All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
38:35
Episode 394 Scott Adams: Kamala Hires the Mole, Tom Brokaw, Border Security, Taliban
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Come on in here. You know what time it is.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm your host, Scott Adams.
And you lucky people have made it in time.
You have passed the test.
You're ready, you're able, and you're in there.
Good for you. Well, let's take it to the next level.
Let us enjoy the simultaneous sip.
Grab your mug, your cup, your thermos, your chalice, your stein, fill it with your favorite liquid, and join me for the simultaneous sip.
Oh yeah! Alright, well we got a few interesting news items.
Fortunately, it's not all about the wall today.
I think my favorite one was Tom Brokaw being the sacrificial adult white male who had to be taken down today.
So, poor Tom Brokaw, who I think you could say his brand is...
Democrat, right?
I mean, since he's retired anyway.
But Tom Brokaw made the mistake of saying that he thought Hispanics should Assimilate better or learn the language better, and that was considered insensitive, backwards, possibly racist, and he's spending the morning apologizing like crazy so that he doesn't end his storied career with this mark on his record.
It was fascinating to see how quickly he got thrown under the bus.
So, anyway, we'll just watch that story.
Meanwhile, while nobody's paying attention, it appears that maybe Trump is well on the way to solving his fourth war.
And it's funny that this doesn't get any attention.
So what I'm talking about is Afghanistan.
Now, of course, it's way too early to be optimistic, but apparently the Taliban and the United States have reached some kind of agreement, but it might even be harder for them to reach agreement with the government of Afghanistan.
So it's probably a good sign that the U.S. and the Taliban have talked and something positive seems to have come out of that.
We're probably a long way toward getting out of there.
However, yeah, too early to call.
But I like to remind people of this.
Trump might solve four or five wars, and he's only been in office two years.
So you've got North Korea that I would say is on its way to being solved.
You know, we're not there yet, of course.
But everything looks good there.
It's hard for me to imagine that going backwards at this point.
And the big problem is that they had nukes aimed at us.
And that's solved.
I mean, I don't know how aimed they are.
But the point is that North Korea and the United States are not enemies anymore.
We just stopped being enemies.
So the big threat is over.
But there are a lot of details to work out to get to the end states.
The war in Yemen.
Last I knew, the pressure from the United States was instrumental in getting the sides in Yemen talking.
I haven't heard much from Yemen lately, but last I heard they were talking about at least ceasing hostilities.
So that would be two.
Of course, we're pulling out of Syria.
That still needs a lot of negotiating to make sure we can do that and the Kurds don't get slaughtered and all that.
But it looks like probably we'll figure out a way to do that.
So it could be that in two years, Trump has made serious progress in four wars.
You know, if you count beating down the ISIS, if you count Afghanistan, if you count Yemen and North Korea, that's not bad.
Four wars?
Somalia. Somalia I'm not too informed on, but I don't know the deal there.
But maybe I'll learn that someday.
All right. Let's talk about Kamala.
So Kamala Harris, as you know, has been selected by the media.
It's pretty obvious now.
And CNN gave her a big love letter in the form of a town hall.
Or has that happened yet? I don't know if that's happened or it's about to happen.
But it's pretty obvious that she is the one selected by the media powers, which means that she will be the candidate unless something surprising comes up.
But let's talk about a few elements of that.
Number one, apparently...
Do you remember The Mole?
I used to talk about someone I named The Mole...
Back in the 2016 election and the idea was the mole is not necessarily a real person although it could be you don't know you could be but the mole The bowl was a sort of a concept for somebody giving bad advice to Hillary Clinton, specifically about her tweets and her messaging and her slogans and such.
And I heard that Kamala Harris has a number of ex-Hillary people who are advising her.
And boy, does it show.
You can really see the Hillary Clinton effect.
She's sort of Hillary 2.0.
Let's talk about her persuasion.
Number one, charisma.
Let's talk about Kamala Harris' charisma.
I watched a little bit of her speech.
She doesn't have any.
Oops! So it looks like the Democrats are on the verge of picking another soulless vessel with no charisma whatsoever.
Which is nothing but funny to me.
Because if there was one thing they needed to get right, you know, they needed to get the Obama magic right, say what you will about Obama.
Well, he had charisma, you know, through the roof, right?
You know, you can't take that away from him, even if you don't like anything else he did.
He had tons of charisma.
Still does. Kamala does not have charisma.
And before you jump on me and say, well, maybe you're being sexist...
Keep in mind that I told you long before AOC, who I call RPOS, although I'm thinking of changing AOC's nickname to Blue Trump.
Blue because Democrats, and there are no humans that are blue, so it's a good color.
So Blue Trump, meaning that she's essentially following Trump's playbook, AOC, but she has charisma.
Again, say what you will about her politics, say what you will about her socialism, whatever.
I'm not arguing her politics.
But Blue Trump, she's got a ton of charisma.
And if she were old enough to run for president, she'd be the front runner right now.
But Kamala does not.
Now, Hillary Clinton was trained as a lawyer.
Kamala Harris, trained as a lawyer.
I don't know how President Trump could lose to a lawyer.
Anything's possible, right?
But how do you lose to a lawyer?
In this day and age.
It feels like it would be the easiest contest in the world.
Let's talk about a few other things.
Let's talk about her slogans.
Kamala Harris' slogans.
And this is the funny part. So her campaign slogan is, For the People.
Now, is that the weakest slogan?
Most bland, unpersuasive, charisma-free slogan you've ever heard in your life?
For the people?
As opposed to what?
Is there somebody else who's running to represent the animals?
I'm pretty sure four of the people is kind of what all politicians are.
So that looks like another example of the mole giving her advice.
But my favorite one was, and this is all you need to know about the quality of her advice right now.
So you figure she's getting tons of advice from all the ex-Hillary people coming in and saying, do this, do that.
And her signature line from her speech, I think it was the announcement speech of her candidacy, she said, we are better than this.
And that's the thing that got all the attention.
We are better than this.
What do you hear when you say we are better than this?
What do you hear? Here's what I hear.
There's something wrong with you.
Imagine if somebody decides to run for president under the slogan, I don't know, I think there's something wrong with you people.
Collectively? I don't know.
You're not so great.
There's just something wrong with you people.
I don't know if it could be a worse slogan.
I don't know if you sat in a room with nothing but moles, you know, people who just had bad intentions and wanted to give you bad advice.
We are better than this.
Something that would come out of a mole committee.
All right, compare, make America great again.
Make America Great Again says that we are capable of making things great.
So you're thinking great, but you're thinking, okay, the system is broken, the America part, But we're pretty awesome because we can fix that broken system and make it great again.
So Trump's slogan is still the gold standard of slogans, in my opinion, because Make America Great Again is active, it's powerful, it's positive, it's a compliment to the country.
Yeah, we can do this. We can make this system that's broken great again.
Kamala Harris, we're better than this.
We are better than this.
In other words, the people are broken.
Think about it.
Trump's slogan says, the system could be better and we awesome people can fix it.
Kamala's signature line is that the people are broken.
You people are defective.
It's not quite deplorable, But it's close.
Now, when she says we're better than this, does she mean that Democrats are better than this?
No, she doesn't.
She means that the other team, the deplorables, shall we call them, are defective.
She's literally calling half of, well, let's say figuratively, calling half of the country defective.
Who in the world gave her that advice?
Think about it. Can you imagine worse advice?
Is there anything dumber, persuasion-wise, than to tell the citizens they're defective?
It was wonderfully bad.
All right. I'm going to read...
Here's some more bad Kamala Harris.
So here's her 12 hours ago...
She tweeted this. Now keep in mind that this is in the context of announcing her candidacy for president.
So any tweet you see in the last 24 hours are really the ones that she thought about and the ones that really she wants to make her brand.
So this is not some tweet from three years ago.
This is something she's decided consciously.
This is where I'm going to Put the stake in the ground.
This is my brand. So listen to her tweet from 12 hours ago, Kamala Harris.
We will fight for an America where our daughters, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers are respected, where they live and where they work, where reproductive rights are not just protected by the Constitution but guaranteed in every state.
Now, first reaction is, oh, I like making sure that half of the people in this country have a good experience, meaning the female half of the country.
Yeah, I totally agree with the message.
I would like, I would love to see daughters, sisters, mothers and grandmothers are respected.
Is there anybody who was against that?
Do you know anybody who was on the other team?
It was anybody who was saying, hey, you know what we need is a little less respect for daughters, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers.
But here's the thing.
What about men? What about men?
I'm going to read it to you again and then ask yourself this.
Who is she running to represent And who is she proposing that she controls?
Controls the behavior of?
Because when she says that she's going to fight to get more respect for daughters, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers, is she suggesting that women don't respect each other?
That doesn't seem to be the implication here.
It seems to be written to say that there's something wrong with men.
Am I wrong?
Think about this frame.
I believe she's saying there's something wrong with men specifically, because there's nothing in this about something that needs to be fixed with women.
She's fixing something for women, for the sisters, mothers, daughters, and grandmothers, and of course we're all in favor of that, right?
Wouldn't we all like women to have a good experience?
Women and girls, of course.
But the way she's framed it is that men are the problem.
Am I wrong? Did she not frame this as men are the problem?
And so then I thought to myself, well, let me look at her campaign ad.
And she's got a little campaign ad where she shows little families and people and stuff.
And of course it's wonderfully diverse.
It's just a real diverse group of people, you know, right on brand.
That part's good. And I thought to myself, are there any adult...
White men in her campaign ad.
And I actually had to slow it down to see one.
In other words, I had to stop it and go back and stop it and go back and stop it and go back.
And there was one. There was one shaved head bald white guy.
And the rest were everything else.
Now, the everything else is fine, because that's who she's representing, and the country's got a lot of people, so you want to get them all in there.
But I was trying to look at how she would treat the fact that she's so clearly running an anti-male, you know, if we can be honest about it, it's an anti-male campaign.
It's a pro-woman campaign, and I like pro-woman.
That part's great. But the anti-male part...
Is why I called her Hillary 2.0.
She's also gone full racist, sort of the same as, a little different than Hillary, but she started out with the old President Trump hasn't denied white supremacists, which of course is a lie.
And, of course, based on fake news about Charlottesville.
So the people who believe that, you know, for those, if anybody's new here, when the president said there were good people, fine people on both sides, he meant both sides of the statute debate, the news twisted that into, hey, I think he says that white supremacists are fine people.
Which is ridiculous.
Of course he didn't say that.
They were marching and saying anti-Semitic things.
And what are the odds that Israel hasn't noticed if he were actually supporting those white supremacists who were marching and saying anti-Semitic things?
Do we imagine that Israel would not have noticed?
And obviously they seem good with this president.
So based on fake news, Kamala has said that the president's a big old racist.
And she's really calling you a bunch of racists.
You meaning anybody here who supports President Trump.
By calling the president a racist, she isn't calling him a racist.
That's not really the whole message.
She's kind of saying that his supporters are racists.
So she's gone full race and gender right out of the chute.
Sounds like the mole is giving her advice.
So if you wanted to be an anti-male socialist racist scold with no charisma, she's nailing it, but she's also the strongest candidate.
I'm not going to tell you that she can't win.
It's still kind of early.
But she is a weak candidate, let me tell you, because of the charisma thing and because she's apparently taking very bad advice.
If whoever advised Bernie just advised her, I think she could win in the walk away.
Well, I'll say this again.
If whoever advised Bernie back in his run was now advising Kamala, I'm pretty sure she could take the election.
But it seems like she's getting advice primarily from ex-Hillary people, which would lead her down the same trail of doom.
Now, one of the things I'm seeing a lot of people who do not like Kamala Harris as a candidate Bringing up some history of her romantic life in the past in which she dated Willie Brown, a famous politician from San Francisco, California area, and that he was alleged to have helped her in her career.
Now we can take that away from alleged because Willie Brown just wrote a piece in which he said he did help her in her career.
And he was dating her at the time.
Now, this is exactly why I love Willie Brown.
Now, I don't know all of the things he's done politically and or if he's done anything I don't like.
But I'm just going to evaluate Willie Brown as a personality and as a politician, I guess.
I love that guy.
Let me tell you what made me fall in love with Willie Brown as a politician.
Again, I'm not endorsing everything he's ever done.
I'm just saying, personality-wise.
Years ago...
Many years ago, when Willie Brown had a lot of power in California, there was some kind of vote that came up about tobacco.
And I forget, it was either public smoking bill or maybe taxes on tobacco, something like that.
But it was something that the tobacco companies would be against.
At the same time, Willie Brown was well known for taking lots of campaign money from tobacco companies.
So some reporter said to Willie Brown, How can you be objective and vote in a way we can trust when you're taking money from the tobacco companies?
And Willie Brown gave the best answer I've ever seen to a gotcha question.
He looked into the camera, and I assume there was a camera running, and he said, if you can't take money from people and then turn around and screw them, you're in the wrong business.
Ha ha ha! End of the story.
The whole story that he was taking money from the tobacco companies just dissolved because he completely admitted he's taking their money and then he said, yeah, if you can't take somebody's money and then screw them, you're in the wrong business.
I'm in politics. I can do that.
And it was so blunt and so funny and so unexpected because anybody else would have gone a different direction on that.
I just said to myself, this guy's got some game.
So I fell in love with him from that day on.
Anyway, should we talk about the wall?
Here's some things to look for.
Somebody told me that when I, I always have allergies in the morning, that if I use a Kleenex off camera like this, it looks like I'm doing lines of cocaine, but I'm not.
All right, here's the thing I'm looking for when the folks, the working group is negotiating about what they're going to do with the wall.
Have you heard...
Who's on the committee and who's working on it?
I haven't. Have any of you?
Can any of you name anybody who's on the working committee trying to come up with this wall funding solution?
It seems like that would be toward the top of the news.
Most of you are saying no. The fact that you haven't heard who they are, who's on the committee, means they don't have a chance.
If you do later hear who's on it, and you do hear a little bit about some engineers and some experts, if you start seeing pictures, in other words, more transparency, then I think there's some hope.
But if the media does a complete blackout and it's just like a black box committee where you don't know their names, You don't know where they are.
You don't see any pictures.
You don't see any proposals. And when they're done, you don't see any details.
And you don't hear about the names of any engineers.
I'll make it simpler.
If you don't see somebody who is a border expert slash engineer, somebody who's really close to the process and knows the costs and the benefits and the tradeoffs, if you don't see those people being interviewed on any of the news stations, If nobody wants to talk to the experts, there's nothing that's going to happen.
The President said there's a 50-50 chance, which is exactly the right answer.
He doesn't want to act optimistic or pessimistic, so I think that was the right answer.
But I've said from the beginning, there's not much of a chance that this will be done in three weeks.
There's not much of a chance of that, because everything gets delayed.
So I don't know how long it will take, But something will come out of that.
Now, as I've said before, it's looking like the only way that this committee can keep President Trump from having a win is by putting a poison pill in there.
And by poison pill, I mean throwing in some amnesty-related extras that are beyond just the question of the fence or the wall or the whence.
So it looks like the committee or at least if there are any Democrats on it will probably try to throw in some things that independent of the border security and the physical border will try to kill it because anything they do that gives a few billion dollars to Trump is going to look like sort of a win.
And since the entire point of the committee is to allocate More money for border security, and that's exactly what he campaigned on, is more border security.
The wall part, I think they can explain that away.
Let me say that more clearly.
I believe it would be easy for the president to sell to his base.
I talked about a wall, but we ended up with a smart wall, and it's more cost-effective and better, too.
So, can the president sell to his base a better solution than a wall?
I think so. Pretty easily, I would say.
So I'm not worried about that.
So I think that the only thing that the Democrats can do to derail this president from getting a victory at the end of this process, whether it's three weeks or 15 weeks or whatever it is, the only thing they can do is throw a poison pill in there.
So we'll see how successfully they try to throw in some amnesty thing.
All right. I've told you a few times that watching my periscopes is like watching the news a long time before the news happens.
I want to give you some examples.
I, of course, told you that President Trump would be elected two years before it happened, or a year before it happened, I guess.
And I told you that Kamala Harris would be the likely candidate back in the summer.
So I think that when Kamala Harris was way down in the polls, you may remember that I chose her as the likely person to run against Trump.
And I told you that months ago, and now you see that happening.
The New York Times had a story today, which is behind a paywall, but I can tell from the headlines what it is, that at the Davos event, that there were male executives saying that they no longer feel comfortable mentoring women.
So remember I told you when the Me Too thing happened that there was going to be a bad side effect for women, which is that men would stop mentoring them because you can't spend time with them.
You don't want to have too much contact.
And sure enough, that's happened.
So I called that one two years before it materialized.
Remember I told you that the Cuban sonic weapon would never be discovered and that it would be more of a Psychological and or mostly psychological event.
So far, so far it seems right.
Remember I told you when the Vegas massacre happened?
Stephan Paddock, I guess.
Remember that the news was saying, looks like ISIS? And I said, no it's not.
And then they said, ISIS has claimed credit for it.
And I said, it's still not.
And then people said, but ISIS rarely, almost never, claims credit for something unless they actually did it.
It's happened, but it's very rare.
To which I said, it's not ISIS. What do we know now?
Not ISIS. Right again.
What did I tell you about North Korea a year before good things happened there?
I told you that events were lining up and that this president had a unique skill set and that North Korea, against all odds, was going to break positive.
I'm the only person in the world who said that.
Literally the only person in the world.
About a year before it happened.
Somebody says, do we know Stephen Paddock wasn't ISIS? Yeah, I think we know that.
Somebody says, are we getting a prediction?
Give me a topic.
What would you like to see predicted?
But I guess I'm just trying to draw you a picture here that I have been telling you the future for a while now.
I've seen lots of questions about Howard Schultz.
My prediction is that Howard Schultz will not run a third-party campaign.
He will not. Because doing so would make him the least popular person in the world.
He wouldn't win.
And he would be coming from one of the most popular people in the world to the most hated person in the world, and it would cost him a lot of money and it would be hard.
It's almost no chance that that's going to make sense to him when he figures it out.
RBG outcome? Do you mean health outcome?
Bloomberg would have no...
If you mean Bloomberg running a third party, no.
I don't think Bloomberg has any realistic chance of getting the nomination.
Am I watching John McAfee?
I'm not watching him closely, but I know a little bit about John McAfee's situation, and he's going to be fun to watch.
Here's another one I told you about.
Who was the first person who told you that AOC was going to be a big deal?
There were two people, actually, who told you from day one, as soon as she started hitting the headlines, and this was months and months ago, who told you that she was going to be the headlines for a long time?
Mike Cernovich and me.
Now, it's not a coincidence that the two of us picked her out of the crowd so early, and it's not a coincidence that both of us picked Trump out of a crowd before other people did.
We both saw the same thing, the same skill set, and we could see it early because we share that skill set.
Yeah, so Mike Strinovich called that, and he was telling you, he was saying it loud and often, and I was doing the same thing at the same time, telling you that this is not a flash in the pan, and that she has the Trump skill set.
That's why I'm considering calling AOC Blue Trump, because she really is taking his exact...
We'll get rid of...
Damn it, why can't I select people?
My blocking finger isn't working as well.
Skill set in persuasion.
You saw recently that when AOC said that we had 12 years left before climate change kills us.
And of course, the people on the right jumped on that and said, oh, how stupid could you be?
You think we're all gonna die in 12 years?
Now, I haven't talked to Mike Cernovich about this, but I can tell you with complete confidence, without being a mind reader, what he thought about it when she said, climate change will kill us in 12 years.
I don't even have to talk to Mike, don't even have to see his tweets to know what he thought about it.
She didn't mean 12 years.
And of course, she later tweeted that she was mocking somebody for taking her literally as if she actually meant 12 years.
She never meant 12 years.
It was hyperbole.
It was Trump technique.
It made her headline news.
It made her the biggest voice in this topic.
And then she got to say, well, not literally, but she already got the public's mind where she wanted it.
So when you see her do stuff like that, it's not an accident.
She knows how to use hyperbole.
She knows how to control the headlines.
And I got some more bad news for you.
I was listening to her talk recently.
I forget what venue it was.
And you're gonna hate this.
You're really gonna hate this.
She's a lot smarter than you think.
So, first I was thinking, well, maybe she has a special talent just in the persuasion stuff.
And then she would say things about, you know, the cost of healthcare and things that didn't add up.
And you'd say to yourself, well, my God, she's bad at math or something.
So she must, maybe she's not very smart because she says things that don't make sense, like we're going to be dead in 12 years from climate change.
That's not true. Or...
Or we'll actually save money if we have universal healthcare.
And everybody's like, that's not true.
How dumb can you be to think socialism gets good?
But I was listening to, and I'll tell you why I say this, I was listening to her choice of words.
And when she gets off of her, you know, tweeting voice, you know, You could say that Trump has sort of a tweeting voice.
You know, he tweets in a certain way, it's simpler, it's more aggressive, it's more provocative.
She has that mode too.
But when she backs off that a little bit, and you see her higher vocabulary come out, That's when you go, oh no.
Because she changes to a higher vocabulary.
And as soon as you hear it, it's hard to say she's dumb.
Because vocabulary is really a giveaway.
Just the way she selects words on the fly.
And I thought to myself, oh, damn it.
She's smarter than you think.
I'm thinking she's super smart.
I'm thinking that.
And what you think of as her not being smart is part of the act.
So watch for that.
She's smarter than you think.
All right. Oh, just to be clear, I think she's a racist.
So I wouldn't want her to have any control in the country that I live in.
So, yeah, I mean, she's a flat race, race baiter, racist.
So I'm not a fan, because, you know, how can you be a fan of a racist?
But... But that doesn't make her skill set any less.
It doesn't make her less smart.
Gillette Harris. A few people have noted online that Kamala Harris' campaign approach is basically the Gillette commercial.
And that's one of those comments where the moment you hear it, you have to laugh.
Maybe for some of you, it's the first time you've heard it.
But if you saw the Gillette commercial and you've seen Kamala Harris's approach, which is men are bad.
I mean, basically, men are bad is the message.
It's the secret anti-male dog whistle that isn't secret at all.
It's pretty funny. You think AOC is a racist?
Yeah, she's framed things in racial terms.
So if somebody's running, you know, somebody's a major politician and they frame things in racial terms, that's a racist.
That's what it is.
People who don't frame things that way are not racist.
▲
Export Selection