All Episodes
Previous Next
March 19, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
50:59
Episode 457 Scott Adams: Offering to Publicly Deprogram Anti-Trumpers Suffering TDS While You Watch
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, this is a special Coffee with Scott Adams, but this time without the coffee.
I just want to try a little public experiment.
And the public experiment looks like this.
Hey Jack, thanks for joining me and tweeting it out.
I want to do a public demonstration.
To see, and I don't know if this will work, so we'll find out at the same time, to see if I can deprogram an anti-Trumper.
And I don't know how this will go.
It'll be a live demonstration.
And the proposition is that somebody is suffering from something like an hallucination.
It's either all the people who are opposed to the president, or most of them, Or it's all the people who support the president, or most of them.
And I want to see if we can solve that mystery of who's actually having an hallucination, or is it both?
Could it be that both sides are hallucinating, but in just different ways?
So, you have an invitation that you can see on your screen to become a guest.
So I'd like a guest who will come on in an audio form, but I'm only going to take people who are anti-Trumpers.
And here are the ground rules.
The ground rules are that I might interrupt you But it'll only be for clarification or because you've changed the subject and you're ranting.
But because I don't have a time limit, I'll always let you complete your thought.
So if I interrupt you, just know that you'll have time to complete your thought.
I just want to keep on topic.
All right. I have only one volunteer that I see.
If anybody else wants to come on.
Please join. But Robert, if you're not an anti-Trumper, I will move on to someone who is so we can complete the experiment.
Robert, are you there?
Robert? I can hear you.
Yeah, Robert. Hi.
How are you? Are you an anti-Trumper?
Yes, I am. What would be your top, let's say, issues?
My biggest issue is the way he's polarized the country, different races, feeling, you know, black people feeling certain ways towards white people.
Where would, if you saw a list of the public's priorities from top to bottom, where would that be on the list, do you think?
Like, would that be the top five?
Well, I see the president as like a leader, so someone who sort of brands the country and sets the tone for the environment.
Wait, but Robert, Robert, Robert, I asked a direct question.
The direct question is, do you think that the issue of the polarization is in the top five of issues that the country cares about?
I would say so. I would say maybe even top three.
Okay. I don't know if that's the case, but it could be in the top five.
So we've established that the country cares about this issue, and your proposition is that the president is primarily to blame for that.
Is that correct? Yes, 100%.
Let's pick any issue In which the president did the wrong thing, so that we can see how this plays out, so we can see how his mistakes cause problems.
What would be a topic or an issue in which the What's your best example of that?
In his opening speech where he announced he was running when he said, they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists.
I think that really the wording of that just pitted Mexicans and Latin Americans against him in a very dramatic and emotional way.
So imagine, if you will, that the media had reported that factually without opinion.
Would it have sounded something like this?
The President suggests that there's too much crime coming across the border, and he used hyperbole like he always does on everything.
Would that be an accurate statement of what the President did?
He said there was too much crime coming across the border, because I don't think you're suggesting That people believed he was saying that the children and the women coming across the border were rapists, right?
You're not saying that. Well, I do think he frames it as it's all criminals and ignores the fact that women and children are finding better lives here.
But hold on. Do you think that anybody who heard his statement believed that he meant that they were all criminals?
Do you think anybody interpreted it that way?
Like, oh, they're all criminals?
Do you think anybody thought that?
Well, you mentioned women and children, but a lot of illegal immigrants are men and they're hardworking men that are law-abiding citizens.
So I think he did refer to those men as criminals.
Don't you believe that everyone who heard that interpreted in their mind as obviously he's not talking about everybody.
He's not talking about all the men.
Did you interpret it to mean that he thought they were all criminals?
I interpret it to mean as he thought many were criminals.
And we all know illegal immigrants in our daily lives, and that's just a bad way to look at people.
So you're saying that he worded it wrong, but is there anybody, including you, who interpreted it to mean that all the men are rapists?
You didn't interpret it that way.
Did anybody? So here's my point.
And for those of you at home, you remember the long pause.
Talk about that later.
But if the media had reported it without opinion, it would have sounded like this.
The President said that there was too much crime coming across the border, especially rapes and violent crime.
Would that be accurate to say the President says there's too much crime coming across the border?
Would that be an accurate statement?
I guess so, but my point is it's not about what he's trying to say.
It's about what he says and the way he worded things.
But my point is that your understanding of his statement as a racist statement is based on how the reporters framed it, not based on how you interpreted it.
If you had been in the audience and you heard him say there was too much crime coming across, they're sending rapists and murderers, would your interpretation have been My God, he just said every person is a rapist and a murderer coming across the board.
You wouldn't have interpreted it that way, would you?
Well, the liberal media is bound to see the worst parts in his speech.
So if he had just worded it the way that you're wording things, where he could have said, many people are criminals bringing drugs, instead of saying, like, they're rapists, they're bringing drugs, that's on Trump.
So, I would agree with you that the way he said it left an opening for the media to interpret it in the least favorable sense.
Do you agree with that statement?
That the way he said it was a mistake because it allowed the media to interpret it poorly, in the worst possible sense, right?
Yeah, and that's just, in my opinion, the most glaring example.
He's done it on many different topics.
Hold on. But you would also agree, under that interpretation, That if the media had been a credible player and simply reported the facts, there would be no problem.
Is that true? Because it took two parties.
It took Trump to say it in a way that made him vulnerable to that interpretation.
But it also took them to take an interpretation they knew not to be true.
So who was lying in this example?
Was the media lying, because they framed it as if he really said they were all rapists and murderers, when any individual who was not part of the press, if you had been in the audience, you would have said, well, obviously he's not talking about all of them, just that there's too much of it.
Wouldn't you say that the liar in the story is the press?
Well, did the press ever say Trump said all?
Because I don't recall that.
The way they report it suggests that he means that there's an unusual problem with Mexicans.
So that's the way the press reports it.
Did Trump ever say there's an unusual problem with Mexicans?
Did he say that?
Because I think you would agree that the press says the way he says it, But by focusing on the immigrants that are crossing the border as opposed to things like overstate visas, he did say that he is saying that that is a unique problem, that the Mexicans coming and the Latin Americans coming are a unique problem.
Well, you did say that. That's correct.
Now, you've heard the statistic that immigrants to this country have a lower crime rate than the citizens who are already here.
You've heard that, right? Yeah, I've heard that.
Does that include the ones, the visa overstays, which are, as you pointed out, or maybe most of them?
I'm not sure if it's most or it's a big part.
But the visa overstays are in that number of the people who have a low crime rate.
Is that correct? Yeah, I would think so.
Now, the group that has a visa oversees are mostly people who could afford a plane ticket and knew how to get on a plane and come to this country legally, and then they overstayed.
Would you imagine that a group that can afford plane tickets and can work through all the paperwork, do you think that they would have a high crime rate or a low crime rate?
I don't... I wouldn't know how to answer that.
I have no way of knowing. Let me lead the witness a little bit.
Those people can at least afford a plane ticket.
So they have resources compared to, let's say, people trying to cross the border with literally nothing.
The clothes in the back, that's all they have.
They can't afford a plane ticket.
So wouldn't you say in general that people who have Resources, they can get a visa to work here, which means they have an education and a skill.
They can afford a plane ticket.
It would make sense that they would have among the lowest crime rates you can imagine, right?
Because they don't want to be sent back, and they're from a group which has low crime to start, educated people who have enough money to buy a plane ticket.
So wouldn't you say that if you're looking at all immigrants, that a big part of that Okay, but let me just complete the point.
So that means that the ones coming across the border are probably skewing the average, because whatever crime rate there is has to be matched together.
Is there a reason why both groups can't have a low crime?
I mean, people who are spending 30 days on a track walking over here, they're not going to want to get deported.
They're going to want to follow the laws too.
Well, you've heard the estimates that something like 70% of the women who tried to cross the southern border get raped.
Have you heard that statistic?
I saw a statistic that I think said one in four.
One in four. So I think I've also seen 30%.
So somewhere between 30% and 70% of all the women who try to get across the border get raped.
Now, wouldn't you imagine that among the groups that are illegal, that it would be rare for them to report a crime against themselves?
Because if they report the crime, they might get deported.
So would you agree that the illegal people coming across the border Well, the thing is, people who are crossing the border and raping people, they're more likely to be coyotes than people who are actually staying and living and starting a life in this country.
They're more likely to be what?
Coyotes, they're the people who smuggle people across the border.
Coyotes? Yes.
But you would agree that the illegal immigrants crossing the border are likely to have crimes committed against them that they do not report.
You would say that would be true, right?
Yeah, they probably would be less likely to report crimes, yeah.
So wouldn't it be likely, we don't have the estimate, but isn't it likely, Given that most crimes are committed against your own group, most black crimes are black on black, most white crimes are white on white.
I think that's true. But mostly crimes happen within the house, crimes happen within your neighborhood, crimes happen within your friends.
So wouldn't you say that, in all likelihood, the crime rate of people coming across the border, given that we know at least a quarter of them The women are getting raped, and that's just the starting point.
That would be a much higher crime rate than the United States.
No, actually, you probably wouldn't.
Let me think about this.
Certainly more than one in four women in the United States are sexually molested sometime during their life.
But if you're only talking about the crossing period, that's a very concentrated time to have 25% of them, or 70%.
be sexually abused or attacked.
So, wouldn't you say that in all likelihood there is extra crime You're not counting the visa overstays, which are likely very low crime rate, educated,
they can buy a plane ticket, they know how to work the system, versus the people with no money, 25% or maybe 70% are getting raped on the trip, and then once they get here, they're the low-end, unemployed group,
which if they were any other group, I think that's true.
Yes, I would have to agree with that.
But the thing is, I feel like right now you're defending the law right now, which I never said I was against border security.
I'm just against the way Trump framed it.
I'm not defending or not defending the border.
I'm trying to make the simple point that when the president said, indicated that there was an unusual amount of crime coming across the border, Wouldn't you think that that's probably true if you include the fact that the people coming across the southern border are low income?
So even among Mexicans, you would expect that the poorest Mexicans probably have a higher crime rate than the richest Mexicans, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, but are we sure that it's the poorest Mexicans even coming here?
Well, the ones coming across often only have the clothes on their back.
You know, if you're looking at the caravans, they literally have nothing.
So yeah, that's as poor as you can get if you have nothing.
Now, given that, and given the fact also that they're unlikely to report crimes against their own group, and that we know that Either 25 or 75% of them are getting, the women are getting raped, literally, just on the trip to get here.
Forget what happens after they get here.
Because after they cross the border, do you think the rape goes down?
Because they're still only hanging around with each other.
So, given all that, it is true that the President's initial statement indicated that the crime coming across the border It was a little special in the sense that there's more of it and that it's alarming.
Now, if it had been reported objectively, the President correctly points out that there's a lot of crime coming across the border, and if you don't lump it in with all of the educated, well-off immigrants who are here,
if you Probably a higher crime rate than Mexicans in general, because it's a special group.
You brought the crime rate into the conversation.
Wouldn't you agree that there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country already?
Many of them have children who are going to schools here, hardworking.
Why does he have to alienate those people and make them fear for their lives that they're going to get deported and separated from their children?
Yeah, good point.
And you're getting right to the nub of it.
So the real question is, did the president do that by saying an accurate statement?
Or did the accurate statement mean there's too much crime across the border?
That's accurate. Or did the press turn it into a problem by framing it as he must be a racist, even though all he said was a true fact?
There's too much crime coming across the border.
Who's the bad guy in the story?
The press or the president who said something that's true and also important?
Trump was trying to make a splash, his opening speech, and he intentionally worded it that way.
He knew what he was doing.
That's what I think. Okay.
So would you say that your view of the president is based on your assumption of his inner thoughts?
Because, to use your point, let me just clarify the question.
If the only thing you knew is what he said, and then you saw how the press spun it, if you believed the president had positive thoughts, you wouldn't have a problem with them, would you?
Wouldn't you say, okay, I know the president has positive thoughts, so therefore it must be the press who's spinning this to make it sound bad.
So is your argument based on your belief about his inner thoughts When he said those things?
Well, if I do remember correctly, he did read that speech off a teleprompter.
So I would have to assume that he wrote it and knew the way he was wording things.
So if he wrote it, yes, I would assume that he did know what he was saying.
That's a pretty basic assumption to make.
Yeah, we all agree that he chose the words and that that was intentional.
But you're going another level, which is to say that he had evil intentions.
But is the evil intention in evidence, or can we only see what he did?
And would it be true that if you imagined he had good intentions, you wouldn't see anything that bothered you?
You're assuming good intentions and I feel like you're the one assuming what I'm saying.
I never said evil intentions, I just said intentions.
And he intended to say these things to make controversy and to push himself politically.
Oh yeah, we agree on that, don't we?
Don't we agree that he was being provocative and getting attention?
We all agree on that, I think.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So you're agreeing with me that he did it on purpose to get attention and in doing so hurt the view of or hurt the people who are, you know, most vulnerable in our society in danger of being deported.
They're scared that they're going to lose their children.
Well, that's true.
He definitely scared the people who were here illegally.
So I would agree with you on that.
I don't think that's in contention.
The question is, did the split in the country happen because of the way the media reported it, and they also made the same assumption you did, that there was some racist intention?
Would that be a fair way to characterize what you're saying?
Would you say that he had racist intentions?
So there are individual pundits on the media who go on and many of them are persons of color and they're, you know, prideful people.
So when they see someone inflaming their base like that, it really gets to them.
And they do say he's racist.
And I would agree that that is oftentimes assuming that he's racist, but it doesn't change the fact that he made them feel that way.
Would you agree with this statement that if the press had reported it straight, without opinion, that we would not be divided?
Is that a fair statement?
The press has always been reporting on opinion, and Trump knew that.
It's not like we're all reporting facts until Trump started running for president.
That's not a thing. No, I never said it was.
And I'm not even saying that it's unusual, nor am I saying that it's historically unprecedented.
So I would agree with you with any bad thoughts you have about the press.
But the question is, if the President had said what he said, and it had been reported objectively, would there be any problem?
What is the objectivity?
The objective way to report it is that there probably is more crime coming across the border than we want.
And the president has highlighted that as an issue.
This will definitely scare the people who are already here.
So that part we all agree on.
And the president chose He chose that he would scare people who were not legal residents, and he would favor people who are illegal residents.
So that was... Okay, so if you know legal Mexicans, legal South American immigrants, they oftentimes know illegal immigrants.
They have family members who are illegal immigrants.
So he scared pretty much an entire race in this country.
Yeah, I would agree with that.
But... I'm against that.
I would agree with that.
But would you agree...
That the press, by lying about it, was necessary for you to be scared.
Not you, but the population you're talking about.
Would you agree that if the press covered it straight, we wouldn't have this problem?
Was the press not doing their job, the job that they've been doing for decades?
They were not doing the job of reporting it without an opinion, correct?
Yeah, that's what's different If you look at the last 10 years or so, once the news industry could measure exactly what stories got the most clicks, they no longer could be objective because objective reporting doesn't get you clicks and then you're out of business.
So would you agree that the news has become more sensationalized and more opinion-based maybe than ever?
Would you say that that's a thing?
Yeah, and I think Trump is responsible for that too in recent years.
It's gotten worse.
You would say both sides, right?
Both sides are exaggerating.
And would you agree that with our technology, which allows us to really measure what gets the most clicks, That we can jack people's emotions up in a way that we could not before because we didn't really know what would jack up their emotions and what wouldn't.
We couldn't really measure it in real time.
So would you agree?
Yes, yes, and that's exactly what Trump did too.
He jacked people's emotions and it made people fear for their lives.
Yeah, I agree that he jacks up people's emotions as As you say, as well as in other ways.
That is one of my biggest problems with him.
So that's what I'm saying.
Now, let's say we replace him with another Republican.
Would the other Republican not be treated like Hitler, given that all Republicans have, and they don't all say things like Trump says?
So, George Bush, for example, was called Hitler repeatedly, but I don't believe he ever made any statements that were even close to what Trump said.
Would you agree that it wouldn't matter too much what Trump said or didn't say, because all Republicans are treated the same, at least in our memory.
They've all been, you know, Reagan was called Hitler, both Bushes were called Hitler, and I don't know if there's been any exception.
Would you agree that even if Trump had said the right things, we're now in a news situation where whatever Republican it had been, even if he used all the right language, they would still be framed pretty much the way Trump is being framed?
Wouldn't you say that we would be in the same place if you replaced Trump?
I think it's a lot more exaggerated with Trump.
I think you're right. Yeah, it's more exaggerated, partly because of his personality.
But you would agree that the news is far more hyperbolic than it ever has.
Wouldn't you say that that's true? I think a lot of that's a result of him, though.
Yeah, I would say that.
No, but my point is, if you replace him with a mainstream Republican, Don't you think that mainstream Republican would say all different things and still get the same treatment by the press?
Do you think that's a true statement?
Because all prior Republicans got the same treatment.
So would it be fair to say the next Republican will still get the same treatment?
I don't think it would be the same treatment.
I think a different Republican would be treated better.
Have you seen the Bill Maher clip where Ann Coulter goes on and she says...
Trump is the best chance of winning, and the whole crowd laughs, and then people on the panel actually say they like Rubio, and no one laughs, no one ridicules him, and Marco Rubio was obviously a Republican, so I do think it's different with other Republican nominees.
Well, but those other Republicans were not a threat.
Would you agree that the Republicans that have made it to the presidency have all been called Hitler by the left?
You're agreeing with that statement, right?
Wouldn't you agree that Obama was basically called Hiller by Fox News and portrayed as this horrible, horrible dictator?
So it is a common thing that happens to other presidents.
Right. You're agreeing with my point.
So my point is that the press in general, not just the left press, but the press, because they can measure what gets your emotions going, those are the things you claim.
Beyond where the facts imply.
So let me say this more clearly.
It's always been true that the news was always doing what the news does.
The news has always liked to be provocative.
There has always been fake news.
But what's different and new, let's say in the last 10 years, is that the news knows exactly what gets your emotions so high it turns off your critical thinking.
They weren't as good as that before.
Would you say that they've gotten much better at it?
Because they can measure exactly what does it.
Would you say that's true?
Yeah, I guess so, yeah.
Alright, so if that's true, wouldn't it be true that both you and I, and everybody watching, it wouldn't matter if they're on the left, the middle, or the right, wouldn't it be true that all of us are being influenced by the same media, left or right, middle, doesn't matter, to be more emotional and less rational than at any time In our, well, in our experience.
Wouldn't you say that we're more emotional because the news knows how to make us that way in a way it never knew how to do it before?
Would you say that's true? Yeah, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad without Trump.
Before, you could say, I'm a Republican, I voted for Mitt Romney, and an Obama supporter wouldn't hate you and think you're racist.
That never existed. Let's get to that point, which is it would not have been as bad if it had been someone else.
I would say that that is a question, but you cannot make that statement because we didn't have a different Republican president, so you don't know.
I think it's definitely true that the casual way that this president talks Creates more opportunity for people to take him out of context and to imagine he's saying more than he's saying.
So I agree with you completely on that.
And I would say, caller, I will agree with you that this president could do that a lot better.
Can we agree on that? Caller?
I think I lost him.
All right, let's see if I can take another caller.
And try this experience again.
Let's try Adam.
All right, Adam will be live in a moment.
Adam? Calling from Maine.
Hi. My question is kind of off of today's topic, but somewhat personal.
I'll ask you real quick and even take the answer off the air.
My question, Scott, is would you tell us something about yourself that nobody else knows about you?
And I'm a very big fan and enjoy your broadcast.
Thank you for taking my question.
All right. Well, we're trying to talk only to people who are anti-Trumpers to try to reprogram them.
But while I'm waiting for that, the question is, what do people not know about me?
What would be something they don't know?
I am unusually good at sports.
You wouldn't expect that.
That's the best I can do.
Thank you very much.
However good you thought I was at sports, I'm unusually better than that.
So it wouldn't surprise you.
That's all. Great to know.
Thank you very much. All right.
Thanks. Okay, I think that's enough for today.
I loved it. I was watching a comment go by when I was answering that question.
And one of the comments was that I got my clock cleaned in this.
But let's see your... Let's see your opinions.
So you watched my conversation with the first caller.
What did you think happened?
How did you think it went?
And remember that I've told you that the long pause is usually cognitive dissonance.
So there are a couple of, well, there are more than a couple, but there are a few tells for somebody's mind that's rebooting.
One of those tells is word salad, where they start saying sentences that just are weirdly conceptual and they fit together, but they don't mean anything.
So if you see word salad, you're usually, you know, watching somebody in cognitive distance.
The other one is an unusual pause.
Because typically in a political conversation, you're talking over each other, right?
Normally, I'm talking, somebody's talking over me, I'm interrupting.
That's the normal way a political conversation goes.
But if you see somebody just, somebody says, you got crushed.
But if you see somebody just stop, and they just are silent for five seconds, generally, it's cognitive dissonance.
Not every time. Sometimes they're just thinking for the next thought.
But I disagree with the premise of this debate.
I don't know what the premise is.
But, alright, let's see what Sean Ellis has to say.
Sean. Sean, can you hear me?
I can hear you, yes.
What is it you disagree with?
So the premise of your debate is that since Trump speaks in a casual vernacular, And off the cuff that he is called a racist and all of these things.
And I disagree because they did the same thing to George W. Bush.
They did the same thing to Ronald Reagan.
And they do it to every Republican president, no matter what they say or how they say it.
Well, I said the same thing that they do it to all the Republican presidents.
The only difference is...
Trump has a willingness to talk about things in unique ways that are sort of non-standard for politics, and that makes him a bigger target, because he'll talk about it like a person will talk.
And when a regular person is talking, they open themselves to all kinds of imperfections in the way they say it, and it opens up for attack.
Your opinion that he doesn't do it any worse than, say, George Bush, I would say I don't have any facts to make that case, but I would suggest it's likely that because of the non-standard way Trump talks, I would assume there would be more opportunities to take him out of context, because the politicians tend to stay in their lane and say things like other politicians say.
And if they only say things that other politicians say, then they know what gets them in trouble and what doesn't, and they can avoid it.
Trump will go into any field and say anything he thinks is useful or true.
But your point is taken, and I do not have data to refute it, so I'm going to let it stay there.
Thank you. Have a nice day.
You too. All right.
So, the thing I didn't say on the first call is that Trump's casual approach gives him lots of advantages, but it does have the advantage that the press can take him out of context, and he's got to own that.
So I agree with the first caller that the president has to own some part of how the public feels.
But that you can't deny the fact that if the news reported it straight, there wouldn't be a problem.
Now, we don't live in a world where the news ever reports anything straight.
So that's on the president.
The president needs to learn how to say things that are less easy to take out of context.
He's not good at that.
But compared to, I would say, his first year in office, I would say he's a lot better, wouldn't you?
It seems to me that he has improved a great deal in making sure he doesn't say something that gets him in trouble.
He's not good at it.
I'd say he went from bad at it to starting to get the hang of it.
But he's definitely not good at it.
So there's room to grow.
I would agree with the critics on that.
That's all I got to say.
Oh, let's see if there's any other volunteers that look like They want to get reprogrammed.
I'm definitely going to take the one with the cat.
There's a cat icon here.
If I see a cat in your profile picture...
Hello, caller!
Hi. Are you an anti-Trumper?
Sort of, yes.
Sort of? Do you vote Democrat or Republican?
Democrat. And...
What is your biggest problem with this president?
Well, I don't agree with your laundry list idea that if there's so many problems, that means you don't have a real complaint.
I think someone can just have many problems.
So it's hard to list one problem as the top one.
But would you agree?
Let's take it as a challenge.
If you could pick your most solid complaint about this president, The number one complaint.
If I could debunk it in a way that you would agree with, would that give you some concern about whether the other ones were real?
Yeah. Okay.
So what is your number one most solid complaint about this president?
The one that if you somehow amazingly found out it wasn't true or you were thinking about it wrong, what's the one thing that would shock you into saying, okay, I'm just going to look at this other stuff on my laundered list now because I sure didn't think that one was wrong?
What would be your one best thing?
If I had to pick one worst thing about Trump and his administration, I would say the fact that he seems to be in the pocket of corporations, specifically oil, gas, energy, and coal.
and willing to pollute and strike down regulations.
He appoints lobbyists at the EPA from those industries, etc.
Well, what's the difference between being in the pocket and being pro-business on every kind of American business?
Because you're right in saying that he's pro-coal, pro-o.
also pro Apple if they're in this country, pro business in this country in every way?
Is there any industry that's a legal industry in this country that he doesn't champion?
He's championed farmers.
He's championed the auto industry.
I can't think of anything he hasn't championed that's an actual business in this country.
So what makes him in the pocket of some of them as opposed to just be a person who is a cheerleader for all of the companies?
What would be the evidence for that?
Well, he's, for many businesses, he's also certainly pro-financial, you know, industry.
He's hired tons of Goldman Sachs, Mnuchin, you know, so there's a lot.
Right, that's what I'm saying.
So, if somebody is in favor of all industry, aren't they just a capitalist?
Well, I'm for not hiring lobbyists, and I know Obama did it too to some degree, so I'm not saying it's a purely Republican problem, but I'm not for hiring people who just work for those industries to then regulate them.
I think that's bad. Yeah, I think we're all concerned.
There's probably nobody who's watching this who doesn't have the same concern that the lobbyists have too much power.
You know, my understanding with the whole lobbyist situation is that everybody wants to get rid of the lobbyists.
But then you take the job and you're president and you say, okay, now I've got to hire some people who really understand this industry.
And then you find out there aren't any.
And you end up hiring lobbyists because they're literally the only people who understand what's going on, but then they bring their bias with it, etc.
So there's no argument to be had that every president is way too influenced by lobbyists.
We agree on that, right?
Yeah. Do you have any reason to believe that Trump is more influenced I'll give you an Obama anecdote.
Originally, I was pro-Obama when he said he was going to go soft on marijuana at the state level.
But then when he became president, he changed his mind and never gave a reason.
And to this day he's never given a reason why he changed his mind for a while.
He changed it back after a while.
But you have to assume that was a lobbyist impact because he would have given a reason if he just had a different thought about it.
So I think you can see that Obama was almost certainly influenced on a major law which caused people to go to jail.
I mean, that's as serious as you can get.
He was trying to put Californians in jail for marijuana offenses.
And is there something similar with Trump that you could look to and say, that's a decision he would not have made except for the lobbyists?
Well, let me give you one more bit of context while you're thinking about that, because that's an unfair question.
Because having done a lot of interviews, when somebody says, give me one example of X, it's always a hard question to answer.
So while you're thinking about it, I'll give you the Willie Brown philosophy when he was a big politician in California.
And somebody asked him, he was doing a vote on cigarettes.
I forget, it was smoking in public or whatever it was.
And... And somebody said, how can you vote fairly on this when you take a lot of money from the cigarette industry?
And Willie Brown gave the best answer I've ever heard.
He looked at the camera and he said, if you can't take money from somebody and then turn around and stab them in the back, you're in the wrong business.
Sure enough, he took the money and stabbed him in the back.
Now, can you think of an example in which Trump has bowed to Kind of obvious that we would all see.
Can't think off the top of my head, but, you know, and I admit these are very complicated issues, so I don't know all the details.
So wouldn't it be more fair to say, instead of saying that you're anti-Trump, would it be more fair to say you're anti-lobbyists?
And as far as we know, it's been a 10 out of a 10 problem probably for the length of the republic.
I mean, I don't know that it's ever not been a 10 out of 10.
But I would agree with you that on the badness scale, it's probably a 10 out of 10.
So I think we're on the same page how bad it is, right?
Right. All right.
Okay. Thank you for that.
And I will...
But let me just complete that point, which is if that was your strongest anti-Trump problem...
It was just sort of background noise because it's the same problem everybody's got.
It doesn't seem to be special.
So think now whether you are as confident about the things lower on the laundry list.
I'll take another caller and thank you for that.
Thank you. Bye.
Interesting, wasn't it? Let's take Alex, who does not look like a Democrat, but we'll find out in a minute.
Alex, can you hear me?
Alex, are you an anti-Trump?
I have a friend I just had a conversation with like two days ago about this.
I just looked at your profile picture and I said, it doesn't look like a Democrat.
Go ahead. No, this is a friend of mine who lives down in Vegas and it's crazy.
He messaged me as I was, like a moment ago.
It's kind of funny as I'm asking about him.
It's like he... Feels like I'm talking about him, but he literally believes that Trump is Hitler.
And what I'm wondering, is there a single kill shot that you can throw at someone where he won't listen to reason, to anything?
He just says, no, this is literally worse than Hitler, is the argument that we had.
And I couldn't even know where to go with that, because when you have that belief, I mean, are you just too far gone where there's no recovery?
Or is there something that you could do to dismantle that a little bit?
So there's no one kill shot, but I'll tell you how you can chip away at it over time.
The first thing is try to ask him to explain to you why Israel loves him more than other presidents to the point where they have signs of him.
It's the most special interaction we've had.
He moved the embassy to Jerusalem, etc.
So ask him to explain Why Israel, the very best detector of Nazi behavior, doesn't see it.
Remind them that both sides of the media are brainwashing their people.
So if you start and say, your media is brainwashing you, you get immediate resistance.
If you say, you understand the media is ramping up everybody's emotion.
Everybody's because they can measure what headlines get clicks.
And now they know what tweaks your emotions and that's what they're going to do to make money.
So that's why you have an attenuated emotional reaction because the news is manipulating you on both sides.
It's not just you, both sides.
He seems to be the only Fox that does that.
He believes that, like Rachel Maddow, for example, he's under the impression that she's a very honest journalist, even though she's not a journalist, and like Don Lemon are people that are speaking the truth, and guys like Tucker Carlson are crazy.
Don't get into the conversation of whose news is more accurate.
You can't win that one, because there's enough bad news on both sides.
Instead, get them to admit...
That the news business has learned to ramp up your emotions to overcome your common sense.
Because most people will agree with that.
Because they say, oh yeah, they can measure what gets the most clicks.
So yes, they now know how to ramp up our emotional state in a way that they couldn't before.
So you get them to agree to that.
Get them to agree that Israel hasn't noticed it.
And then I like to do the trick of you saying, what is the one thing he's done that tells you how bad it is?
What's your strongest point?
I did that with the last caller.
I asked, what is your strongest point against this president?
And when we drilled down, it was that lobbyists exist.
They exist for all presidents.
So his strongest complaint with the president Turned out to be a generic complaint about capitalism and, you know, economics.
Something totally different, yeah.
So I like to pick the fine people hoax.
So if you look on my timeline, you'll see...
I've been watching all that and loving it.
So if you can convince somebody that the foundational thing they believed about their argument And for a lot of people, it's that fine people hoax, the belief that the president actually called the racist fine people when in fact he said the opposite.
If you can demonstrate in a way they can see to show them the transcript, here it is.
They've been telling you, and I can even show you five examples this week.
Where CNN told you that the truth is the opposite of what you can see with your own eyes.
And if you don't believe this is the truth, here's the video of the president saying these exact words.
Now try to square how CNN is saying that he called the racist fine people with the fact that the transcript says, I'm not talking about the racists.
They should be condemned totally.
Now that is so unambiguously, you know, proof that fake news is the dominant texture of our news information.
That should at least give your friend some pause.
But I don't think there's any chance you can reprogram somebody in a conversation.
You know, somebody who's that far gone.
But you can definitely put some doubt in their mind and let the doubt see if it can grow on its own.
That's what I've been working on.
I've been working on doing that to chip away a little bit because he really has the belief that he's Hitler and he says some things that, you know, I don't even repeat on here what he thinks needs to be done to this president where I'm like, dude, you can't think like that.
That's scary. But he's like, no, but he's worse than Hitler.
Like, he needs to be, you know, he needs to disappear.
And I really, from a safety standpoint, I'm like, dude, you've got to change your thinking.
Like, that's crazy that you think that.
Well, yeah, you might have a situation where somebody's just not stable, so that could be a different situation.
▲
Export Selection