
Well, we could be surprised. So my favorite made-up news story is about the Russian interference and how it affected the election.
Now keep in mind that the Russians are accused of spending thousands of dollars.
Doesn't it sound funny?
So apparently Russia spent thousands of dollars trying to influence the entire election in the United States.
Thousands! Russia spent less trying to influence the election in the United States than I did.
You know, if you count, let's say, the If you were to count the value of my time, if you just added up the hours I spent talking about politics, put a dollar amount on my hourly wage, I spent more than Russia to influence the election.
And that's not even a joke.
I mean, way more than Russia.
Nobody's investigating me because apparently that's legal.
So I'm watching CNN, the anti-Trumpers in general, trying to shape that story to make it from nothing into something.
So they've got to find some kind of threshold where, all right, yeah, it was a small impact, but it was the deciding impact.
Here's the problem with that.
Number one, it's not like there was one thing that decided the election.
There were thousands of variables, and every one of those variables had to be exactly what it was to get the result you got.
But if I had to choose among the weakest variables, oh, and by the way, I think even Nate Silver was tweeting about this yesterday.
Somebody fact-checked me on this.
But I think even Nate Silver was saying that the Russian ads were so small that the odds of them making a difference are, you know, it's kind of a head-shaker to imagine that it made any difference.
But I keep saying, so show me the ad.
Can somebody show me the actual ad?
And I think I tweeted it last night, so I'm going to see if I can find it.
I hate making you wait while I look for things on my phone, but you could have another sip of coffee and it would be totally a good use of time.
Oh, here it is. Actually, Chris Hayes tweeted this and then I retweeted it.
So here's one of the actual alleged Russian memes.
So there's Jesus, and Jesus is talking to a modern-looking man, and the man has got his head down like this.
And then Jesus is quoted as saying,"...struggling with addiction to masturbation?
Reach out to me, and we will beat it together." And then it goes on to say, you can't hold hands with God when you are masturbating.
Use our hotline if you need help.
So apparently there's a hotline for people who are addicted to masturbation.
Now I'm thinking to myself, well, I don't know.
I don't know who paid for these ads.
Was it the Kremlin?
Did the Kremlin say, hey, meme farm, make us some memes that will guarantee that Trump gets elected?
This is what we're trying to do.
Do you have any ideas?
And they're brainstorming.
They're like, let's see, how do we get Trump elected?
How do we get Trump elected?
Maybe we could speak out against masturbation.
And then the people who would have stayed home to, you know, they might go vote instead.
So it could be that Russia determined, with all of their technical proficiency...
That the average Trump voter was likely to stay home and masturbate instead of voting.
But maybe if they used a clever, persuasive meme, it just takes one.
You don't want to go too far.
Two memes would be way too much.
That would be too many memes.
You'd be like, Yvonne, why are you making so many memes?
Well, we're trying to influence the election.
You don't need more than one meme.
Just hit that masturbation thing once.
That should, you know, free up a lot of people who would have stayed home on Election Day, doing err, you know.
And throw a little Jesus in there, because we know that the Trump supporters, they like their Jesus, they like their masturbating.
You can cancel them out.
So, first of all, there is a reason...
That the anti-Trump media doesn't show you the memes that the Russians made.
Because we have seen them, right?
It's been a while. It hasn't been a long time since you saw the memes.
But for a while they were in public.
And you look through them and they were no better than this one.
This meme was one of the best ones.
Their memes were absolutely ridiculous.
There isn't the slightest chance that the Kremlin was behind this effort.
Because if they were, they would have murdered all the meme makers for doing such a bad job.
I've got to think you'd get fired if you do that kind of work, even in Russia.
So, there's an article this morning.
I forget who, it doesn't matter.
Somebody on CNN had an article that said, yeah, but you have to consider that the margins were razor thin.
There were razor-thin margins in some of the states, so maybe the masturbation meme made a difference.
But then they went on to say that you could probably identify where the impact was by looking at the African American vote.
And I swear I'm not making this next part up.
You're going to laugh when I say this.
But the analysis was that the 2016 election, far fewer black people voted than they did when Obama ran for president.
Do I need to say anything more about that?
CNN actually said that the memes might be working because fewer black people voted when Obama wasn't running.
And not only that, it was one of the biggest drops in history, or the biggest, from number of black voters from one election to the next.
It was the biggest drop. Now, was it also the biggest increase when Obama was running?
This was actually an article that they ran.
Now, they did acknowledge that the first black president was a reason that people could show up to vote.
But did they need to even make this point at all since they have zero evidence and there's an obvious reason why it happened?
That was the best they could come up with for why Russia actually had an impact on this razor-thin election.
That was it. That was their best evidence.
So, so far we've seen the masturbation theme and the fact that fewer black people vote when there's not a black candidate.
That's their evidence.
Man, the president's in trouble now.
Then I watched CNN's John Berman talk about how the president's tweet used, quote, mob language.
That's right.
They've decided that the president is not technically guilty of any crimes.
But we know he's up to something because in his tweet he called Cohen a rat.
And you don't call people a rat unless you're mobbed up in some way.
And I believe that John Berman referred to it as the nexus of Russia, WikiLeaks, and Trump campaign.
The nexus.
Remember I was telling you about all the different ways that CNN tries to make something sound like a crime when it isn't?
It's like, well, this information would implicate, implicate, this would suggest, suggest, or there's a nexus, potentially, a potential nexus, where the hell is the crime?
Don't tell me what's implicated and possible.
Don't tell me what you imagined.
Don't tell me if.
Show me a crime. Further, they make fun of Giuliani for saying on a number of occasions some version of this.
Well, what the president is accused of doing didn't happen.
And even if it had, it wouldn't be a crime.
And you know what? Excuse me.
I just had to do good.
I overslept.
I'm not ready for today.
So they're making fun of him for saying that what the president did didn't happen.
First of all, it didn't happen, but if it did, it wasn't illegal.
And CNN mocks him for that, as if that's not fair to say.
Now, I would say that in a normal conversation, if somebody said, oh, I didn't do that, and by the way, it isn't bad, you would kind of think there was something up, right?
Because you don't need to add the, and it isn't bad even if I did, because that sounds like you really did it.
But in the context of a legal case, Whether or not you did it is a perfectly good question, and whether or not it's illegal is another perfectly good question.
So within a legal context, it's perfectly reasonable to say it didn't happen, and if it did, it wasn't even illegal.
That's two levels away from reality, CNN is.
So CNN is, there's something wrong here.
And there's two levels preventing you from even getting to that wrong place.
Anyway, CNN carried on their front page a story about Robert De Niro talking about his difficulties with Trump.
Do you know what article and or apologist...
I'm going to get rid of the apologist...
So, do you know what article I am least likely to click on?
It's Robert De Niro talking about how he feels about Trump.
And it's also bad to think that that's the most interesting thing about De Niro right now.
The most interesting thing he has going on is that he's kind of punchy, and he talks about Trump like everyone else in the world.
So I did not click on that.
I don't recommend you do it either.
So the other thing that CNN is doing is they're talking about the quantity of legal things that are swirling around the president.
They're talking about it in quantity.
As soon as you hear people talking in quantity instead of quality, it means they got nothing.
So what you're saying is like, well, there are six different cases swirling around the president.
Tell me your best one.
What's your single best case that would put the president in jeopardy?
Just pick one. And by the way, I'm writing about this in my book, Loser Think.
Here's the technique if somebody gives you the laundry list of reasons that are all BS. If somebody says, for example, the president is X because of these ten reasons, Instead of trying to argue all ten reasons, because if you do, and you debunk them all in order, starting with the best one and went right down the list, what would happen when you got to the last one on the list and you had clearly debunked it in front of the person you're talking to?
What would they do?
Would they say, oh, I had ten reasons.
You just debunked all ten of them.
Therefore, I guess I changed my mind.
Will anybody ever do that?
No. They'll add an eleventh reason.
Or, here's the fun part, they'll start over from the top.
They will start over from the top like you didn't just debunk it.
And when you say, I just debunked that, here's what I just said, what will they do then?
They'll go to number two.
They'll go to number two.
Just like you didn't just debunk it.
You've all been through this, right?
So, Here's what I recommend instead.
When somebody gives you the laundry list of all the reasons, say, how about this?
We don't have time to debate them all, but why don't you pick your number one best reason?
Just one. And make a big deal about just one.
And you say, can we make a deal?
If I can shake your confidence on your best reason, Will you agree to rethink the quality of the rest of your reasons?
So just make sure you give me the best one.
I don't want the second best one.
I want your most solid reason.
Give me that. We won't talk about the rest.
Because if your first reason is good, I will change my mind to your way of thinking.
I don't even need to hear the others.
One good reason is all I need to agree with you.
But would you agree that if I can make your best reason look ridiculous, you'll rethink the rest of them?
That's what I would do.
Alright, there's this weirdly interesting story about a character who goes by the name of Sargon of Akon, I guess.
Who seems to be popular with people on the right, but he's not an alt-right and he hates the alt-right.
He hates the alt-right so much that he said some bad things about them.
Carl Benjamin is his real name.
And he said it in a way that was judged hate speech by Patreon, the platform where he was getting all of his or a lot of his funding.
And they dropped him.
Now, here's the interesting thing.
He didn't say his alleged hey speech.
Somebody's saying it's pronounced Akkad.
Sargon of Akkad.
Okay. He didn't say what he said on their platform.
So Patreon kicked him off the Patreon platform for something he said on YouTube.
So that's the first thing that's getting people hopping.
But since I've been hearing about this, I said to myself, hey...
I was laughing at a comment.
I said, what did he say that got him kicked off?
And it took days for me to find some reference to it, because I guess it probably all got deleted or something.
And I thought, man, if Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris and all these guys, Dave Rubin, these are all people who are super rational, reasonable, pro-speech people, if they're all hopping mad about it,
so much so that they're looking at creating a whole new platform, So I guess what he said must have been just so, I don't know, politically incorrect that, you know, I'm going to read this and I'm going to say to myself, oh, that's not so bad.
I can't believe he got kicked off of the platform.
And then I read what he said.
I'm not going to tell you what he said, but I would certainly expect to be kicked off a platform if I said it.
In fact, I can't imagine anybody not getting kicked off a platform for saying what he said.
So I'm not going to repeat it.
Now, some have said, oh, he was speaking ironically.
Yeah, so the essence of it was he used the N-word to talk about alt-right people.
So he was insulting.
Here's where it gets complicated.
He was using the N-word to insult white people who are racists.
But also, I think, no, or was he insulting the questioner?
He was using it against somebody white, and therefore that has given people cover to say, no, no, no, he used the N-Lord, but he wasn't talking...
You know, he didn't use it against black people.
He was using it in an ironic or kind of intellectually clever way, and if you don't catch that that was the case, then it looks bad, but really it was more of an intellectual thing he was saying.
That's not what I saw.
That's not what I saw.
What I saw in the words was that he used the words and then explained That the white person he was talking about was just as bad.
That kind of gets you kicked off of any platform.
Let me get to my point there before you get bored with it.
My point is, I am continually asked to join various boycotts and causes.
I am often asked to support various people who get kicked off of things or censored, etc.
But it's kind of a trap, because the moment you support them, you are associated with their speech, no matter how clearly you say that's not why you're doing it.
So it's pretty brave for Sam Harris and for Jordan Peterson and those guys to take up the cause because it's going to associate them with the language.
And I don't know how...
I don't want to be associated with it, so I don't know how to be part of the cause.
Although I have, you know, sort of...
Let's see...
I don't like too much censorship, but I don't think you can say that there's never a line.
Can you say there's never a line?
I think that's really the question.
I think instead of free speech or no free speech, the question should be, is there ever a line?
And if there's never a line, that would be a reasonable thing to say.
And I've asked this before, but why is it that I can't click a filter on social media and simply never be exposed to people who talk like that?
So that I would never see them, but if I wanted to, I could.
How does that not make everybody happy?
I suppose because then I guess the neo-Nazis would have a thriving life online or something.
I suppose that would be a problem.
Anyway, did he get the 48-hour rule?
Um It's been 48 hours.
I haven't seen any kind of clarification.
But if he did clarify and it makes a difference, I'll take a look at that.
But I don't think he did. So apologies and clarifications don't count for him.
There are some things that if you really said them, an apology wouldn't make any sense.
Because he's not really being punished, I don't think, for the choice of words.
I think he's being punished for the thought.
So unless he changes his mind, which would be unusual, And I don't know how he would apologize since he's banned and everything.
But anyway, if somebody wants me to send me the clarification and or apology, I would be happy to take a look at that.
But I can't imagine...
There's some situations where, let's say if you murder somebody, an apology doesn't make any difference.
So there's some things clearly that don't have...
An apology doesn't make any difference.
Now there's also a story about Putin.
He has a war on rap.
And although he said things about it being part of the culture and therefore they should support it, apparently the Russian government is acting against rappers and rap music.
To which I say...
At what point do you get to treat language as a medical problem or a social problem?
Does language, and let's say music in particular, does it ever rise to the level of being dangerous for society?
I'm going to say something that you're all going to hate.
You're all going to hate this.
Probably half of you will never come back again.
In our country, rap music has to be legal because it's just baked into our free speech thing.
It has to be legal. But, in my opinion, there is a certain cultural message that comes with rap music that is terribly harmful for people.
Terribly harmful. Now, when I was young, and thinking way back when Al Gore's wife, Tipper, Tipper Gore, tried to get music, I guess there were records at the time, records and CDs, she was trying to get them labeled if they had offensive stuff in it.
So that as a consumer, you would at least know if this music had offensive things in it.
And I think she largely succeeded in that, because music is kind of labeled now, isn't it?
And at the time, I said to myself, you know, I was probably 12 or whatever I was, I thought, oh my god, old people, old people are so funny.
They think that if I listen to this music, I'm going to start acting differently, but I'm not that dumb.
I know the difference between music and something that matters.
I'm not going to be influenced by this music.
And then I grew up, and I studied hypnosis, and I studied persuasion, and I studied influence.
And at this point, it is completely clear, anybody who thinks that advertising works, if you even understand that advertising works, of course the music changes children.
If you're 10 years old and you're listening to rap music because your older sibling has it, it is absolutely programming you.
From a scientific perspective, I mean, I suppose you could run some tests on this, but I don't think you'd have to wonder how the tests would come out.
It absolutely makes a difference.
And does it make a difference to the point where it could kill you?
Yeah, absolutely.
Yes. Rap music...
This will be the part that gets taken out of context.
Rap music is lethal.
Just not to many people.
The vast majority of people will not have a negative experience for music.
But there are a lot of people on the edge.
And those people on the edge, it could make them deadly.
It could make them hurt themselves.
It could cause them to do drugs they wouldn't have done.
To live a lifestyle they wouldn't have lived.
To get a tattoo they wouldn't have tried to get.
To speak in a way that they wouldn't have normally spoken.
I watched white kids Turn into black culture with saggy pants and speaking the way they hear on the music, etc.
I've watched rap music completely reprogram kids.
Completely change their entire cultural DNA. I've watched music do that.
Somebody said they would not allow their kid to listen to rap music.
You really don't have a choice.
Your kids are going to listen to all that stuff.
They're going to see every movie.
They just go to their friend's house.
If your kid has a smartphone, your kid is listening to rap music.
There's no way around it. So here's the thing.
In the United States, I do not suggest that we try banning rap music.
Just because it's impossible.
And it would be too far off of our cultural preference, I guess, for free speech and expression.
But... It's dangerous as hell.
Rap music is absolutely killing people.
No doubt about it.
But you know what else kills people?
Cars, sports, bicycles, swimming pools, slipping in the shower.
We live in a world where all kinds of stuff is dangerous and we don't eliminate all the things that can kill people.
Yeah, weed. I don't know how many people have died on weed.
It's closer to zero.
So in the United States, the debate, if you will, is sort of settled in the sense that we've decided we're just going to let all that stuff happen.
But in Russia, when they're saying, should we stop this stuff?
They're not wrong.
You know, if you told me there's a culture in which they're already accustomed to not having free speech, since they don't already have free speech, let's say it's China, let's say it's Russia, if they don't already have free speech, would they be worse off to be denied a certain kind of music if it actually makes society better?
I don't know. It's not as obvious as it seems.
In this country, we have such an investment in free speech, there's no way around it, right?
It's going to be the way it's going to be.
I don't recommend changing it.
But it is unambiguously, absolutely corrosive to society.
And if Russia or China do not want their society to be corroded and to become a drug culture like the United States, They might want to get rid of the influences that turn your culture into a drug culture.
And rap music does that, absolutely.
So if I had to put a number on it, let me guess.
I'm going to guess how many people in the United States are killed every year by rap music.
Probably 20,000 to 50,000 maybe.
If I had to guess, how many people die just in the United States per year because there is rap music?
Now, I'm saying rap music, but I mean the cultural attachments that come with that.
What comes with rap music is the drug culture that comes with it, and maybe the You know, the anti-establishment sort of culture.
Maybe you get a tattoo, you sag your pants, you can't get a job.
It changes your whole life trajectory.
Maybe you're more likely to carry a gun because it's part of that culture.
I would say... Yeah, 20,000 to 50,000 people.
And it's just a guess, right?
If there's somebody here who says, my God, Scott, that couldn't possibly be true.
You know, it's a lower number than that.
I wouldn't argue too hard.
I'm just giving you my best opinion based on what it does to people in general and how some of them, it might push them over a line.
I'd say 20,000 to 50,000 a year.
But... How many people die in cars?
More. Scott, you might be going down a slippery slope.
Well, the thing that keeps me from going down the slippery slope is that in the United States, it's still unambiguously legal.
And I don't recommend changing that.
It's completely legal, and I agree it has to stay that way in this country.
Okay. It's not the genre.
There's Christian rap.
Well, okay, I hear what you're saying, that rap can be separated from the culture, but you know what I'm talking about.
You know what I'm talking about.
Would you say rap is a poison?
No. Not in the technical sense.
I would say that rap...
Well, let me put it in a larger context.
We have a cultural preference for saying that thoughts, even if they're damaging thoughts, are in a different category than physical health problems.
So if you break your arm, everybody says that's a health problem.
But if you get a negative thought that ruins your life, nobody says that's a health problem.
Because you're otherwise mentally healthy, you don't have mental illness, you just have a bad idea that set you on the wrong path.
So let's say your bad idea is that you should join a cult and murder yourself, kill yourself.
Let's say the bad idea is that you should become a suicide bomber.
Let's say the bad idea is that you should cover yourself with tattoos before you're old enough to go get a job.
So these are ideas which could damage people's potential.
And by the way, I love tattoos.
I'm a big fan of tattoos, but it's unambiguously true that it could hurt your job prospects.
Because other people don't like tattoos.
We make that artificial distinction between an idea that can kill you and a physical problem like a virus, and I'm not sure that's warranted.
Maybe it has to be that way, but it's sort of an artificial distinction.
All right.
What about phlegm?
Well, the Flynn story just seems boring.
All of the legal stuff, the legal jeopardy swirling around the president, it's all just boring.
And you're also seeing that CNN reports that the president is seething.
He's seething.
What does that mean?
Can you imagine that anybody who would be in President Trump's position would not be seething?
How would you not be angry about all the legal jeopardy?
Yeah, so I've said this before, but I'll recap briefly.
My thoughts on Flynn are that he did get a bad deal, and that he didn't do anything that looked criminal to me, and even the lie apparently wasn't.
Oh, let me talk about this one thing.
I spend a lot of time talking about how CNN distorts the news, but...
But it comes from both sides.
And, oh, I know what I want to talk about.
I want to talk about climate change in a minute here, but the Flynn story, there's this question about whether he lied.
Oh, so here's the twist on this.
So if you listen to Fox News or news on the right, they'll say, The two agents who interviewed Flynn do not think he lied.
Does that matter? So here's an example of...
You'll see this on Fox News all day long.
You'll probably see it five times today.
They'll say the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn say they didn't think he was lying.
What does that mean?
That's completely irrelevant.
Because if they found out later that there was some information that disagreed with what he said in the meeting, That would be the two agents didn't think he was lying when they were in the room.
Then they found out later that what he said disagreed with some other source.
And then they would change their mind.
Oh, I guess we didn't know that, but that's opposite of the reality.
So every time you hear Fox News say that the two people in the room said he wasn't lying, it doesn't mean he was.
I'm just saying it doesn't mean anything.
There is literally...
No news value in the fact that the people who were in the room at the time didn't think he was lying at the time.
That doesn't mean anything. Because if they found out later there was some information that showed he lied, that's all you needed.
Now, I'm not saying that that's what happened.
I'm just saying it's completely irrelevant that the people in the room at the time didn't think he was lying.
Now there is the problem of why he would lie about something that had no purpose.
And I think everybody agrees with this statement that there's no obvious reason why he would have lied.
There's nothing he was protecting.
He wasn't doing anything illegal.
He was literally just doing his job, making contacts and stuff.
So if you can't explain why he might have been lying, like even a hypothesis, well, hypothesis is he lied because of X. You can't even do that.
It's pretty obvious that he just didn't remember.
Because if you compare the didn't remember explanation to every other explanation, there is no other explanation that anybody's come up with.
Now, maybe somebody has a better imagination than I do, and maybe they'll come up with one.
But given all that, the odds of Flynn not getting a pardon?
Zero? I think Flynn gets a pardon because the base would be pretty pissed if he didn't.
Let me ask you this. How angry would you be at President Trump if he did not pardon Flynn?
Try to use words that tell me roughly how much that would bother you.
Imagine if you actually saw Flynn taken to jail.
It looks like you'll probably get off without jail time.
But yeah, you would be angry.
There are some things in politics that you just don't like, but there are other things that would make you personally angry.
This one, I think, feels personal, doesn't it?
Doesn't whatever happens to Flynn, because here's the thing, can't you relate to Flynn?
Don't you feel like that so could have been you?
There's something about the normalness of Flynn's problem, which is that from the evidence it appears that he just forgot something and got trapped, lost his reputation, lost his financial stability, lost everything. And he was a casualty.
In the service of a witch hunt, apparently, because they haven't found anything that would violate that observation.
Yeah, so not only did Flynn have 30 years of service to this country, let me put it another way.
Flynn risked his life for the country for years.
He put his own life on the line for the country for years.
And then, when the country got to thank him, they entrapped him and doomed him.
It might be the most insanely unfair miscarriage of justice that we've ever gotten to see play out in front of us.
Normally, when somebody gets a presidential pardon, they've actually committed a crime, like a serious crime.
You know, it might be a white-galler crime, it might be some other, but they're real crimes.
Whatever happened here is unlikely to be a real crime.
In fact, we can't even decide if it was a crime.
How often do people go to jail or lose everything over something that might be a crime, sort of, if, depending on what his interior thoughts were, because if his interior thoughts were, I don't remember that conversation with a Russian, no crime happened.
But if his interior thoughts were, ah, I'm going to lie about this and there's some reason, well, then it was a crime.
But we don't know what his interior thoughts were.
So we don't even know if this was a crime.
So, yeah, he's a criminal, somebody says.
Can you be a criminal?
Can you be a criminal because somebody else thought your interior thoughts...
How can you criminalize somebody for forgetting something?
It looks like that's what's happened.
Anyway, so I would say that the odds of Trump pardoning Flynn Assuming that he doesn't get off on other purposes.
In other words, maybe the judge just throws everything out.
I don't know. I suppose anything's possible.
But if Flynn is still in legal peril, I say, Trump pardons him and it's a slam dunk.
Never look back. In fact, I'll even go further.
Let me go further for you.
If Trump sacrificed re-election to pardon Flynn, should he do it?
There's your question of the day.
There's no way to know that any one thing would make a difference.
But if Trump knew that pardoning Flynn would cost him the second election, if he knew it, We can't know it, but let's say he did.
Should he do it anyway? Yep.
Do you know why? Because he's the commander in chief.
And the commander in chief doesn't leave anybody on the battlefield.
Period. The commander in chief does not leave a wounded soldier on the battlefield.
Boom. Yeah.
There's no question about it, is it?
If you think about his years of service, and you think about how he's being screwed by his own country, apparently, the commander-in-chief can't leave somebody on the battlefield.
We just don't do that.
And I would say that that principle is bigger than the election.
That's one of those principles that keeps the entire country safe.
If you're another country and you're thinking about getting into a war with the United States, one of the things that's going to scare you is that we're not going to leave anybody on the battlefield.
And, you know, the fact that somebody is or is not left on the battlefield by itself isn't important, but the psychology that comes with that, that you don't leave anybody on the battlefield, is so strong that it's part of the, I would say it's part of the psychological armor that makes our fighting forces the most, you know, powerful in the universe, as far as we know.
Galaxy, let's say. So, I don't think there's any competition for what is the right thing to do.
If you're the Commander-in-Chief, you will give up your own reelection to maintain that we don't leave a soldier on the battlefield.
Period. So that's my call.
I think this is a slam dunk.
And if anybody's worried about Flynn going to jail, zero chance of that.
You know, unless it's temporary, but he's not going to serve a whole term for sure.
They're saying that Trump will go to jail if he doesn't get reelected.
For what? Don't they need to find a crime?
You know, I suspect that if Trump announced tomorrow that he wasn't running for re-election, and by the way, I think Trump can pardon Flynn and he can run for re-election and it probably doesn't have that much difference, but just if it made a difference, he'd still have to pardon him.
And I would be surprised if Trump doesn't win re-election easily.
You know, you probably saw the whole Democrats...
Did I talk about Amy Siskund, who is a prominent Democrat?
Supported Hillary and said that she's announcing in advance that she would not support a white male candidate on the Democrat side because that's not the way the country's going, etc.
And I thought to myself, well, it looks like we've got four more years of President Trump.
They better come up with something really good if they think they're going to win next time.
▲
Export Selection