March 11, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
11:07
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Hey, it's a bonus. | |
| Coffee with Scott Adams. | |
| I got my coffee. | |
| It's the afternoon version. | |
| You might have your early evening version. | |
| But I had to come to you for this special occasion because there's news. | |
| Let's drink to news. | |
| Grab your mug, your cup, your glass, your stein, your chalice, your thermos, and join me for the simultaneous sip. | |
| Delicious. Well, if you watched the press conference today, you know that Sarah Sanders totally blew a chance to lock down Trump's re-election in 2020. | |
| And I mean that literally. | |
| Probably one of the biggest mistakes I have ever seen live. | |
| Now, it's a mistake in the sense that it was a missed opportunity. | |
| And here's what I mean. | |
| The biggest problem for this president is the lingering accusations that he's a big old white supremacist racist. | |
| And the biggest part of that story is the Charlottesville fine people hoax. | |
| Now the hoax is the idea that CNN is trying to sell you that Trump said in public, in public, they say that he said that the neo-Nazis at Charlottesville were fine people. | |
| That didn't happen. That never happened. | |
| He was talking about the context of the statue topic, and he said there were fine people on both sides. | |
| And when asked to clarify, he clarified and said, these guys, hell no. | |
| Those guys are all bad. | |
| I condemn them totally. | |
| I'm not talking about them. | |
| So CNN's Jim Acosta and then April Ryan followed up with a question in which they stated it as fact, again, in setting up their question for the press conference, that the president had called the neo-Nazis fine people. | |
| Sarah Sanders' response was a huge mistake. | |
| She said accurately... | |
| That the president had disavowed these groups, and she was very specific. | |
| He has disavowed this group, this white supremacist disavowed. | |
| Now that part is true, and it so misses the opportunity, because it let stand the possibility that he'd really said those things. | |
| She didn't even address the question. | |
| So the question with the premise was that he'd really said those things. | |
| Her response did not attack the fact that he had never said those things. | |
| It was the worst mistake I've ever seen of any politician make in public, literally. | |
| It's the worst mistake I've ever seen in public. | |
| Now, what should she have done? | |
| Well, luckily, I've got a whiteboard with two sides. | |
| And on this side, here's how you convince people that this is a hoax. | |
| People are going to say, my God, I saw it with my own eyes. | |
| I heard it with my own ears. | |
| It's not a hoax. | |
| It's what he actually said on television. | |
| And then you say to them, well, compare that to the hypothesis that instead of an extraordinary, mind-blowing, incredible, shockingly bad thing, Maybe it was a completely ordinary thing in that he was just talking about the statue controversy and said there are good people on both sides, which is completely consistent with everything he's ever said about that topic. | |
| But if you want to believe in the extraordinary version that CNN is selling as the fine people hoax, you would also necessarily have to believe all of this. | |
| Let me run you through it. | |
| You would have to believe that a sitting president, Who knew what the topic was going to be, so this wasn't a surprise question. | |
| He watched the news like everybody else, and when he was asked about it, obviously he'd thought about it before he answered, because it was already in the news, he knew what the news was. | |
| Do you think it's reasonable to assume that a sitting president decided to throw down with the neo-Nazis after one of them had just killed somebody? | |
| Do you think that's even a little bit Incredible sounding. | |
| We're not done yet, but just start there. | |
| That should be enough to dissuade any reasonable person from thinking that he was talking about the neo-Nazis, because nobody would do that under any circumstance. | |
| Secondly, do we believe that he would publicly take sides against Ivanka, Jared, and his own grandchildren with them, because they're all Jewish? | |
| Ivanka has converted, and his grandchildren are born into it. | |
| Do we believe that he would do that? | |
| And if he did, take sides with the neo-Nazis who were chanting anti-Semitic slogans, he didn't, but here's the fantasy version. | |
| Do we believe that Israel didn't notice? | |
| That Israel didn't notice? | |
| That according to CNN, the president of the United States threw down with the neo-Nazis who were chanting in public anti-Semitic slogans. | |
| Israel never noticed. | |
| Didn't bother them. Didn't need to condemn it or anything. | |
| They were just okay with it. | |
| In fact, this president is the most popular president Israel has ever cared about, I guess. | |
| You would also have to believe that tens of millions of Trump supporters, who were not the few racists, saw this, or either they didn't see it, that somehow it's reported as news and fact, and it's one of the biggest headlines, it's one of the most repeated pieces of news in the last two years, but somehow, tens of millions of Trump supporters either didn't notice, didn't hear the news, or were okay with it. | |
| Now, of course, some racists themselves, if they believed it really happened, they'd be okay with it. | |
| But tens of millions of Trump supporters all looked at it and said, oh, this is true. | |
| He's saying good things about white supremacists and neo-Nazis and I'm fine with it. | |
| That didn't happen. | |
| It's because those Trump supporters don't see it. | |
| They don't see it. | |
| That's because it doesn't exist. | |
| You'd have to also believe, if you believe the CNN version of events, that he said there were fine people among the Nazis, that the very next day when he was asked to clarify, he said clearly, no, no, I'm not talking about those guys. | |
| I condemn them totally. | |
| And nobody doubts he said that. | |
| But would this be the one time he changed his opinion On a controversial thing. | |
| Is this a president who changes his opinion? | |
| He's not really the change your opinion kind of president. | |
| If he said it the first time and meant to say it in public, I'm pretty sure he would have said it a second time. | |
| But he didn't. He clarified that, of course, that's not what he was saying. | |
| It was the ordinary interpretation. | |
| If you believed that he praised fine people on, quote, both sides, you would also have to believe that in addition to praising neo-Nazis, which didn't happen, you would have to believe that he also praised Antifa, who were his sworn enemies who wanted him deposed from office prematurely. | |
| Do you think this president Praise Antifa for anything. | |
| Do you think that he said there were fine people in the group protesting to have him removed from office? | |
| Because you would have to believe that to believe that when he said there were fine people on both sides, he was talking about Antifa and the neo-Nazis as being the two sides. | |
| And then more generally, you would have to believe the most extraordinary version of events When right in front of you, there's an ordinary interpretation. | |
| And the ordinary interpretation is both sides of the statue issue, just like he has consistently said all along. | |
| Here's the fun part. | |
| Because CNN brought this up, and they were obviously looking for some programming, they were generating news. | |
| I've told you before that the news business, they stopped reporting the news, and now they're more in the business of manufacturing it. | |
| That press conference you watched, right in front of your eyes, if you saw it, and if you saw the replay, you'll know. | |
| You watched CNN attempting to manufacture news Where there was none that was the type that was good for their ratings. | |
| And so they created this. | |
| But most of you have already been weaponized on this topic. | |
| And you know that this is a hoax. | |
| And you know exactly what to say about it. | |
| So what's different is they managed to raise this topic at their worst possible time. | |
| Because at this point, there are thousands of Trump supporters who have been exposed to the strong argument as opposed to Sarah Sanders' completely failed attempt of just saying, well, that one time he disavowed these groups. | |
| That's not persuasive. | |
| Because it still allows the possibility that he said it in the first place, which just didn't happen. | |
| And that's the part you need to persuade against. | |
| So, it may be... | |
| That they've created a monster that they didn't want to create. | |
| Had this never become another headline story, people would have just gone on believing it was true if they believed it in the first place. | |
| Because there was nothing in the headlines to say, hey, hey, give this a second thought. | |
| Hey, hey, hey, you didn't interpret this right. | |
| But now, it's a national story. | |
| Now, there are thousands of people armed with the kill shot. | |
| And this is the kill shot. | |
| So try that with your friends. | |
| You will find that it works almost every time. | |
| They will almost certainly end up changing the topic to some other perceived evil that they think the president did once you have totally annihilated this argument. | |
| So I'm going to keep it short to make this more viral in case you want to pass it around. | |
| And that is all I have today. |
Export Selection