All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 18, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
47:56
Episode 420 Scott Adams: TDS on CNN, With Coffee
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at that view.
Foggy. But at least it's not a forest fire.
Hello, hello everybody.
Yes, I will turn out this light.
I know you're going to ask me to.
You know, if it weren't for low production values, I wouldn't have any production values at all.
Hey everybody. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm Scott Adams.
This is coffee.
And it's time for the simultaneous sip.
Grab your mug, your cup, your glass, your vessel, your stein, your chalice, your thermos.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous sip.
Now, there are two funny snippets that I tweeted today.
Both of them are from CNN, and both of them are from Brian Stelter's show.
I'm going to try to play them back for you.
The quality will be bad, but you can see them on my Twitter feed.
The first one...
This is Brian Stelter, and he's interviewing on his show Allison Camarado, one of the CNN hosts.
And her claim, here's the funny part, are you ready for this?
She claims that President Trump has no sense of humor and doesn't ever tell jokes.
Now, the funny part about it is not that the claim is so ridiculous.
The funny part about it, and you have to watch it yourself, you see it in my Twitter feed.
The funny part is watching Brian Stelter's reaction to it, because even he realizes that she's deep in Trump derangement syndrome.
And twice he goes, huh.
And I'm going to see if you can hear it.
Listen to what she says.
But the funny part is, up front he goes, huh.
And then after she explains a little more, he goes, huh.
And it's the huh that's the funny part.
Because you see him realizing that she's batshit crazy, and it's happening right in front of him.
So it's one thing for those of you who are Trump supporters to watch somebody in Trump derangement syndrome.
Because that's your normal situation, right?
Trump supporter sees a Trump-ader experiencing Trump derangement syndrome.
But when you watch an anti-Trumper See Trump Derangement Syndrome right in front of him?
You can almost feel like there's light going on.
So listen for it.
There's two places he goes, huh.
The first one is right off the front.
It's one of the first things you'll hear.
Now wait for the second one because it's hilarious, right?
Yes, but the problem is, and this is one of the very unique things about President Trump, he's humorless.
He is humor impaired.
This is not an original thought today.
He has never been captured laughing on any camera of any kind.
He has never made a joke.
It was not a funny one.
He's humor impaired.
Humor impaired.
So he doesn't, I don't know if he...
What's the guy next to him?
He can't think like Chuck Schumer is to go back with a quip and say something funny and self-deprecating.
Ah, I see what you're saying.
Yes, but the problem is, and this is...
All right, you've got to hear this again.
This is really sensational.
All right, I'm just going to play it again because it's so good.
Yes, but the problem is, and this is one of the very unique things about President Trump, he's humorless.
He is humorous.
This is not an original thought today.
He has never been captured laughing on any camera of any kind.
He doesn't, has never made a joke, at least not a funny one.
he doesn't, he's humor impaired.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Now, there is certainly a lot of room for personal opinion in politics.
There's lots of room for judgment calls.
But this is a president who's literally famous for his sense of humor.
It's one of his most defining characteristics, and she hasn't noticed.
She hasn't noticed that his rallies are basically stand-up humor mixed with politics.
She hasn't noticed that he's the funniest tweeter of all time.
She's never seen him laugh.
I've seen him laugh. You have to admit, that's funny.
But was it the funniest thing that happened on Brian's show this week?
Well, maybe not.
Possibly even funnier was Philip Bump, who writes for the Washington Post.
So Brian Stelter showed a series of Fox News clips in which people on Fox News were calling McCabe's interview with 60 Minutes where he revealed that there was a discussion about the 25th Amendment.
And on Fox News it's being called variously a soft coup, a low-energy coup, or a potential coup, but they use the word coup a lot.
So Brian Stelter plays a clip of all the times that the Fox News people called it a coup.
And then he throws it to Philip Bump, who writes for the Washington Post, not a friend of President Trump.
And Philip Bump defends it as not a coup this way.
He says, well, it would take half of the cabinet plus Mike Pence to actually succeed with that 25th Amendment thing, so that's hardly a coup.
What? In other words, it's not a coup because the odds of it working weren't high.
What? You have to reach really hard To say that it's not a coup if it had a low chance of succeeding.
That is the worst defense I've ever seen.
It's the worst defense.
Well, you'd have to really reach to call that a coup because so many people would have had to approve it.
What? So, those are the two funniest things.
And I have to believe that, you know, based on Brian Stelter's reaction to those stories, don't you think he's figuring out what's going on?
And this may surprise you, but I'm going to give some props to Brian Stelter.
You know, we've been watching him for three years or whatever talking about President Trump and then candidate Trump before that.
And he's no friend of the president.
Everybody knows that. And his reporting is consistently critical.
But when I watch him, he seems more like a partisan who knows what network he's on and he produces content that fits in that network.
He doesn't look hypnotized to me.
Now, that's just a judgment call, right?
But there are some people who look like they're actually experiencing some kind of delusional thinking, and there are other people who are just clearly on a team, and their reporting or the way they talk about things is sort of close to the team, but they don't look crazy.
I would say that Brian Stelter does not look crazy.
He doesn't seem to be suffering from TDS most of the time.
He has a side, and you could tell what it is.
I'm sure he would not acknowledge that.
But it's clear that he's not a Fox News type personality.
He's a CNN personality.
What I don't see is evidence that he's actually in some kind of fog of TDS. Whereas when you see something like these two examples, they're really scary because they don't look like, it doesn't look like regular human thought.
It looks like there's something wrong.
And that's hilarious.
So we may be entering a time When even the critics of President Trump start to see their own cohorts, their own peers, as being crazy.
So that might be the next step.
You know, it's been a long time where the Trump supporters think the anti-Trumpers are crazy, you know, with TDS. But I think you're going to start seeing the anti-Trumpers split in two, with half of them calling the other half crazy, and at least saying, well, this socialism won't work.
You're going to see a lot of...
A lot of dissension within the anti-Trump side.
That's what I think.
Now you saw the story that That Trump allegedly asked Japan and Japan's President Abe to make a recommendation for the Nobel Peace Prize.
And of course, the President talks about it as though Japan had this idea, and then Japan talks about it as if they suggested that they do it.
And I don't dislike anything about that.
Because, you know, the whole process of being nominated for a Nobel Prize, it's kind of political and it's not really scientific the way they do it.
There's an element of popularity and, you know, it's just how people feel and it's the zeitgeist and, you know, there's a lot that goes into that decision.
So given that it's not something like a scientific process or something, the fact that he may be putting his finger on the scale, allegedly, is completely just funny to me.
And if you don't see that as funny, I think you're dead inside.
Other people are saying he deserves it.
And I think I'm in the camp of...
He may be very close to deserving it, meaning that this next meeting with North Korea might tell us how serious they are in a way that we didn't quite know before.
So we'll see if this next meeting gets us to a point where that Nobel Prize makes sense.
All right. So the Jesse Smollett I keep wanting to make a joke about he who Smollett dealt it, but if you don't understand that joke, I'm not going to explain it.
So... Am I right or wrong that the news has unambiguously decided that it's a hoax?
Has even CNN decided that the Jussie Smollett thing was a hoax?
Can somebody confirm that?
Or is that just news you're seeing on the right?
Is the left also acknowledging that it didn't happen?
I went back and I was watching his interview for Good Morning America, I guess.
And it's really interesting to watch him because now that we think we know it was a hoax, watching him tell his tale Was interesting.
And the CNN thinks it's a hoax?
Okay. So it's really interesting because he's a professional actor.
And so when you try to see it after the fact, you know, once you've already heard confirmation that it's a hoax, and you look at it after the fact, and you check to see how good a liar he is, if that's what was happening.
And It looked really good.
What do you say? Because I was looking for all the tells.
You know, the little tells that somebody's lying.
I didn't see any. Now maybe somebody who's better at doing that sort of thing could...
Yeah, he cried. But actor, right?
So if you were to take the top 1% of actors in the world and ask them to lie, probably the top 1% of people who have acting talent could probably lie fairly convincingly.
So, never let an actor write a script.
Perfect example. Yeah, and then there's that weird connection between Kamala and her anti-lynching Legislation, which happened to be weirdly coincidentally at the same time that Jussie Smollett claimed that somebody put a rope around his neck.
So that's kind of a coincidence, isn't it?
Or is it?
All right. Let's talk about McCabe.
So I was watching the 60 Minutes clip where I guess Scott Pelley is talking to him and it was fascinating to watch Scott Pelley ask the questions.
Because McCabe describes basically why they started the investigation against the president for this alleged Russia collusion.
And you see Scott Pelley listen to it all, and then he just sort of leans back and he's like, and why did you have to do this?
I'm paraphrasing, he didn't use those words.
But you're even watching the person asking the question saying, um, and therefore...
Like the argument is so weak that it's just not obvious why it even makes sense.
Sort of makes sense.
So if I understand McCabe's argument, it goes like this.
There was evidence that Russia was interfering in the election, but then because Trump wanted to fire Comey, and Comey was part of that investigation, That that looked like obstruction.
But here's the problem.
And because it looked like obstruction, what was he trying to hide?
Why was he trying to stop a look into Russia's involvement?
And here's the problem.
There were two reasonable reasons why the president would want to fire Comey.
One is to stop him from finding out the truth.
And the other is...
That Comey was on a witch hunt.
Wouldn't they look exactly the same?
How did those two things look different?
You know, if you're looking at the president wanting to fire Comey, there were two completely good reasons.
One, Comey needed to be fired, and he was involved in a witch hunt that's a waste of time and bad for the country, and there was no truth to it.
And, of course, the president would have known that.
And nobody else would have known that.
Only the president knew for sure that there was nothing to the investigation, at least in terms of the president's involvement.
He knew for sure.
So if the person who knows for sure fires a person that he is legally allowed to fire for a reason that he wasn't hiding, which is this guy's involved in this witch hunt, there's nothing to it, I'm going to get rid of him, and other reasons that gave him a lack of confidence, that looks exactly like somebody firing somebody to cover something up.
How could you tell them apart?
And so the question I ask you is Is this.
If somebody does something that has both a perfectly rational reason, but also you can't rule out the fantastical reason, is that a good enough reason to investigate the president?
That you can't rule out that there was a crime?
Do you know what other situations you can't rule out that there was a crime?
All of them.
Let me say that again. Do you know what?
Other situations, you can't rule out that there was a crime.
Everything. The entire world is stuff that you can't rule out there was a crime.
I don't think somebody's being murdered on my lawn while I sit here, but I can't rule it out.
You know, I don't think that somebody is next door embezzling, but I can't rule it out.
I don't think there's a horrible crime happening in my neighbor's house, but I can't rule it out.
It seems like you should need something like positive evidence.
Shouldn't you? The can't rule it out doesn't feel like evidence.
Because the whole world is stuff you can't rule out.
You can't prove a negative.
You know, wasn't a cave trying to prove...
I mean, how can he prove that Trump wasn't involved in collusion?
You know, can you prove a negative?
I'm not sure that made sense, what I just said, but pretend it did.
Now... So that was the part that, in my opinion, it looked like Scott Pelley was sort of acting like he didn't understand the point, because I don't think I understand the point either.
In other words, Scott Pelley's response looked legitimate.
It's like, I'm not seeing the reason.
The reason is that you can't rule out there was a crime?
Is that a reason?
That doesn't sound like a reason.
Anyway, it's time for the second simultaneous sip.
Are you ready? Gotta be nimble.
No predicate, somebody says.
No predicate meaning is that just fancy lawyer talk for saying that there's not positive evidence in favor of their theory.
Mike Wallace would have hammered that fool, someone says.
It's not a crime if no one is charged.
Yeah, I'm not sure if that applies in this case.
But I also don't know if counterintelligence has the same standards as regular law enforcement.
If your job is counterintelligence, it might make sense that you look into anything that looks suspicious and it's a different standard of evidence than taking somebody to trial.
So I will give him that.
But I still don't feel like that was enough.
That firing Comey just didn't seem like enough.
And why is it?
And why is it?
Yeah. I hear a lot of comments about David Pakman.
I did go on his show recently.
He's heard my opinion recently.
And by the way, to his credit, I know a lot of you think David Pakman is a big anti-Trumper, and he is.
But to his credit, he sought me out based on some interaction we had on Twitter and asked me to be on his show and gave me complete...
Complete opportunity to have my say.
If you're sorting out the good guys from the bad guys, I would say David Pakman has allowed a full hearing of the other side on his show.
So you have to count that.
You have to count that as being reasonable.
Special counsels are for crimes, not counterintelligence.
Well, but they look for crimes.
problems.
Mueller was cover up for the deep state.
All right, so I don't have much else to say on that topic.
Do you have anything else you want to talk about?
Happy President's Day.
Laura Logan of CBS breaks from left-wing media heist.
I don't know what that's all about.
Alright, looks like we don't have any questions.
Oh, what if no report?
So there's an option that Mueller might not write a report or that we just might not hear about it.
So, I don't know.
I think one of those two things will happen.
That we probably won't get to see the report.
Just a guess. Global warming.
Let me tell you where I am in global warming.
So I asked Tony Heller, one of the most prominent climate experts Skeptics.
To put together his top five skeptical arguments.
And he's working on that now.
So the format will be, I hope, this is what we're heading to, five simply stated points.
As in, you know, this was measured wrong, or the science is wrong, or whatever.
And then I want him to, you know, quickly explain what the point is and then have a link to a backup argument so you can see the data and the sources and stuff.
And then I'm going to see if I can get somebody who is a climate expert.
On the other side. To respond to it.
And then I'll ask Tony to respond again.
And we'll see how many iterations we can do with at least one of those points.
and see if we can chase it down to something like a conclusion.
So that will be interesting.
And you should look for that in the next few weeks, I guess.
What do I think of the yellow vest in France?
I'm not really following that.
Can you roll blunts?
Who can't? No one has been killed by man-made global warming.
You know what I wonder?
Doesn't it seem to you that the very The very simplest thing we should know about climate change should be a sea level, right?
Wouldn't you say that sea level is the one thing that we should be able to measure to tell us if things are going wrong?
So I wonder if you could create a betting market.
So hang with me on this for a minute.
So there are people who are worried about climate change and people who are not.
And one of the biggest impacts of climate, no matter which way you go, even if you commit to fighting it, it costs a trillion dollars.
If it's real and you don't fight it, it might cost you trillions of dollars.
And so there's big money involved.
But it makes me wonder if you could create some kind of an insurance slash betting market based on...
Based on predictions of sea level.
So let's say you created a betting market where people who believe that climate change will wipe out Miami or something, and they agree on a specific set of things to measure over the next ten years.
Maybe five years is long enough, but let's say ten.
And they make a bet.
And the back goes like this, that the people who believe that the sea level will rise, if it rises to a certain level, some minimum level, That the people who said it would win the bet.
So even though climate change comes and there are people affected by it, the people who believed it all along and were right get to win the bet.
So even though climate change might cost some money in terms of the larger economy, the people who were correct and bet on it win a bunch of money.
And then these skeptics, who say that it's not the big problem that is claimed, they also have a chance to take money from the people who are the alarmists.
Because if they're right, after 10 years, they get the bet.
They get the pot.
And I'm wondering, why doesn't that exist?
And if it did exist, Where would be the places that you would measure that you would be most confident?
Let me put that another way.
Is there such a thing as one place?
That if that sea level went up as predicted, you'd know that the theories about climate change were absolutely correct.
Or is it one of those situations where you can't tell exactly which sea levels are going to go up by how much?
Because some could go down and some could go up.
So is it some kind of global average of all that?
Is that the only way you could know?
Or could you say, we're going to bet everything on Miami?
That's it. The other places matter, but if it's true, it's going to be true in Miami.
Is that a thing? I don't know if that's a thing.
Could you say that, and would that be a legitimate bet?
It's just Miami, sea level, that's it.
That's all we're going to measure. That's all we're going to bet on.
And if that doesn't go up, then climate change isn't real.
Could you make such a bet?
That's the question. Somebody says not really because the land is also rising and falling.
That's true. So sea level changes because land itself can go up and down for different reasons.
But we probably know where those places are by now, right?
So we would know if Miami, just to pick one place, we would know if that's a place where the land itself is moving.
So it might not be Miami that's the right choice, but there must be some place Where we can eliminate those other forces and say, okay, over here the land isn't moving, so let's just make this our place we measure.
I do understand that it's going to be moving in different ways in different places around the world, no matter what.
So I do understand that.
But there might be one place that's a good place to measure, and I wonder about that.
All right.
Would it be more sensible to work on climate agility and resilience?
Yeah, but the one place that it's hard to be resilient is coastal cities.
So if that's where the big risk is, that you lose entire cities, then we could focus on that, because that's a pretty big problem.
And I don't know how you could be resilient about...
How could you possibly be resilient about Miami being underwater?
That's not something you can fix with a rag and some spray.
Tulsi Gabbard, I still don't give her much of a chance.
Why is there so much spin-up against Iran right now?
Well, apparently Iran has some new weapons.
Iran has a potentially nuclear submarine, I guess, that they launched.
And they also have new ICBM, I think.
So they're developing some serious weaponry.
I have to ask myself, How good is an Iranian submarine?
Wasn't that your first...
If you saw that...
Oh, my nose itches. Sorry, it's just an itchy nose.
I saw a picture of the submarine, and I've got to say, design-wise, it wasn't a fine-looking submarine.
Indeed, I would be a little bit afraid to be in that submarine.
So I suspect, without evidence to back this up, but I suspect That Iran's submarine might not be the danger that you worry.
I mean, it could be that, you know, that we can track it easily because it's noisy.
It might be that, you know, in the real world, we could take it out in 10 minutes.
I mean, I don't know. I don't believe it's a nuclear-powered sub, no.
So that means it would have some weaknesses.
especially needing to refuel.
Your ideas on Amazon in New York City.
Well, yeah, that situation is pretty well picked apart by other people.
I don't have much to say about that.
You know, it is...
It's probably terrible for the socialist side to be blamed for chasing away 25,000 jobs.
Because you know how people were influenced by anecdotes?
So one good story It means more than a bunch of good concepts.
It means more than math.
It means more than good reasons.
Just one good story can be very persuasive.
And the story that socialism just created, aside from Venezuela, is, well, we just lost 25,000 jobs because Amazon is the devil, according to socialists, I guess.
So that's a bad look.
People are asking, will Joe Biden run?
God, I hope so.
Is there anybody else here who hopes Joe Biden will run?
Am I the only one who thinks that would be the most fun?
I don't think anybody else would be fun.
You know, as solid as I think Kamala Harris is as a candidate, and I would say she is solid.
She doesn't have... There's no obvious weakness...
With Kamala Harris.
But there's also nothing special.
You see what I'm saying?
There's nothing that's quite the X factor.
There's nothing that makes her rise above.
She just doesn't have an obvious flaw.
Now some people were looking for this Willie Brown connection.
That's nothing. People just don't care about that stuff anymore.
But Joe would be interesting because you know that the chemistry between him and Trump would be hilarious.
You know it would be a, quote, extravaganza.
And you know that he wouldn't win.
That's the best part about it is he wouldn't have a chance of winning.
I know he's polling the highest because I think people think in terms of name recognition and they think well he has the best chance of winning and that's all that matters.
But the anti-Trump media seems so clearly behind Kamala that I can't imagine that he would end up getting the nomination.
But will he run? I don't know.
You know, it would be hard for him not to run if he remains solidly on top of the poles.
How does he convince himself that this isn't the time?
This is the time. But of course, I believe he's too old.
And all of those videos of him touching people, you know, he's sort of a hands-on politician.
I don't know if any of that plays on the left.
I've seen those videos a billion times, but I don't know if any Biden supporters have ever seen that video.
That video meaning the compilation videos of him trying to hug and kiss little girls and they squirm away and they don't like it.
but I don't know that anybody's seeing that on the left so it might not make any difference at all somebody just said that Kamala leads on predicted That would be a better, probably a better prediction place than just looking at the polls.
Why is Kamala the chosen one?
Well, there are a number of reasons.
Number one, she is solid and she could win.
And I think everybody else is either weaker in some specific way or some general way.
They don't have the right gender, don't have the right ethnic advantages in terms of elections.
Yeah, she's the right age, right gender, right ethnicity.
She's a senator.
She's from California. She's got a lot of Hillary's advisors went to her.
But more importantly, you see that the media has sort of appointed her.
You probably all saw the video of Hillary.
There were, I guess, some reporters who cover her from CNN and CBS, and they were joking and laughing and trying on jackets, helping her try on some jacket at a store.
And they got some pushback for being too friendly with the person they're covering.
which was hilarious because they put her in a god-awful jacket, and the picture was just horrible.
Bloomberg, I don't think Bloomberg is going to get into it.
I think Bloomberg will make the calculation that he can't get to the top three, and I think he'd be right about that.
It's just not the right time.
Somebody says, I think Mark Benioff should run.
You know, I've said this before.
I got a chance to chat with Mark Benioff one time a few years ago.
So he's the founder and CEO of Salesforce.
So he's a billionaire.
And he's also famous for being a philanthropist.
So he's got a hospital that he funds and He makes sure that his company and his employees and himself, they give 1% of what they earn to charity.
My impression of him, from the little bit of time we spent together, was that he's the real deal.
If he ran for president, I'll tell you, I would take a hard look at that.
Because he's not like regular people, I'll tell you that.
But in a good way. He seems to be operating at a, I hate to say this, but a higher level of consciousness.
Don't you hate that kind of talk?
But when you talk to Benioff, you don't feel like you talk to a regular person.
Meaning that he just seems to be operating at some higher level of vibration.
And I don't know if the world's ready for that.
Maybe he might be living too far in the future, but he'd be interesting.
He'd be a heck of a candidate if he ever got serious about it.
Everything people say about Kamala could have said about Rubio.
That's an interesting comparison.
That's not bad. Yeah, Rubio also had the quality of there was nothing especially wrong with him, wouldn't you say?
So Marco Rubio didn't win, but it was hard to find something specific that was the problem.
He didn't have any glaring weakness.
So I think that's a good comparison.
What do I think of Sherrod Brown?
I can't get past his voice.
That shouldn't matter, but in the real world it does.
I just can't listen to him for long.
Will Naval run at some point?
I don't know if that's possible.
He wasn't born in this country.
Is he the fifth level like in God's debris?
He's somewhere in that neighborhood, yes.
Yes, he is.
Tony Robbins doesn't seem to have any interest in it.
You know, it would be interesting. I think if Tony Robbins ran, it would be...
I think he's smart not to run.
I think he's smart to stay doing what he does so well.
Um... Oh, Trump slams about the media and SNL. You know, I didn't even read them.
If I see a story that says Trump says something about SNL, I don't know how much that matters to anything.
It's just business as usual.
Yeah, Rubio didn't have any glaring weaknesses, but he didn't have any glaring strengths.
That is correct. It's sort of like when you look at tennis players.
There are tennis players who can reach the top hundred by not having any flaws.
Every part of their game is solid.
But the ones who make it into the top one or two or three have also a weapon.
So they don't have any flaws, but they've got like a monster serve or a monster forehand or something.
And Trump had that.
He had monster weapons.
But not having flaws is probably not going to get you there.
Will I write another book like God's Debris?
Well, it depends what you mean in terms of like it.
I don't have one planned, but it's hard to write a second book like that one.
Does it trouble you that Naval agrees with you on ACC?
I don't know what that's about.
Peter Thiel should run.
Was Peter Thiel born in this country?
I don't know that he could run either.
Have you noticed that nobody has been able to come up with a good nickname for Kamala Harris?
Here's a humor tip.
It's impossible to mock things That makes sense.
You can mock things that are ridiculous and it's easy to do that.
Every now and then you'll see a news story and everybody can mock it in their own way and it's all good because there's something about the topic that's ridiculous so it's easy to mock it.
But when something makes sense, it just makes sense.
Let's say unemployment numbers improved.
You can't really mock that.
That's an unmockable news story.
Employment got better. Nothing to say about it.
If you look at Kamala Harris and you say to yourself, why do none of our nicknames seem to stick?
Why is there no particular angle of attack that seems to make any difference?
It's because there's nothing there.
It's a target-poor environment.
She doesn't really have any targets anywhere.
So nobody's been able to land a shot early on.
I mean, that could change. But so far, she doesn't seem to have an obvious vulnerability that would make her easy to mock.
So James Woods, somebody is saying, called her Heels Up Harris.
That's a good example of how invulnerable she is.
Because the worst thing you can say about her is that she had a boyfriend some years ago.
That's the worst thing, that Willie Brown was her boyfriend and he was married or whatever, but that doesn't seem to have bothered Willie Brown.
So, yeah, there's just nothing there.
Nothing there. Why nothing about Andrew Yang?
And the reason is, he's not in the news.
I look at the news quite a bit every day, and I don't see Andrew Yang being discussed.
And if the news won't discuss him, then he can't win.
So he has apparently not crossed the whatever level it takes to be interesting.
Now, should he become interesting, I'll start talking about him, but he's not interesting yet.
He could get there.
Let me ask you this. Do you think I could win if I ran for president?
I'm kind of curious about that.
If I ran for president, let me tell you what platform I would run on.
I would run on a platform of trying things and following science where we can and And debating in public those things that the public disagrees on.
So in other words, if I ran for president, I'd say, I'm not the expert on climate change, but I will make sure that there's a legitimate climate change debate that you can watch in public.
And I'll make sure that we'll do it as many times as we need to until most of the country is on the same side, whichever side that is.
One way or the other, I'm going to get everybody on one side of all these contentious issues.
Now, that doesn't work with something like abortion, right?
Because nobody's going to change sides on abortion, for the most part, just because they've got more information.
So I would be neither a Republican nor a Democrat, although I'd have to run in one of those parties in order to have a chance.
So it wouldn't matter in my case.
And I would say, you got an idea on gun control?
I'm not even going to have an opinion on gun control.
I'll say, let's encourage some city or some state to try it.
If you have an idea on gun control, well try it.
And I will support small trials of anything that makes sense.
And I'll say, why should I have an opinion?
It doesn't even make sense to listen to my opinion.
If you've got an idea, let's try it.
We'll try it small. We'll try it in a limited way, where nothing much gets hurt, and then we'll see.
And that will always be my process.
It will always be about a system to figure stuff out.
Now, if we were talking about the border, for example, I would have handled that completely differently.
I would have made sure that the public was Informed up the wazoo.
I would have had those engineers and experts with their graphs producing things that you can look at with arrows that say, this many people got through and this many crimes happened, but we put up a fence and this is how it changed.
So that's how I would run for president.
As a systems president, not a goal president.
The fact that you don't vote wouldn't help you.
Somebody says, no chance.
Yes.
With that accent, the way I say coffee, I could never be president the way I pronounce coffee.
▲
Export Selection