All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
42:24
Episode 392 Scott Adams: Dale Celebrates Pelosi Stunning Victory in Fifth Inning
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Come on in here.
I can't tell you when I've had more fun following the news.
I'm probably having more fun the last 24 hours than I had since 2016.
Many of you are panicked.
Many of you are unhappy.
But that's why you come here.
To have your frame on reality reset.
I've got to reset the hell out of your frame.
But not until we have some coffee.
Because this is Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm your host, Scott Adams.
This is a small, dainty, perhaps a little bit too feminine container that I like to put coffee in.
It's not mine. I'm on the road.
But if you'd like to join me, please fill your cup, your container, your thermos, your jug, your stein, your chalice.
Put your favorite beverage in there.
I like coffee.
Raise it to your lips and join me for the simultaneous sip.
Now, if you're following the news today, you know that the anti-Trumpers are doing victory lapses.
Victory laps, I say.
And I thought in the interest of fairness, in the interest of fairness, while it seems like Trump has been on a non-stop winning streak for three years, finally, the Democrats got their win.
And I thought that rather than being unkind about it, Unkind about what happened with Pelosi and Trump, I would invite Dale, the anti-Trumper, to celebrate with us and to give our take on it.
So, Dale, could you come over here and just tell us how you feel today about the whole Pelosi-Trump negotiations?
All right, I'll get off camera.
You just come over here.
Hello. Best day ever.
You know why.
Did you see?
Pelosi kicked Trump's little orange butt.
Yeah! Finally, finally got the win.
She's small.
Pelosi is. She's small and she's old.
But she's tough. And she kicked his butt.
Master persuader.
Art of the deal? Ho ho ho ho ho!
Mexico's gonna pay for the wall!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
What? It's only the fifth inning.
What does that mean?
How long is a baseball game?
I think it's some kind of analogy or something.
Fifth inning. How long is a baseball game?
Nine innings. You're saying I should not be celebrating in the fifth inning?
Well, this is disturbing.
I thought it was already over.
I thought it was the future.
I thought it was three weeks from now, and we already have our answer.
But apparently it's only the fifth inning.
I think I'll just wait.
Well, thank you, Dale.
Thank you for that premature celebration. - Thank you.
Now, I've been watching my Twitter feed for the last 24 hours, and as you can imagine, I swear to God, it looks exactly like the day before Election Day in 2016.
And everybody's coming over to gloat before the result.
This is exactly what happened the day before Election Day to my Twitter feed.
People came in and said, oh, Scott, what do you say now?
Now that you're definitely going to lose tomorrow.
And I would say, maybe we should wait till tomorrow.
Maybe we should wait till the election happens.
And then we should see who won.
And right now, if you look at CNN's homepage and my Twitter feed, it's full of people telling me, That Pelosi won.
To which I say, how do you win in the middle of the game?
Is that a thing? Is this the kind of game you could win in the middle?
So, if three weeks from now, or it may get extended again, my guess is that three weeks is not the magic number.
It'll probably get extended again, or there'll be more threats, or whatever.
But in X number of weeks, Maybe then we can decide who got what.
So that's the first thing, is that there's a little bit of premature celebration going on, if you know what I mean.
Now, I would like to reiterate that since I have never personally asked for a big solid concrete wall 2,000 miles across the border, I'm not personally being denied anything I wanted.
So there's nothing being denied to me that I thought could happen, expected to happen, or even wanted to happen.
So I don't have any personal stake in the 2,000 mile wall.
But I tweeted yesterday something that the anti-Trumpers are hating.
And when they looked at the tweet, and I'll tell you what it was in a minute, instead of telling me what's wrong with it, They tell me that I'm stupid, bald, and a cartoonist.
And then I know I'm onto something.
Indeed, the book that I just submitted in my first draft is about this exact thing.
So what I'm going to talk about and what everybody's getting wrong about this analysis of Pelosi and Trump is exactly what my book is about.
So it's sort of perfect.
I'll probably add a chapter on this.
I'm thinking about it. And it goes like this.
To certain disciplines, such as, let's say, economics, the law, business, philosophy, science.
You know, there are certain disciplines that if you don't learn how people think...
Within those disciplines, and not just one of them, but if you haven't sampled all of them, you're very behind in understanding the world.
Because there are things that a lawyer, the way a lawyer would look at the world is a product of their training.
And the way that looks like some people are saying it froze.
So, and here's a perfect example.
If you were comparing If you were comparing Trump's performance on this wall situation, what is the accurate...
Some people say that I've got some...
Stream had a hiccup, but you're back.
Okay. So the part you missed was that if you don't have experience with different disciplines, science, economics, philosophy, law, a few others, if you don't have any experience with them, you're at a disadvantage.
And this is a perfect example.
So my book on this, which will come out in this coming October, is called Loser Think.
And here's the best example you're ever going to see of loser think.
If you were going to judge President Trump's performance on this wall of negotiation stuff, what would you compare it to?
Because you can't judge something without having a comparison.
Would you agree with this so far?
So the first statement is, You don't know how good something is unless you've compared it to the correct thing.
So it's either going to be better or worse than whatever you're comparing it to.
People have made the entire wrong comparison because they do not have experience with economics and business and literally how to compare things.
I have a degree in economics and MBA and one of the biggest The skills you learn in those fields is how accurately to compare one plan to the most appropriate comparison.
So is the most appropriate comparison a contest between Pelosi and Trump?
It's not.
I'll tell you what is in a moment.
But the news is universally reporting that there was a contest between Pelosi and Trump and Pelosi won the contest.
Would you agree that that is generally how it's being presented on both sides?
The left and the right are framing it that way.
Is that the right comparison?
It is not. It is unambiguously not the right comparison.
Here's the right comparison.
This president was elected, largely, on border security concerns.
And border security is probably at least a third of the reason that people wanted this president.
So they wanted stronger border security.
Was there anybody who asked for inefficient, unwise border security?
Did anybody who supported Trump say, I want border security and I'd like you to do it in an inefficient way that costs too much and the experts on border security do not support?
Is there even one person Except maybe Ann Coulter.
Is there even one person who wanted him to get it done the bad way?
Nobody, right?
So therefore, when we're talking about, oh, he said he would build a wall the whole length of it, literally nobody wanted the solution given to them.
They wanted it done in the smartest way.
What has the president done right now?
He's kicked it over to the experts and the engineers.
He shined the entire focus of the country on it like it's never been before.
And now for the first time, the experts and the engineers are going to come up with a plan.
And that plan, for the first time, here's what's different.
You're going to say to me, but wait, the experts and the engineers have always been there.
That's just part of the background noise.
You're always going to have experts and engineers weighing in.
That's not the thing. But we've never been in this situation, which is that we all care what those experts and engineers come up with.
Let me ask you this. Do you remember when you looked at the plan from the experts and the engineers last year?
The plan that was, you know, we want to do this on this part of the border and this part of the border and this part of the border.
You know, this will be a little wall, maybe a little fence here.
Do you remember when you looked at that plan in detail a year ago?
No. No, you don't remember that, do you?
Because you didn't. The plan existed and apparently has always existed in the sense that there's a, you know, a plan for where they want to put what.
But you've never seen it, have you?
Now, let me ask you this.
At the end of this process, in three weeks, when the experts and the engineers have put together a plan, working with politicians, of course, when they're done with this plan, do you think you'll see it?
Yeah, you will. Hell yeah, you'll see it.
You're going to see it for the first time because they can't not show it to you now.
The public had been totally neutered on the question of border security because the news had kept from us any information that would be useful.
The useful information would be, here's a picture of what we want to do where on the border.
Here's an approximate budget.
Here's our reason why we think these issues work on these parts of the border.
You've never seen that.
But now, because the president has focused the entire country on it, this president is the master of changing what you think about and what you care about.
He's made immigration the number one issue.
If you open up your CNN or your Fox News, there's something about Roger Stone that's just, you know, Groundhog Day, another person gets picked up by Mueller.
But the only other news is what Trump told you it would be, which is immigration.
Now, in three weeks, when they come up with a plan, are you going to look at that plan?
You're damn right. You're going to look at this plan for the first time.
So for the first time, the public has been weaponized.
And what will happen if the experts say, here's the plan, here's the budget.
Let's say it's in that range of...
Let's say it's in the range of in that five billion dollar range, or it could be less, could be more.
Are you going to say to yourself that budget is wrong?
No, you're not. You're probably going to say, well, the budget looks affordable.
You know, that's a small number compared to the whole government.
So you're going to see the plans in some level of detail.
You're going to see that the experts back it.
You're going to see that the budget is affordable.
Now, let me ask you this.
Here's the money shot. Are you ready?
Do you think the plan that whatever they come up with, the bipartisan group, do you think that the border security plan they come up with will be substantially better or worse than what President Hillary Clinton would have done had she been elected?
Do you feel it yet?
The correct comparison here is not Trump versus Pelosi.
This is not a Trump versus Pelosi analysis.
It is a Trump versus Pelosi contest in the sense that they were negotiating.
But if you're going to judge the president and his performance, The reasonable way to do it that an economist would tell you, a trained economist would tell you what I'm going to tell you, because I'm sort of a trained economist myself, so I can say that with some confidence.
The correct comparison is what would you have gotten under a President Hillary Clinton for the border, and what will you get under a President Trump for the border?
If you think That the border funding would have been largely similar to what it has been before under Clinton.
That she would have said, now that I'm elected, I can't do any border security.
It'll make me look like a hypocrite.
So I'll just keep the funding, you know, at sort of a maintenance level.
Yes, somebody's saying you can't now.
It is correct. When you're doing these comparisons, even if you're doing them correctly, you're always comparing Two things that you can't know.
You're always complaining Plan A, that you haven't yet done, to Plan B, that you also have not yet done.
So you don't really know how they're going to turn out.
But that's still the rational comparison.
The rational comparison is how this president does compared to another president in the same job.
That's the only comparison that matters.
If you don't see that, then you don't have enough experience across domains.
Let me ask anybody who's got a background in economics or let's say an MBA. So to those of you here who have a background in economics or an MBA, in the comments, I'd like to see you tell the rest of the people that this is actually the accurate way to analyze this.
It's the way an economist would do it.
It's the rational way to do it.
Now if you say, I'm going to compare the President of the United States to Nancy Pelosi, That's an apple and an orange.
Nancy Pelosi is not the president.
She's not the other person doing the job of the president.
Why would you compare a president to the Speaker Pelosi?
That doesn't even make sense.
But yet it's entirely what the news is doing right now.
You can see a few people confirming this in the comments.
Talk to anybody who's an economist.
And ask them. And I would expect that by tonight you're going to see this on the news.
Talk to anybody who's an economist or anybody who's an expert in critical thinking.
Anybody who knows how to compare things.
Somebody who does it for a living.
An economist does it for a living.
An MBA does it for a living.
You know, they compare plans.
So, let's fast forward a little bit.
Let's fast forward to some kind of deal comes out of this working group.
Give me your odds, from zero to 100%, what are your odds that this working group will eventually, who knows how long it will take, three weeks or longer, but eventually, what are the odds that they will come up with more border funding Then you're pretty sure a president, Hillary Clinton, would have given you.
What are the odds?
So somebody just said, I'm an engineer and agree 100%.
Yeah, engineer is another field in which you do learn to compare alternatives.
Somebody says zero.
So there's somebody here who thinks there's zero chance that the working group will provide more border security than Hillary Clinton would have.
Yeah, most of you have the right answer.
It's close to 100%.
Whatever comes out of this will be more border security.
Now, you can also guarantee that it will not be a 2,000 mile wall.
Those are the two things we know.
There are two things we know for sure.
Is that there will be a substantial improvement in border security, but it could be in scanning technology, it could be in drones, it could be in fence, it could be a little bit of whatever, steel.
But there's nearly a 100% chance that at the end of this process, you'll have substantially better border security.
Now here's the political question.
Imagine poor Donald Trump having to run for re-election and here's the best story he has for his base, his base who's been disappointed about the wall.
Here's the story he's going to have to sell to his disappointed base.
Hey base, I listened to the experts and I built you the most efficient wall that gives you the best border security for the budget.
And then his base says, no, I didn't tell you, I didn't vote for you to do what is smart and what all the experts say is the most efficient way to get the job done that I want done.
I didn't want that.
I wanted a big dumb wall for 2000 miles, said no one, literally no one.
Fast forward to the, to reelection.
He's got more border security.
And he says to his base, When we talked to the experts, they told us what to do, they told us what was the smartest way to spend our money, and we took their recommendation.
Who is it who's against taking the experts' recommendation?
How many of you learned during this process a lot about border security?
By the time this working group is done and we see their plan, we're all going to be pretty smart about this.
We'll know what works, what doesn't, why you do different things in different places.
The best example of that is, before this process started, I didn't know that it made sense to have a high barrier in an urban area compared to a remote area.
I would have guessed the opposite.
Before we became educated in this process, I would have said, yeah, you need a really tall fence or wall wherever there's no guards, wherever there's no people, because that's how you keep people out.
Turns out that's opposite of what you need.
A small fence would be fine, because if you've got a long distance on both sides of the border, you can spot people and go pick them up.
And also the non-urban places where there are fewer people, so it's just less of a need.
So here's the first frame that you need to take with you, just reiterating.
It is being reported as a contest between Pelosi and Trump, and on the surface level, it is.
On the political level, it is.
On the news level, It is.
It's a contest between Pelosi and Trump.
And on that surface level, Pelosi smoked him.
So when you come to my Twitter feed and say, Ha!
Pelosi just kicked his butt!
On the surface level, I agree.
Very much like if you're playing chess and your opponent just took one of your pawns.
If somebody takes your pawn, you lost a pawn.
You can't argue the facts.
I lost a pawn.
But if your strategy was to give up a pawn to get something, Well, it's not exactly a loss, is it?
Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to get something.
Here's what he sacrificed.
He sacrificed...
You're going to love this next part.
Whatever you do, if you have a meeting to go to or something, just don't go because you don't want to miss this next part.
What is the president's biggest...
Problem going into re-election.
If you don't count the border security thing, right?
So we've talked about the border security thing and how if he gets more than President Clinton would have gotten, and it is a smart solution, he'll be able to sell that to the base easily.
It won't even be hard. But what is his other biggest problem in general?
Now, healthcare.
Healthcare might be second.
Racism. I think he's doing a good job of beating back the racism part.
But you could argue those are in the top three.
TDS. The biggest problem that the Democrats have with President Trump is, wait for it, you're gonna hate, you're actually gonna be angry that you had to wait for me to say this to hear it for the first time.
The biggest problem that President Trump had is that his power was unchecked and that he would do crazy reckless things without the normal checks and balances of the government.
Do you see it yet?
Pelosi just solved one of his probably three biggest problems.
One of his biggest problems is that the other side imagined he had too much power and that he wouldn't respect the process He wouldn't sort of accept, I guess, the legitimate power of the other branches of government.
And what just happened?
Right before our eyes, we watched the president's signature issue, the border security, his signature issue.
We watched the government swat it back.
And what did, here's the important part, Here's the important part.
What was the president's reaction?
What was his temperament?
What was his response to being literally slapped back in public on a political issue?
Respect?
Respect.
What was President Trump's response To losing, you could say, on the surface level, absolutely losing the negotiation over the government shutdown and the border security.
His response was respectful.
Do you know what else's response was?
While you were looking in the wrong place, high ground maneuver.
Have you ever heard of the high ground maneuver?
Well, if you've read my book, Win Bigly, you have.
If you've watched my periscopes, you have.
The high ground maneuver is when you finally say something that the other team just can't argue with.
And in this case, that thing is, let's kick it over to the experts.
Let's stop being engineers and experts ourselves, because we're politicians.
Let's kick it over to the experts.
Who can disagree with that?
Nobody. It's the high ground.
All the other stuff is in the weeds.
All the other stuff doesn't matter.
It was always about getting to the high ground, but after he'd softened up the entire table, he had to change the room He had to change the whole room, which is what he's done.
He's changed our focus.
He's changed what we're looking at.
He's changed what we cared about.
And he has, wait for it, wait for it, weaponized the voters.
He weaponized us.
Before, we didn't even know what the good solutions were for the border.
We were so dumb, we were saying, build a wall.
How about build a wall? Right?
I'll bet every one of us, you know, not personally, but most of you here, have said it's got to be a big old wall across the whole thing.
Now don't you think, now that you've learned more, he's weaponized you, he's educated you, indirectly, but he's educated you all to understand what you do and do not need in different places in the border.
Don't you look back and think, oh yeah, I guess that whole wall thing was kind of simplistic.
He's educated us.
He's changed our focus. He's made border security the top priority.
Just look at the news. The news isn't talking about anything else except Roger Stone.
That's it. He made it the highest priority.
Now, the politicians can't slip the puck past the keeper.
What do you call it in hockey?
Goalie? They can't slip the ball past the keeper because now the public is watching.
Before, if somebody had showed you a plan a year ago, here's a detailed plan of what we want to do on the border.
Would you have even read it?
Probably not. You would have just looked at the news.
You would have looked at the news and you'd said, what do they say about it?
I'll just agree with my favorite news channel.
But now you're actually going to look at it.
If they provide any kind of a plan that comes out of this group, I'm actually going to read that.
I'm going to read that damn thing.
I never would have read that before.
So, the president is going to go into re-election having eliminated one-third of the biggest problems he has.
I think you could argue that the whole racism thing and the healthcare are the two things he's going to have to battle against.
But he's a big old dictator who doesn't appreciate the system, has no respect for it, he's out of control, he's impulsive.
All gone. Nancy Pelosi just accidentally fixed his biggest problem.
Nobody reported on that.
At the same time, he did a high ground maneuver, kicking it over to the experts, and when they come up with something, we're going to look at it.
And then the other thing is that the correct comparison It is not the surface comparison where Pelosi literally, not literally, but Pelosi absolutely beat Trump on the surface level,
the political level. But if he gets substantially more border security in the smartest possible way, according to the experts, and it's more than you know he would have gotten under a president Clinton and it's more than you know you would get under whoever runs against him for president.
That's the comparison.
You think that this president can't sell to his base.
I listened to the experts and picked the best solution according to the people who know the most.
CNN is telling you he can't sell that to his base.
Let me ask you.
Do you think his base is so stupid That they would say no to the obviously most efficient use of the money.
You know, you could say that his base has hypnotized...
I'm sorry, let me say this another way.
The anti-Trumpers have hypnotized themselves into believing that Trump supporters are so stupid that they would not accept a smart way to secure the border.
That they actually will reject it.
In favor of the dumb way, according to all the experts.
He has the world's easiest sale, and he's one of the best salespeople.
He's in a totally advantageous situation, which to most of the world looks like he just lost hard.
Stay tuned. All right.
So I would say ignore Ignore everybody who thinks that the game is over in the fifth inning.
You have to wait until they come up with something.
Watch how engaged you are as a citizen in whatever the experts come up with.
Look how much you learned and then watch how they keep comparing the wrong contest.
Let me give you an analogy because they're so persuasive.
I say that sarcastically.
Let's say you hire a plumber and you hire a plumber and the plumber comes And the plumber fails to fix whatever it is that you hired the plumber to do.
Would you look at that situation where you hired a plumber and the plumber didn't fix what you wanted to fix?
Would you say to yourself, I had a competition with my plumber and the plumber won?
Would you say that? You wouldn't, would you?
You would say, I hired somebody and they didn't do the job.
When President Trump, the leader of the country, is dealing with Speaker Pelosi, Pelosi's job is to work with the president and to find solutions that work.
Was Pelosi competing with the president?
Because she doesn't have a president job.
They're not in the same level.
She's sort of somebody who has to do a job.
She's like the plumber in this analogy.
And did the plumber fix the pipes?
No, she did not. The proper way to look at this is that the President tried to work with Pelosi and she didn't do her job.
If Pelosi had done her job, wait for it, do you think she would have been able to get support for plans that the Democrats have been voting for for years, which is exactly what's going to come out of this?
It will be something like more border security, Which Democrats have been voting for forever.
Pelosi managed to take something that the public wanted, which was more border security, and both sides.
Democrats wanted better border security.
Republicans wanted it. It was a universally wanted thing.
If you hire a plumber and everybody involved, including the plumber, wants a leak to be fixed and the plumber can't fix it, what do you say?
Hey, the plumber won! The plumber is victorious because you wanted the plumber to fix something and he tried pretty hard and he wanted to fix it too, but he couldn't fix it.
So the plumber won.
You wouldn't say that.
It would sound absurd.
You would fire the plumber.
Correct. But Nancy Pelosi couldn't get her team to agree to something they already wanted.
Nancy Pelosi Couldn't get her own team to agree to better border security, which they already wanted.
That's a plumber who can't fix a leak.
So if you're saying the plumber beat the guy who hired him, you're in this weird frame that the news has provided to you.
And I think we were all in that frame, so it's easy to get into it.
Because the business model of the media makes this always the two-team situation, it doesn't matter how much the two teams want exactly the same thing.
They're still going to make it a team thing.
This whole Pelosi and Trump are on different teams fighting each other is an immediate invention.
Pelosi is not a president.
She's not at his level.
Pelosi is somebody that a president works with.
She's like the plumber in this situation.
And the plumber didn't fix the leak.
So you're calling the plumber who didn't fix the leak the winner.
She totally won. She totally won by not doing her job to do something that she wanted done.
How do you win by not doing something you want done?
It's crazy. It's crazy.
Alright. Now, some of you are saying that Fox News is also reporting it as a loss.
Keep in mind that if you're looking at the surface level, the political level, the news level, They're reporting it correctly.
On the surface level, Pelosi totally won.
In the same way that your plumber wins by not fixing a pipe.
I mean, it's a weird way to win, but on that level, that's a fair thing to say.
On the level of, did we get more border security?
Let's see. Let's see.
Let's not judge it in the fifth inning.
So, I'm kind of getting, like, goosebumps of excitement every time my critics come over to my Twitter feed to say, They say, oh, Scott, let's see you polish this turd.
Let's see you turn this into a victory for Trump now.
Everything he does, no matter how much he screws the pooch, you say it's a victory.
Let's see you twist this into a pretzel.
To which I say, well, if you know how to compare things, it's pretty easy.
It's pretty easy to compare things if you've been trained to do it.
Now, let me ask you.
I want to see in the comments how many of you were surprised by the way I just framed it.
In other words, was this new to you?
Was it new to you to see that the real comparison would be Trump compared to a hypothetical President Clinton?
Was it new to you that that was the logical way to do this?
Was it new to you They're kicking it to the experts.
Can't possibly go wrong with Trump's base.
Because they're not going to say no to a smart solution to the problem that they have.
Will they? Nobody's going to disagree with the fact that it's the fifth inning.
We don't know how the negotiations going to turn out.
And nobody disagrees with the fact that the environment has changed by this extended fight.
We've become more engaged as citizens.
We care.
We're going to look at this plan and we're going to force the engineers and the experts to make sure that we have something we can look at.
All right, here's my next advice.
Now, if you've been following my political prognostication, you know that I'm the most successful predictor in all of politics.
If you read Win Bigley especially, you'd know that.
Now, as successful as I've been in politics, and I would say for the past three years the most successful accurate predictor of events, We're now going in with these experts in the working group that's trying to figure out the border stuff.
It's becoming more like a committee, right?
It's more like a meeting behind closed doors.
And as good as I am at politics, I'm even better at telling you what's going to happen behind closed doors in a meeting.
Because that's sort of my beat, right?
My sweet spot in life is telling you what's going to happen in a meeting.
And here's a little tip for you.
And I'm waiting to the end of the Periscope to say this because the only people who are going to be watching this Periscope all the way to the end are Trump supporters.
If you're not a Trump supporter, you haven't gotten this far.
You've already puked in your mouth and you bailed out.
So now I can tell you the stuff that other people won't wait to hear.
In that meeting, whoever is in charge of the graphics wins.
Whoever can come up with the best physical picture and takes charge of, hey, I'll be in charge of making sure we draw the picture.
Because at the end of it, and during the process, there are probably going to be things on whiteboards and handouts and stuff, and there'll be literally pictures.
Whichever person says, oh, I'll take care of the graphics.
Every time we make a decision in the meeting, I'll put it together on some charts so you can compare them.
Whoever that person is, is going to have the most influence on the outcome.
Because I've taught you before that the visuals always win, right?
So whoever has the most compelling visual image Tends to win in a complicated situation.
The border thing is probably going to get really complicated once they get in the room.
It's going to be a whole bunch of people who wish they weren't in a room, have other things to do, they're busy, they're going to be overwhelmed with the complexity and the numbers and the different places in the border.
It's just going to be this big complicated ball of stuff that the people working on the solution are all going to be a little overwhelmed.
Whoever volunteers to say, you know, I'll tell you what, to make this easy, I'll be in charge of the graphics.
So I'll be the one who hands out the new picture that's the new version of what we talked about yesterday.
That person is going to determine how this comes out.
So if it's a Trump-supporting person who volunteers first, That's going to be an enormous advantage toward guiding the final outcome.
So if you put me in that room, let me put it this way.
If you airdropped me into that room and said, hey, Scott, you don't know anything about the border, but we're going to put you on this working group.
The working group would end up doing pretty much what I told them to do.
Pretty much what I told them to do.
Because I would take control of the graphics, And then I would shade them.
I would make sure the graphics told the story I wanted to tell a little bit better than any other story.
So that's what's going to happen behind closed doors.
So watch for who comes up with the graphics.
And if you start seeing pictures even ahead of the working group, like if you see some drafts that come out of that, then you know that something interesting is happening.
Alright, that's all for now.
▲
Export Selection