All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 20, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:15
Episode 383 Scott Adams: My Apology for Believing @CNN About the Covington Catholic Boys Fake News
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, let's see if there's any news this morning.
While you're all coming in here, while you're all grabbing your cups, your mugs, etc.
There's only one story I want to talk about today.
Well, maybe I'll talk about the deal.
Oh my god. I'm looking at CNN and they're still misreporting this fake news about the Covington kids.
Wow! So, let's do this.
Allow us to enjoy the simultaneous sip.
I hope you have your Your beverage.
I hope you've got your thermos, your stein, your chalice, your cup, your mug.
I hope you're ready to raise it to your lips and join me for the simultaneous sip.
Here it comes. So, yesterday, you know, one of the big stories was about how CNN and a lot of the other mainstream media We're feeling bad because they had been taken in by fake news from the BuzzFeed story, apparently, because Mueller denied the story that was allegedly a leak.
People believe Mueller over BuzzFeed, so BuzzFeed got a black eye.
So the big story was about fake news.
Everybody was talking about, oh, we got fooled by fake news.
That same day, The biggest story that wasn't about the border was another fake news.
And I totally got taken by it.
So I'm going to give you an extended explanation slash apology.
I'll start by apologizing for everything I said on Periscope about the Covington Catholic boys.
Upon seeing new videos and seeing different angles and seeing the complete video and seeing the context, everything that CNN reported about this was absolutely fake news.
And not only was it fake news, but it was the worst kind.
Like, they didn't even get the good guys and the bad guys right.
It was as if they had confused, you know, the victim and, well, it wasn't.
It was exactly that. They did actually reverse the victim and the perpetrators.
So here's what they reported, and here's what I reacted to yesterday, but here's what didn't happen.
So the following is how it was reported, which did not happen.
The report was that there were these protests, there were some teens from the Covington Catholic Boys' School, all boys of course, and there were some black protesters doing something, and when they started to have words,
The Native American man, who I thought was awesome but no longer think that, came between them, maybe de-escalated the situation with his drum, and then my interpretation, based on seeing it out of context, is that the Catholic boys were being sort of, I don't want to use the same word I used yesterday, but let's just say they were kind of being jerks.
That, as it turns out, when you see the full video, completely not what happened.
Completely not what happened.
I just spent some time watching the full video and this video was actually taken by apparently one of the black protesters.
Now I don't know exactly what the black protesters were, what their association was.
They had big beards and they were religious and they had Bibles and they were spouting Bible verses.
I think they had some kind of Israel connection but they were Here's the part that CNN did not report.
Are you ready for this? If you didn't hear this part, you did not hear this story.
And again, I'm reiterating that this is from the video, the Black Israelites, is that what they're called?
Thank you for that.
So if you didn't hear this, now this is from the video taken by the Black Israelites.
It's their video. You know, somebody with a camera.
And they're recording the black Israelites being flat-out racists.
Completely started everything.
They were calling the other guys crackers.
And the main guy repeatedly called the young men school shooters.
He said, I can tell by your eyes, you're all school shooters.
You don't see black kids being school shooters.
It's all you white kids.
Totally racist.
But then it gets better. And again, you did not see this reported anywhere on CNN, I'm pretty sure.
Then the black Israelites start saying bad things about Democrats and about the Clintons in particular.
So there's an extended piece where they're complaining about the racist Democrats.
You didn't see that on CNN, did you?
Did maybe they leave that out?
It was an extended part where they ranted, in several occasions, they ranted about racist Democrats.
Now, they were also talking about Trump supporters because the kids had hats on.
But believe me, these protesters were anti-white.
And that's not an interpretation, by the way.
So what I'm saying is not my interpretation of what they were.
They were overt.
They were overtly anti-white and said so in many ways during the event.
So there's no ambiguity about that.
They were flat out racist and they weren't trying to hide it.
That was in fact their message.
Their message was racist, but it gets better.
Are you ready for this? It gets better.
They were also anti-gay.
And they used anti-gay slurs.
They used anti-gay extended insults, not just somebody yelled something.
But it was part of their core message was anti-gay.
And I'm not talking about, like, I heard some little snippet of something.
I'm not saying one person yelled something.
I'm saying that the main guy, supported by the rest of them, who was doing most of the talking for the black Israelites, was overtly, and it was part of their core message, That being gay was wrong and bad, etc.
Now, the moment that the black Israelite said the anti-gay stuff, the reaction of the Catholic schoolboys was in unison.
Basically, they were pushing back against an anti-gay sentiment.
Did you hear that in the reporting?
Did you hear that the Covington Catholic boys spontaneously and unanimously pushed back against an anti-gay statement in public?
Completely. They were offended.
They were like, whoa, too far, dude.
I made up that statement, but that's basically what you saw.
Then there was the, and then you saw the, they did a cheer and stuff, but the boys were mostly just having fun, and they were a respectful, pretty far distance around the black Israelites who continued their pattern, their racist pattern.
And you heard actually, you actually heard one of the boys say to the black Israelites that the black Israelites were being racist.
Actually saying they were being racist because they were being racist.
And again, it's not an interpretation.
They were saying loudly racist things.
They were saying crackers and white people and white people are bad, etc.
It was overt. You didn't see any of that on CNN. There was no point in the extended video.
And remember, the video is taken from the point of view of the black Israelites.
It's their video. There was nothing that looked dangerous or threatening, even though there were a lot of them.
They were all smiling.
They were sort of engaged in the free speech.
They were listening. They didn't look angry.
They didn't look belligerent.
I didn't see not even one example of a kid who crossed the line and looked like he was going to try to do something or cause some trouble.
Nothing. They were all well-behaved.
They were just sort of into the moment and into the free speech and into the fact that everybody was there and there were cameras and stuff.
So they were into it, but none of it looked bad or dangerous.
So part of what CNN reported was that there might have been, you know, maybe they were getting into it.
I will tell you that the black Israelites armed themselves.
They actually got weapons and were trying to cause trouble, it looked like.
It looked like they were trying to invite or cause a physical altercation, or at least they were ready for it.
But the schoolboys apparently had nothing like that in mind if you just base it on what they were doing, you know, not their inner thoughts.
Here's the next thing that was misreported.
So you probably saw a million times the video of a sea of red MAGA hats sort of being at a stalemate with the Native American with the drum, right?
But did you know that there were very few MAGA hats in that entire crowd?
There happened to be a number of them in that very limited scene, but if you see the whole crowd, you only see a sprinkling of a few red hats, maybe 10%.
So did you know that only 10% of a very large crowd had those red hats?
You didn't know that, did you? You probably thought they all had those hats on.
Totally fake news. Then, what was the role of the Native American?
The Native American, as CNN reported, sort of came between the two groups to maybe defuse it and stop trouble.
Definitely that didn't happen.
He did come between them, but he was just sort of doing his own thing.
The guy with the drum was actually causing trouble.
He was not looking to stop it.
He was very obviously looking to cause trouble.
So the Native American old guy, we do not give him any credit anymore.
He was a troublemaker.
And he probably looked like he was escalating the situation, not de-escalating.
So I would say we cannot be happy about him.
He did something that could have been dangerous by going right up to him.
Now it was also obvious, and I think this was reported by one of the kids who was there, who said that the school kids didn't quite know what the Native American guy was up to.
Because it was sort of a random thing that happened Like suddenly somebody in Native American garb walks up to you beating the drum.
And at first, it's obvious that they thought that it was all part of the fun.
And as he's beating the drum, they were chanting and stuff, but it wasn't really against them.
It wasn't anti-Native American or anything.
They were just sort of dancing around because he was dancing around.
So they were having fun, but not quite knowing even why he was there or what he was doing.
Now the drummer was trying to get in the faces, and the drummer is the one who approached.
He wasn't the one who was surrounded.
He was the active one.
He went up to the crowd and got in the faces of the teens.
Now here's the part that really sold the fake news.
The teens did not back up.
In fact, I think one of them even stepped forward and made it clear to the guy with the drum that they just weren't going to be intimidated and they weren't even bothered by it.
And so if you see that clip now, now that I've given you the context, that the kids said no bad things that I heard, and I heard a lot of video, and I didn't hear any chanting, I didn't hear any bad stuff, I didn't hear anybody say build the wall,
I didn't hear any of that. But I did hear the black Israelite racists and the homophobes, the anti-gay black activists, said lots of things that were just horrible that you would never see on CNN. So it looked like through the entire event that the kids as a group were well-behaved, They avoided trouble.
They were against racism and said so.
And they were very against the anti-gay sentiment coming from the black protesters, the black Israelite protesters, and said so.
But respectfully.
They didn't come toward them.
They didn't try to cause trouble.
They had smiles on their face.
They did not have threatening demeanors whatsoever.
Whatsoever.
So, and the, here's the way CNN is still reporting it this morning.
This is their page.
Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial.
Absolutely what didn't happen.
That Native American elder got in their faces and they simply didn't walk away.
That's it. They were literally smiling.
They didn't cause trouble.
They didn't escalate.
They simply just didn't walk away.
That is not a problem.
Indeed, if you have this many boys, I'm going to go full 180 on you.
This is the most complete apology you're ever going to see from anybody.
I could not have been more wrong about this group of kids, because this group of kids kept their composure, stayed on the right side of every issue, avoided trouble, and never lost their smiles.
I'm gonna say congratulations to the school that raised these kids, their parents.
Apparently they did a good job.
These were pretty good kids.
Now, I still think it was a mistake for them to wear their MAGA hats in public because you know that's going to cause trouble and it probably did.
So I think it was a mistake to wear the hats in public when it could have caused some trouble.
And it's lucky that there were so many of them because I think that reduced the chance that anybody was going to take a run at them because there were just so many of them.
So that was a mistake.
And I'm not going to gloss over that.
In terms of the safety of the kids, forget about free speech, forget about those things.
Those are all good. But you're talking about minors.
And when a minor is going into public and you're the parent, you don't really send them out.
You try to stop them if they're going out into a situation that's unambiguously dangerous.
So I think maybe somebody should have stopped them from wearing the hats.
But on the other hand, but on the other hand, Free speech, right?
Could a school tell a kid not to have a political message on their clothing if the political message is a mainstream message?
Republican versus Democrat, it's a mainstream message.
And it was a public place where people go to express their politics.
So if there was one place it should be okay, To wear a hat for any political person who's a legitimate leader in the country.
That should have been the place.
So I'm not going to say that this particular situation is as bad as somewhere else they might have worn the hat.
You can imagine much worse places.
So still, I think it may have contributed.
So, that is my complete apology to the Covington Catholic School.
If the administrators are watching any of this, in my opinion, you should pat yourselves on the back.
It looks like you did a good job raising some kids.
And the black Israelite racists and homophobes, who will never be mentioned by CNN apparently, were horrible people.
And we should keep that in mind.
And the Native American was a troublemaker, and he could have caused a lot of, a lot of danger.
So luckily, the Covington Catholic schoolboys did not take the bait and did not step up to the trouble that both of those entities were trying to create.
All right.
Yes, of course, minors have the right of free speech.
But adults have a responsibility to keep them safe until they're 18 and they can make their own terrible decisions.
um um um Why should they not wear a MAGA hat?
I don't know how more clearly I can say this.
It's completely their right.
This was a place where people were doing free speech stuff, so if there's one place you should be able to wear it, it would be there, but it is unambiguously dangerous.
So as long as you know what you're getting, it's a free country, and if what you're getting is somebody might kick your ass, just know what the trade-off is.
Mrs. Pence needs to be apologized to?
I don't know what that's about. So will CNN retract?
No. No.
CNN will not retract.
But I'm pretty sure that Fox News is going to be dancing all around on this today.
Do you imagine how happy the people on Fox News are today?
So first of all, BuzzFeed fools everybody with this fake news.
They're still stinging.
From being caught with their hand in the fake news cookie jar, and then they follow it up with just a horrible fake news.
This is fake news that actually damages the lives of children.
Think about this. CNN, and they actually fooled me into being one of their winged monkeys and doing their evil bidding for them yesterday, which is what I'm apologizing for today.
But they actually...
May have ruined the lives of some of these kids because they'll become well known for this.
They'll probably get published. Some of them, they might even get expelled.
Think about that. Some of those kids might get expelled for doing nothing but going to a public place and smiling, basically.
All right. So I deleted my Periscope from yesterday, which is a shame because I like the rest of it.
I just didn't want to keep that up there because it was inappropriate given the new context.
But what was I talking about yesterday?
So let's talk about the President's offer.
I'll just hit that again for those of you who didn't see it.
So the President shook the box and added some variables to his border offer.
I think it puts the Democrats on the defensive because now it's clear that one of them is trying to get something done and has put enough variables on the table that there's something to talk about.
When the Democrats say that's a non-starter, it's harder for them to say that.
If they had said the wall is a non-starter and that's the only issue, they had a strong case.
A lot of people don't like a wall.
But once you throw in DACA, once you say that you're open to making a larger deal, that also opens it up for the Democrats.
If the Democrats wanted a larger deal that would help in a variety of ways for DREAMers and DACA and all that, the door is now open.
The President opened the door for them to negotiate for things they want, which Republicans might actually be okay with, you know, in a compromised situation.
So at this point, if you're anybody who's, let's say, has a strong interest in this, whether you're an undocumented immigrant or whatever, you have to see that the Democrats are the ones not negotiating now.
They're the ones that are essentially keeping the government closed right now.
Now, this again is just a battle of impressions, right?
It's not about truth in any sense.
It's about the public relations battle.
But I think the president went from a weak position of, hey, give me a wall, and the Democrats just saying, no, those immoral walls, we don't want that.
He's now put them on the defensive side.
By broadening the conversation to other areas of immigration, they can too.
This would be the time to do it.
It's basically an invitation.
Somebody says it's a fake offer.
That's what all first offers are.
All first offers are fake offers.
So saying it's a fake offer is just saying it's a first offer.
You don't expect anybody to take the first deal.
You do expect that now that you've opened the field, that the other side knows that they have the same right to add stuff in there and see if they can get something done.
So I think he takes the advantage with this, and so it was a good move.
And as I said yesterday, his naturalization ceremony he did before his speech was politically and persuasion-wise brilliant because either four or five of the people that he swore in to become citizens of the United States were people of color and was one or two a woman.
I can't remember. But the optics of it and his obvious, what seemed to me, a genuine affection and respect for these people that he swore in to become citizens and said, welcome to the team, essentially, looked genuine. Now, who knows what anybody's thinking in their private thoughts, but it looked genuine.
As an observer, it seemed very legitimate.
And that was a great context for talking about the border because it tries to take off the table, at least a little bit, the idea that it's for racist purposes.
And he's trying to reframe it as it's about the law, it's about having a process, etc.
And that really reinforced it pretty well.
Naturally, the Democrats had prejudged his speech to be a non-starter, which reveals them to be the non-legitimate players in this drama.
The President has shown that he is willing to negotiate.
They have shown that they're not willing to negotiate no matter what, and that gives them the advantage.
Now, I had said yesterday he shouldn't negotiate against himself, which is just make a better offer.
So if he had said, well, I was first asking for $5.7 billion and you said no, but how about $4 billion?
That would be a negotiating mistake because you're just negotiating against yourself.
The other side hasn't even made an offer yet.
He has instead now, by adding variables and kind of shaking the box, he's got what you might call a new first offer.
The 5.7 billion stayed the same, as it should, at this stage of the negotiations.
And he's added other variables, which he's not giving up too much, because the things he's adding are the things that he probably would have been okay with in any kind of a larger deal.
So, I think he takes the advantage now.
And we'll see if the public and the media reports it that way, but that's the way it feels, that he has now the public relations advantage.
Now, one thing that still is problematic, and maybe always will be, is that when the president describes the variety of border solutions, which he explicitly says might be a little bit of wall here, you know, in terms of the steel slats, but lots of places will not be, you know, specifically a wall.
It could be some fence, could be some waters, could be some mountains or whatever.
But he says that, which is what everybody believes to be true.
It'll be different solutions across the border.
And then he labels that the wall.
Now he's trying to have it both ways.
He's trying to have good border security in a variety of ways, but also at the end of it, it's clear he's setting it up to still be able to say, but I told you I'd get a wall, and I got a wall, even if some of it is wire fence and sensors and stuff.
I feel that that probably worked against him.
So I'm not sure I would have done that.
I think his better play at this point would just be to say explicitly, let's just not call it a wall anymore.
Let's just stop using the word.
The strongest thing he could do at this point is to say, I'll tell you what, you know, from now until the time we get something done, I'm just not even going to use the word anymore.
Because you seem to be objecting to the word.
Here would be an interesting way to frame it.
For the president to say, it seems that your problem is not about the politics anymore.
I'm sorry. It's not about the solution anymore.
You've moved from the solution, and you've become obsessed with the word.
Now, they can be obsessed with that word because he is.
As long as he's still obsessed with his word, it's got to be called a wall, even if it's not technically wall-like.
As long as he's stuck in that word, they can be too.
If, and I don't know that this is likely, but if he were to put a self-imposed moratorium, and I think he'd have to actually say it, that he's just not going to use the word, because the word itself is becoming the problem.
We're not even talking about budget anymore.
We're not talking about what's the best engineering solution.
We're not even talking about that anymore.
We're literally down to a word.
800,000 Americans are not getting a paycheck today.
Because of a word.
And I would say the president has to take that on himself.
I'm not gonna say it's blame or not blame, but I think responsibility-wise, he has to recognize that a complicated, a very complicated situation has boiled down to, literally, a word.
And he's the only one who can change that situation.
Nobody else has the power to take the power out of that word.
The president has paced and led his side for so long that he now has the freedom to deactivate that word.
He's the only one who can do it.
He built it, right?
He's the one who created like a nuclear bomb of a word, the word wall.
If you had to pick one word that would become like a nuclear weapon, it's the word wall.
Only the president can defuse it.
The other side doesn't have the power.
They don't have the skill.
They don't have the power. It's not really even their responsibility.
They don't have the ability to deactivate the bomb.
Only the president. And the other side is looking at this bomb.
At least psychologically, it's a bomb in their head.
And they're saying, we can't even deactivate that if we tried.
And it's in the way.
Only one person can deactivate it.
It's the person who built it.
It would be President Trump.
Now, would he ever deactivate the bomb he built?
You could argue that's the bomb that got him elected.
Build the wall is a pretty big part of the appeal of his candidacy.
But he has taken us from an uneducated point, and here's a really important point, right?
When all of us started this conversation about the border and build the wall, how many of you knew much about the border?
Some of you, right?
Maybe two percent of us actually knew something about the border.
Now, Two, three years have gone by.
How much do all of us know about the border situation now?
It's a lot, right?
You know, for example, that the cartels stopped using tunnels.
Did you know that? The cartels don't use tunnels.
They used to, but we got better at stopping the tunnels and they're kind of expensive to build.
So they mostly use, you know, fishing ships and cars going through the borders and stuff.
We've learned a lot about the actual physical geography of the border.
We've learned about Israel's wall.
We know more about it. We've learned about using sensors.
We've developed technologies for drones.
So we were way over here as a public about understanding the border.
When we were all uneducated about the border, Keeping it simple was actually probably a good thing to do.
Because if people don't understand the complexity, you simplify and you say, we need a wall.
So perfectly good persuasion given how much we do.
But... The president, whether intentionally or accidentally, part of the side effect of the Trump presidency, is that we're becoming educated on things we never knew we even needed to know about.
Now we all understand the border situation.
And I would say that 100% of Trump supporters have now been educated To the point that maybe a wall-like structure makes sense in a place like El Paso, where there's a population on both sides of the wall.
But it probably doesn't make sense, says everyone.
Literally everyone agrees with this.
It doesn't make sense in some hard-to-get-across area like a mountain or river or something.
So now that, weirdly, the public is all on one side, Did you ever think that would happen?
This is the weirdest situation.
The public started being completely on other sides about the wall, and except for a few open border fringe types and a few maybe people who didn't keep up with the education we all got, but mostly, at least 80% of both sides have met in the middle already.
The public has already negotiated the border security.
The public Is finished.
Am I wrong? I think you'd agree, right?
The public on both sides have already met in the middle.
We've already agreed.
We don't know if 3 billion or 5 billion is the right number.
That's for the experts. So we don't have an opinion on that, right?
I don't think that there's anybody who's just a citizen, a voter, who says, oh, I think it's 3.5 billion.
5.7 is way too much.
We don't know. We would rely, I think all of us, both sides, would rely on the experts to say, what is that right number?
It's not so big that we need to get involved, right?
So we don't agree on the budget.
I'm sorry, we don't disagree on the budget.
And we also don't disagree.
Actually, tunnels are rare now, according to the trial of El Chapo.
So the El Chapo trial taught us something that we didn't know as voters.
We didn't know that the tunnel...
The tunnel situation went from a problem to not much of a problem.
That's something we learned recently.
It's not as much of a problem.
And we also have better tunnel detection technologies, which is why the cartels stop using it as much.
I'm not saying it'll ever go to zero.
But it's a bad economic choice.
But anyway, let's stop talking about tunnels.
I don't want to have to explain the concept of friction again.
People will go where it's easiest to go.
If you make tunnels hard, there will be fewer of them, but there will never be zero.
If you're arguing that we should have zero people coming across the border, then you're not part of the productive conversation.
All you can do is slow them down so that it's easier to control it.
It's all about slowing down.
That's all a border can do.
A border with a tunnel still works.
If you don't understand that, let me say it as clearly as possible for the people who seem still confused.
A solid border that has people tunneling under it is completely working.
That is a successful border.
A wall with a tunnel is a successful border.
Because if a lot of people used the tunnel, it would be easy to detect.
Probably the cartels don't want to have a bunch of people coming through their tunnel because they're all witnesses.
What kind of crime syndicate builds a $10 million tunnel?
Because it's probably pretty hard to build those tunnels.
They're fairly sophisticated.
What kind of cartel wants to spend all their money building a tunnel and then put a bunch of immigrants through it, every one of them becoming a witness to where the tunnel is?
Think of your economics.
That would be bad economics.
If you're the cartel, you would only use the tunnel for your drugs.
And you would only let the people who really, you know, just the few people you trust who are part of the cartel, should be the only ones who know where that tunnel is.
Because it would be bad economics to let even one immigrant into a tunnel.
Because he gets out the other side and he's free in the country and he knows where your damn tunnel is.
That would be the dumbest thing in the world.
You would never let an immigrant use a cartel tunnel.
You get that, right?
The pure economics and risk management, which we know the cartels are good at, they're good at risk management.
That's what they do for a living, right?
They're not going to let average people go through their tunnel and then come out the other side as witnesses.
Hey, it was a good tunnel.
Look, tunnel over there.
That's not going to happen. So we know border security works.
Anyway, the public has met in the middle.
The public already knows that the engineers should decide where you put what.
They don't care about the amount of the budget.
Both Democrats and Republicans agree that you need some kind of engineered solution and that we might have to do a little trial and error to get there.
It's only the politicians who are at odds.
Only the politicians.
And they're probably only at odds at this point because of one word that the president is holding onto.
The word wall.
I submit to you that even Ann Coulter doesn't care about the word wall.
I know that's a big claim.
Ann Coulter is the number one anti-immigration voice probably on the right, and more extreme than the president by far.
And I can't read her mind, so I'm not going to say I know her inner thoughts.
But just to make my point, I doubt she cares that it's a physical, you know, big concrete structure the entire length of the border.
I doubt that in a private moment she would say, yes, yes, it has to be that.
I don't think so. I think she would, like everyone else, would just want the best engineered solution for the best cost.
I think everybody would agree on that.
So the president, having now paced his public to trust him that he is trying to get an effective border situation, they do trust him, wouldn't you say?
Well, let me ask you that. In my opinion, Trump's supporters trust him that if he were to change it from a concrete wall to a steel wall to a sensors or some smart solution, I believe that the people he's been pacing and leading, I think they would say, okay, just do what makes sense.
There's nobody on the Republican side who is going to override an engineer's decision.
It's just not going to happen. I mean, some people would disagree with anything, but the larger group of Republicans, if the president came out and said, look, here's what it looks like.
I talked to the engineers, and they say, put this here, this here, this here, and most of it is not a wall.
Let's say it came from the president.
What would his supporters say about that?
Would they say, hey, we're not engineers, but we think the engineers got it wrong?
I don't think so. I don't think anybody does that.
I think they say, oh, you want good border security?
We know that. Like, nobody doubts President Trump on the single question, do you want good border security?
If he can deliver it in some form, the engineers say, yeah, that makes sense.
That's a good engineering solution.
His side's on it.
So we're down to one word.
We'll get rid of the racist.
Goodbye, racist. Trump can only get re-elected if he refuses all amnesty, etc.
I doubt it. So somebody made a, I guess I'd call it a prediction, that if the President granted any kind of amnesty, that he could not get re-elected.
I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I think that he would lose some people and gain others.
Because the wall was such a divisive, divisive thing, that if you take that off the table, I think some Democrats might take a second look at him.
While at the same time he would lose some hardcore folks on the right.
Now if you're a Democrat, let's say you're a Democrat and you're kind of liking some of the things Trump is doing.
Let's say you're liking that he wants to get out of wars, you're liking that the economy is going well, you're liking unemployment, you're liking prison reform.
So let's say you feel like you can't join Trump The MAGA team, so to speak, because you're sort of a Democrat, but you're liking some of the things he's doing.
The thing you don't like is the racist story that's been ginned up by the media and your side bought into.
If that's the part you don't like about him, and I would argue that's the primary thing that keeps people from wanting to change sides in this case, the fact that he would...
Let's say he was in favor of some kind of a good solution for the people who are already here.
Let's say he was a little more flexible about that.
I think that just works against the racist narrative.
And so he might attract as many people as he lost.
It's hard to know the give and the take for that.
How is Trump racist?
Well, I'm not making that claim.
I'm saying that the mainstream media has painted that narrative.
By the way, what happens to them?
If you're a Democrat or an anti-Trump of any kind and you think he's a big old racist and you watch the naturalization ceremony, if you did, if you watch that, which is the most Unambiguously non-racist thing anybody could do.
If you were a real racist, you just wouldn't plan that.
You just wouldn't have that ceremony.
Because nobody was talking about him having a naturalization ceremony of people of color in the Oval Office for the first time in least memory that we can figure out.
Nobody told him he had to do that.
So somebody's saying most racists hide their racism.
Now let's follow your point.
A racist who's hiding their racism, they just don't bring up the topic, right?
Or if they do, they'll give the answer to the topic.
It's very unusual for an actual racist, and fact check me on this, right?
I'm going to say something I've never said before, so maybe it won't go down well.
But an actual racist doesn't look for places to promote the people he's racist against When he doesn't need to.
In other words, this naturalization ceremony was his own idea, or his own team, and he bought into it.
So it's very rare, to the point of, I would say you'll never see it, that an actual racist, let's say David Duke, do you think David Duke will ever do some kind of a public event that is in favor of brown people to maybe hide his racism?
No. No.
Do you think that any actual racist ever in the history of the world will go out of their way to hold an event to praise and honor the people that they actually hate when they don't need to?
Nobody asks them to do it.
It's just their own idea.
Probably never. Probably not one time in the history of the world has that ever happened.
So when you're watching the president initiate a respectful, honorable, clear message of inclusivity and patriotism, when you see him do that, he didn't need to do any of that.
You can't really do that stuff.
Well, you can, but you just wouldn't.
You simply wouldn't do that if in your heart you didn't like these people.
You just wouldn't do it.
But fact-checking on that.
Does that statement sound unreasonable?
Hitler was praising Einstein.
There is no situation where a Hitler analogy doesn't work.
When Hitler praised Einstein, I don't know, I just can't take seriously any Hitler analogies.
All right.
That's enough for today.
I think we've said enough.
Let's see how CNN treats this Covington Catholic boys' school thing today.
▲
Export Selection