All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
51:20
Episode 472 Scott Adams: Biden, Hoaxes, Suing Facebook for Discrimination and CNN Ratings
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, Alexander, good to see you.
Grab a seat, make sure you've got a steaming beverage.
I like coffee.
And the rest of you, Kevin, Devin, Stan, come on in.
And where are the women this morning?
Stevie, Mike, Dan, Rick, come on.
I know there are some women on this periscope.
Well, I'm sure you'll be here momentarily.
But while you're waiting, let us enjoy the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip.
Grab your cup, your mug, Your tankard, your stein, your chalice, your thermos.
Raise it to your lips, filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me for the simultaneous sip.
Somebody just mentioned my interview with Greg Goffeld on Fox Nation.
It's a subscription site, so you have to be a subscriber.
But it's available now.
The podcast is. So if you have that subscription or you'd like to get one, you can watch that.
So yesterday...
If you were on my Periscope, I talked about the fact that the CNN webpage had done a full pivot away from the Russia collusion hoax and the entire top left, which is the important part of the page.
The top left was all healthcare stories.
It was healthcare, healthcare, healthcare, healthcare.
And I don't know how many of you saw Tucker Carlson last night.
Let me say a couple things about this.
If you're not watching Tucker Carlson for the last week or so, you're missing the best show on television.
Because it's always a strong show, but now he's...
I think maybe because he's been attacked so viciously and in ways that look actually dangerous, especially with people showing up at his house, it seems like he's off the leash.
Meaning, he's going full speed at the opponents, and CNN in particular, and it's really glorious to watch.
It's by far his strongest, I think all of his strongest shows have come in the last two weeks, and they're spectacular.
But he did a major segment last night talking about how CNN and MSNBC decide what to cover in the news.
And he took my observation to the next level, which is he showed Nancy Pelosi saying maybe the news should start talking about health care.
And then he showed that MSNBC and CNN went complete health care.
Nancy Pelosi just said that's what they should cover, and then all the coverage was just that topic.
And I thought, wow, it's the sort of thing you know is true.
You know that the mainstream media and the Democrats are pretty tight.
We knew from the leaked emails, etc.
But to actually see it, In real time, in a way that you could have almost predicted, is kind of mind-boggling.
And I don't know about you, but...
Oh, and let me just put an exclamation on this point.
So I was very curious, after Tucker's brutal treatment of CNN, what their homepage would look like today.
So I thought, I wonder if it's still going to be all about healthcare.
So I go to the top left and it's airline stuff, airline stuff, airline stuff, airline stuff, airline stuff.
They've completely replaced the healthcare pivot after Tucker mocked them mercilessly for it last night.
Completely replaced it with airline safety.
Now, here's the funny part.
Tucker also mentioned, and some other outlets are covering it today, apparently the ratings for CNN and MSNBC just fell off a cliff.
As soon as the Russia collusion thing was revealed as the hoax that it was, their traffic...
Yeah, Tucker said that at least one night their traffic was down by 50%.
I've seen other numbers But somewhere in the 20 to 50% range, they dropped, and it was immediate.
And here's the thing that Tucker didn't say, which is even funnier.
So the ratings for Rachel Maddow's show and MSC and CNN dropped a lot.
But what they don't say is, Is that of the remaining viewers, the people who were actually watching CNN and MSNBC, a pretty large proportion of them were conservatives who just went to laugh.
So probably for the last few days, and I know because I tweeted this, and I asked other people, are you watching those two networks just for the comedy?
And, you know, hundreds if not thousands of people responded yes, laughingly.
I had those two networks just, I was going CNN, MSNBC, CNN, MSNBC. Before this last week, do you know how much I watched MSNBC? Zero.
I never turned it on.
But I watched a lot of it in the past week, and I'll probably watch a little bit more of it.
So, as bad as their ratings were, They're actually far worse.
Because even the bad ratings were bolstered by the temporary gloating of conservatives.
They were probably at least 10% of their total traffic.
And it's not permanent traffic.
It's temporary traffic where people literally just wanted to have a good laugh.
So, now, the interpretation that I've seen in the news I believe is completely wrong for why their ratings dropped.
Let me ask you. Let me ask you this.
You can be the pundits for the moment.
Hey, pundits, tell me why you think the ratings for CNN and MSNBC dropped When the Mueller report came out.
Tell me. There's a little delay in the comments, so I have to wait for a moment.
But tell me why.
You're the expert. People don't like being played, you say.
I don't think that's it.
Because they're liars? No.
Because people don't want to watch bad news?
Depends. Depends what you call bad news.
Uh... No credibility?
No. Because it's fake news?
Because they lost their credibility?
No. Nope.
I don't believe that the drop in traffic was because their credibility was shaken.
In my opinion, their credibility with their audience is probably unchanged.
It's probably closer to completely intact Than it is to completely changed.
Here's why I think people watched...
People didn't want to watch the news.
It was about the audience.
It wasn't about CNN. People didn't want to watch the news because they didn't like what it was going to say.
It wasn't that it was good news or bad news.
It was that it wouldn't make them feel good.
And I mean that literally...
As in feelings.
They would actually physically feel ill because they had invested their mental, let's say, coherence to this story that was completely false.
Yeah, and when their worldview shattered, as the commenter says, when their worldview shattered, it would actually be painful to watch confirmation of how badly they had been duped.
So, if you say to yourself, it's because they no longer trust CNN or MSNBC, I would say, that's probably not true.
You know, I think everybody understands that sometimes the news is wrong.
There's nobody who didn't know that fact.
The fact that they were wrong on such a huge thing, and the fact that their own viewers got bamboozled, probably is not as important as you think it ought to be.
I don't think that's the reason that they abandoned the network.
And indeed, if the network comes up with a new story of how Trump will be removed from office tomorrow, That entire audience is going to come back and they're going to believe the new story.
The number of people who will say, well, you lied to us for two years, so therefore I will put less trust in this new story.
Not many people will do that.
You think they should.
And by the way, there's nothing I'm saying here that is something that's unique to Democrats or liberals or the left.
There's nothing about that.
It's about people. The same thing would happen if the situation had been reversed.
Had the situation been reversed, the people who would find themselves being, let's say, validated by the news and feeling smart and right would all tune in.
No matter what. And the people who did not feel validated by the news, and the news would make them feel stupid, may take a pass on watching the news.
So it's just human nature. But I do believe it is a complete misread to imagine that those news networks lost their credibility.
I don't think they did.
I think credibility is almost an archaic concept.
Credibility, yeah, I'm not even sure credibility is a thing anymore, because people simply believe the stories that they want to believe, and they disbelieve the stories that they're disinclined to believe.
There's no such thing as, well, I might disagree with you, but at least you're credible, so maybe I should take it seriously.
We're way past that reality.
Now, as many people have said, and I like to point this out, the business model of the press got much more sophisticated in the last 10 or 15 years because they can measure with complete certainty how each story, how each headline gets clicks.
And so they ended up evolving from something like news to something like a drug, Let me say that again.
The news business evolved in the last 10 years or so from something like reporting information, news, to something more like a type of drug.
And by that I mean they serve up stories that make people click.
And people click sometimes for intellectual reasons, curiosity, knowledge, but mostly they click because of how it feels.
When I read the news, I click on the stuff that I think is going to give me the feeling I want.
I don't always click on the stories that I know I need to know.
And I'm even aware of it.
And I still follow the drug.
I follow the dopamine.
I follow the serotonin.
I follow the oxytocin.
Yeah, and I suppose I'm kind of a drug to some of you as well, for the same reason.
So you should see the news industry as a drug delivery mechanism.
It didn't used to be that.
It used to be actually information, and now it's a drug delivery system, as is all entertainment.
It's not just news. All right.
Funniest story... Let's see if you can tell me.
What's the funniest story of the day?
Oh, I'll tell you.
Here's the funniest story of the day.
The Trump administration...
If you haven't heard this, you're going to love this.
The Trump administration announced it's going to sue Facebook for...
Here's the good part.
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
The Trump administration announced it's suing Facebook for...
Housing discrimination.
Could that be any better?
Now the argument is that people who were landlords, people who had property to rent, could use Facebook's tools to determine what genders and apparently ethnicities would even see their ads.
So if you were a racist landlord, you could exclude the ethnicities of people you didn't want to even see, Rad.
Which is pretty darn racist.
Now, I have to admit...
I personally don't feel like that's any form of evil on Facebook's side.
I think Facebook just had a general tool that had general use for advertisers, and some people misused that tool to be, you know, for racist purposes.
So I don't think Facebook is the bad actor here, but...
But it's still true that they created a tool that allowed racists to discriminate.
And so I guess they'll have to answer for that.
Now what's funny about it, of course, Is that one of the things dogging Trump has been the 1970s, I think it was.
There was a lawsuit against one of his properties for racial discrimination in housing.
So they were discriminating against who could live in this Trump building.
I don't remember if it was rentals or purchasing.
But As far as I know, and you can fact check me on this, there's no evidence in that old 70s case that Trump himself knew about the discrimination because the discrimination was happening by some employees who were incented to do whatever is good for the building because presumably that's how they got paid.
So the employees apparently discriminated For probably more economic reasons than because they had a personal feeling about anybody.
In other words, it was still bigotry and discrimination.
No question about that.
But there's no evidence that they did it on orders from Donald Trump.
That's not...
I believe there was a...
I think the case was settled, which doesn't actually tell you the great Garlou...
My God, that was a toy I had as a child.
Sorry, I just had a...
Somebody made a comment about the Great Garlou, and I just had this memory of a childhood toy with that name.
So, anyway...
So it's unclear what the president's involvement was, if any, or if he even knew about it in terms of the discrimination that Casely got settled in the 70s for the Trump Organization.
So all we know for sure is that the...
Is that the employees discriminated.
So that much we know.
So this is sort of this wonderful living in the simulation moment where the Trump administration gets to sue Facebook for housing discrimination.
It just couldn't be more artistically perfect.
I just love it.
All right. So, I'm watching Joe Biden, who is at the top of the Democrats' polling to be the nominee for president.
And I don't know about you, But watching Biden gaff his way through this process is bordering on cringe-larious.
So it's cringe-worthy and funny.
It's sort of cringe-larious.
It's my new word.
It's funny because it makes you cringe.
So apparently Biden is on an apology tour and In which he said, the white man's culture has to end.
And then he told some fake news about whips or something.
And when I see that, I think to myself, how is that a winning message?
How is that a winning message?
He's found the only way to get zero votes.
If you think about it, so if the Democrats who are, in terms of their preferred branding for their party, the party of inclusivity, the party of diversity, if the party of diversity nominates the oldest,
whitest guy who is running, How many of those people are going to be enthusiastic about voting for the oldest, whitest guy while they are self-identified as sort of the party of inclusivity and diversity?
And the answer is, I don't know, that's a tough sell.
And then Biden tries to win that group by insulting, essentially insulting white people.
So Who's left?
If he's insulted every person of color by simply being the nominee, and then as the nominee, he directly insults all the people left, he's really found a way to get zero votes, which is ingenious, really.
So yeah, here's the funny thing, and I don't know if people have quite internalized this, The easiest matchup for Trump is Biden by far.
It's not even close.
You could throw a dart at any one of the other candidates, and they might be polling lower.
But if you sort of project forward, every one of the other candidates would be a stronger choice.
I don't know them all, but I think every one of them.
And the reason is that Biden has...
Let me just paint a picture for you.
Joe Biden, you're the nominee for the Democrats.
We've got some questions for you.
Can you tell us more about what's bad with white culture and the problem with men?
Now, does it matter how he answers that question?
It doesn't matter how he answers the question.
It's just a bad look.
It looks weak and apologetic, and it's not going to make anybody happy.
And then they say, Joe Biden, can you explain your treatment of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas stuff, in which, you know, it was the most anti-woman thing that has ever happened in this country since, you know, women got the right to vote, I think.
And even though I don't believe he's that person anymore, You know, I do allow that anything that's more than 20 years old, we should just say that was a different person.
People change, right? So I wouldn't personally hold that against him because people can be bad 20 years ago and still change.
And I would imagine he's not really the same person anymore.
I think he changed with society.
And But the fact is, he would have to answer to all that.
Now, what is the biggest complaint that the anti-Trumpers have about the president?
Well, one of them is that he's sexist, right?
And if that's one of the biggest complaints about this president, watching nonstop clips of Biden putting his hands on young girls, it's just not going to be a good look.
It's just not going to be.
Anyway, so I think it's hilarious that the Democrats are setting themselves up for probably the weakest attempt at winning a presidency you might ever see in your lifetime.
You know, maybe Mondale was weaker, but this one's a slaughter.
I still don't think Biden will necessarily get elected.
And oh, by the way, There will be a point.
So at the moment, I would say Democrats are at least a little bit unified.
They might have their preferred candidates, but they're still Democrats.
There will be some point in this process, there will be a point in the process, in which they're going to get real specific about, do we want an old white guy?
versus anything else.
Person of color, a woman, a woman, woman, person of color.
That battle is going to be the final battle before the nomination.
And it's going to get ugly, and it's going to divide the party.
So we'll see how that goes.
Let's talk about AOC and the clip that you saw in which she is berating some other house member.
Did you all see the clip?
And the interesting thing about it is her hand gesture.
She's almost got Beto-like hand gestures and she's saying, if you do this, and she's going big.
Now that clip was run on both the anti-Trump networks and Fox News and probably a lot of other places.
So she managed to get in the news from something that probably you didn't see coming.
I honestly don't even remember what the issue was.
Was it healthcare? But she managed to get in the news on all the networks.
Now, here's the reason that I say that she has a skill set in persuasion that is similar to President Trump.
Yes, yes, I get it that she doesn't have the business acumen.
I get that. You don't need to remind me.
But the persuasion skill set is very similar.
And here's the thing. One of the things I often note about the president is that he can notice...
Free money that's on the table.
So if this president walks up and says, huh, somebody left some free money on the table.
Anybody? Anybody?
Okay, I'll take the free money.
And so the president picks it up.
So, for example, when the president recognized the Golan Heights, that was sort of free money.
There really isn't much of a pushback from that.
It's just all positive for the President, for the United States, for Israel.
It doesn't have much impact at all on whether there will be peace, because the people who don't want it still don't want it.
The people who want it still want it.
And then I watched AOC get her time in the news, and I thought to myself, here were a bunch of politicians in a room.
All of those politicians saw the free money sitting on the table.
Only AOC picked it up.
The free money was that it was a televised event, meaning there were cameras there.
So it probably wasn't live.
I don't know if it was live or not, but that doesn't matter.
There were cameras there. And what AOC knew, that apparently no one else in the room figured out, she was the only one who figured it out, is that if she went big, She would be on the news.
So she went big.
She used a reaction that was outsized for the situation.
It was out of context.
It was a little too big for the room she was in.
And so every news organization covered it because it was the shiny object.
It was the thing that made noise.
It was the squeaky wheel.
What do you remember about anybody else in that room?
Nothing. In fact, I don't even think there was anybody else in the picture.
I don't even think there was anybody behind her.
She managed to take the free money that was on the table, which is, wait a minute, are the rest of you going to be boring?
So you're going to be boring, and you're boring?
How about you? You're all boring?
Seriously, everybody here is going to be boring?
You're going to leave the free money on the table?
I guess I'll take it. Whoa!
Free money! Now, here's the other thing.
When I talked about Beto the other day, and I talked about his hand gestures, and I said, as awkward as they look, It probably is really good technique, because it's part of what makes you not be able to look away.
But there's something else about those hand gestures, common to both Beto and to AOC, and I don't know if...
I think that's more hand gestures than we've seen from her, but I don't know.
I'd love to know the answer to that.
But here's the thing.
Doesn't it make them look weirdly authentic?
You have to let that sink in a minute.
Now, first of all, I'm not going to claim that any politician is authentic, because everybody's putting on the look that they want you to see.
But when somebody is stiff, they're more likely to look like they're lying.
Think about it. When somebody's loose, and their body is involved, then the things they're saying...
And their body are matched.
I'm really worked up.
And my hands are moving.
I'm really worked up. It looks more authentic.
And when Beto even talks about positive things, he talks about positive things with his hands.
You know, that looks authentic, too.
Now, I know all of you are saying, okay, you know, they're on the other team, so anything they say is a lie.
I'm not saying they are authentic.
I'm saying they sell authenticity better than other people.
Likewise, President Trump...
Imagine, if you will, draw yourself a mental picture.
The news is on and there's a senator who's asked to be on camera.
Now picture the senator in your mind.
It's a generic senator.
Is that senator boring?
Yes. All senators act like they're trying to act like other senators.
Have you noticed that? Everybody in the Senate acts like they're trying to act like a senator.
And it all looks inauthentic, because you can tell they're all just acting like, well, I'm a senator.
Then, now imagine President Trump.
Nobody acts like President Trump.
Literally, there's nobody we've ever seen who has even Close to what he is.
And because of that, it registers as authentic.
Because if you were trying to put one over on you in sort of that ordinary way that the senators do, they would all just act like, well, I'm a senator, and I think we should...
If you watched all these politicians say the same things, they say these completely empty...
Sayings like, well, I think the country should have a conversation about that.
We should have a national conversation about that.
We've got to take this very seriously.
You know, the country should have a real debate on that issue.
What is that?
What is that?
That's nothing. That's absolutely nothing.
What does President Trump do?
Well, not that.
He comes out and he's completely unique.
So here's my point.
Trump, AOC, Beto, they all break the mold.
They all break the mold.
And in so doing, they register as authentic.
I'm not saying any of them are authentic, but they sell authenticity better than other people do.
Everybody's always managing what they say for the impact on the audience.
They just do it better. Somebody totally disagrees with me.
Oh, and then here's my next question.
So the Beto hand gestures got a lot of attention.
A lot of people talked about it.
I might be the only person who said it's almost certainly a positive.
So it makes me wonder if anybody on her team is watching my Periscopes.
So here's the question I don't know.
Did her hand gestures get larger after people started talking about Beto?
Because it's possible that she looked at it and picked up the technique.
If she picked up his technique because she understood that it was useful, you should be afraid of her.
You should be very afraid.
And by that I mean she has more skill than you think.
Scott, you're straining credulity.
So, you have enough room, I have to say this every now and then, you have enough room in your comments to say your reasons.
You can say your reasons.
So when you say, I'm straining credulity, instead of saying that, which means nothing, say, I don't believe somebody is thinking this, or I don't believe you got your fact right, or something like that.
But it does nobody any good for you to just come out and say, Scott, you're straining your credulity.
You're totally wrong.
You can do better than that.
I believe in you.
Do you read all the long messages?
is Well, they're only usually a sentence or two.
Doesn't work that way.
See, there's another one. What doesn't work that way?
Somebody says, it doesn't work that way, Scott.
What doesn't? How am I supposed to...
What is that comment for?
What kind of point are you making?
You blocked people for giving you a reason.
I don't believe I've ever done that.
Don't believe I've ever blocked anybody for disagreeing or for presenting a reason.
You might think I have, but I have not.
Just looking at your comments.
I want to see if anybody had any complaints.
All right.
Isn't there some new news today?
Oh, yeah.
So you've probably been following the saga of the fine people hoax.
And the Fine People hoax...
Widely reported is that the president called the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville fine people.
That of course is fake news, which you can verify just by looking at the transcript.
He said actually the opposite.
He said they must be condemned totally.
Now how many times has that been repeated?
Cory Booker repeated it again at his town hall.
Did CNN correct him?
No, of course. Well, they don't really fact check too hard on the town halls, but they did not correct him.
But I saw that Steve Cortez was on Smirconish's radio show talking about that issue.
So Steve has been very active in trying to correct that hoax.
Now, what's interesting about this is that I've also been on Smirkanish's show.
I've been on his CNN show, and I've also been on his radio show twice, I think.
And I'll tell you one thing about Smirkanish.
He actually seems interested in the facts.
So I don't know if he can keep his job at CNN, but he actually seems to want to be interested in what the other side says.
He's interested in the other point of view.
He seems genuinely interested in the facts, especially if they've been reported wrong.
So I'm going to give him credit.
I haven't heard the actual interview.
I'd love to. But in the way he tweeted it, he treated it seriously that it could be a hoax.
So he treated that accusation without sarcasm or anything.
So, credit to him.
Did they change it again on Wikipedia?
I haven't gotten an update on Wikipedia, but I believe they kept the...
The condemned totally quote in there, so I think that's still sticking.
Yeah, the folks who I debunk have a common path that they go down.
So they first say, I heard it with my own ears, he called the neo-Nazis fine people.
And then I show them the transcript.
And they say, what are you trying to pull?
I heard it with my own ears.
And then I show them the actual video clip so they can hear with their own ears that they did not hear it with their own ears because it isn't there.
Then what do they say?
Once you've debunked the primary claim that he called the neo-Nazis fine people, and it's very clear he didn't from the transcript, what do they say then?
Do they say, my God, I've been the victim of fake news.
I reassess everything I've heard.
Under this new condition, I simply understand the world differently.
No, no, they don't do that.
Every one of them says...
Well, then who are these fine people, Scott?
Who is he referring to?
There were no fine people there.
And then I show them the New York Times article where they interviewed one of the fine people who was against the racists, but had showed up there for free speech purposes.
So once you've established...
That there were people there who disliked the racists, and were there for their own reasons, and they were there for free speech reasons.
What does your subject say?
Do they say, oh, my God, now I see it.
I heard the quote wrong.
And indeed, you have now proven the New York Times talked to a real person with a real name, and their group were not racists.
And they were there too.
They were fine people. Does anybody ever say that?
No, they don't.
They introduce a new hallucination every time.
Every time. You've seen it yourself.
And it goes like this.
Well, how could they be fine people if they're marching alongside racists?
To which I say, okay, you're the one who said marching along with.
If they were marching with the racists, I'm pretty sure all of us would agree they're racists.
I don't think that would be ambiguous if they were marching with the neo-Nazis.
And then I say, but you introduced some fake news.
There's no reporting that they were marching with the racists.
There is reporting that there were people in the same zip code for completely different reasons.
There's nothing wrong with being in the same zip code with bad people if you have different reasons.
That's pretty normal.
So what do people say?
Once I've realized they heard it wrong, he had never complimented the neo-Nazis.
Once they realize that it's confirmed there were people there who were not Nazis and didn't like racists.
And therefore, good people.
Once they've learned that, and then you say, it's ridiculous to say they're marching alongside.
The next thing I heard, and I heard this from one person, was, Scott, Scott, Scott.
I'm paraphrasing. If you showed up for an event, and you were a fine person, and you showed up to an event, and you found out that the neo-Nazis were there marching, And you didn't turn around and leave.
Are you really a fine person?
To which I say, well, first of all, I am a fine person.
And if I showed up to an event in which I saw neo-Nazis squaring off with Antifa, I'm not leaving that.
Are you kidding me?
Do you think I would leave a situation that I stumbled upon?
That had neo-Nazis marching up against Antifa, and the violence was going to start, and there were torches, and there were yelling, and there were clubs, and there were masks.
You might be a better person than I am, but I don't think I could turn away.
I think I would be watching that show.
All right? I wouldn't approve of it.
I would not approve of anybody there.
But I would sure watch.
I would watch.
And anybody who says that they wouldn't, you know, I can't read their mind, but I would just say that's not a credible statement that you wouldn't watch an event of that magnitude if you were there.
And then, as somebody said, the last thing that somebody will say usually is just word salad or changing the topic or I'm too busy to talk.
So those are the three things I get.
I'm too busy to do this, or he's a racist for other reasons, or anybody who was there must be a racist.
All right. So that...
Hoax continues. Mike Cernovich asked in a tweet if there's anything that, I don't know if he said conservatives or Trump supporters, is there anything that they believe?
That is a hoax at the same scale as the Russia collusion hoax.
And so I gave several examples which many of you won't like, but let me tell you another hoax.
So one of the hoaxes that a lot of you on here believe is that there was once a proposed law that would make it legal to kill a healthy baby After it was born.
Now, there were laws proposed about late-term abortion, etc., and certainly there were laws that talked about if the baby were born and was not viable and it was going to die anyway, what do you do?
So those things are true. But the hoax part is that, and somebody's saying it, there wasn't Virginia, right?
So there are people who believe that there was a, in New York, I think in Virginia, that there was an actual law to make it legal to kill a healthy baby after it was born.
So I say to people, well, that's a hoax.
And people say, it's not a hoax.
It definitely happened.
And the evidence is North Rim or somebody else talking about it.
Or the evidence is a New York Post article that doesn't show the law, but it talks about it.
And so I say, easy enough to test.
Send me the text of the law you believe exists that would make it legal to kill a healthy baby after it was born.
And what do people do?
Do they get on Google?
Google that law, find the text to prove me wrong, and then send it to me.
Well, no, they don't.
Somebody says, what about the born of I? So a lot of you actually believe that there was such a proposal, that there was an actual law proposed to make it legal to kill a healthy baby after it's born.
Some of you still believe that's true.
And let me ask you this.
There's so many of you who believe it's true.
Shouldn't at least one of you be able to produce the text of that law or proposed law that you believe exists?
There are a lot of you here.
How about just one of you?
Just one of you?
Google it. Send me the text.
That makes your claim true.
And I will publicly apologize.
I will publicly apologize for being wrong.
And I will do it with all due humility.
You just have to send me the text.
Now, of course, that text doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist.
And I've been asking people for weeks and they go quiet or they turn into word salad or they change the subject or they talk about late-term abortions or they talk about the Gosnell movie.
And here are the claims I'm not making.
I'm not claiming that nobody's ever murdered a baby anymore.
I'm not claiming that.
I'm not claiming that late-term abortion isn't a thing and that people wanted that to be legal under certain circumstances.
I'm not making any claims about those things.
Just a healthy baby after it's born.
Just show me the text that makes it okay to kill that.
It doesn't exist.
All right, let's talk about the Smollett case a little bit.
So, Jussie Smollett...
So, as I said yesterday, there's obviously something sketchy about the outcome.
And I want to revise something I said yesterday.
I came out in favor initially...
Initially, I came out in favor of a light, light sentence or a light result for Smollett.
And I gave my argument it's because he's unlikely to do it again.
It probably won't encourage other people to try it because he got caught.
And because he's famous, it will haunt him forever, unlike an unfamous person in the same situation.
But as I sleep on it, And as he continues to claim his innocence, I say to myself, you know, I was okay with the light sentence.
And I would have been okay with it still, if you had just shut up.
But the fact that he's throwing the Chicago police under the bus, It's not acceptable.
It's not acceptable.
And under that situation, I'm fine with the federal authorities coming in and putting the hammer down on him.
Had he admitted it, I'd still be okay with a relatively light sentence.
Now, in my opinion, $10,000 as a fine is too light.
I think $100,000.
Or 50,000 would be more in the ballpark of what would feel right.
And by the way, if I were Jussie, well, I guess he can't do this because he's saying he's innocent, but had he said he was guilty, And had his punishment been this light, it might have been wise for him to just make a donation to, you know, make up the difference.
But that option is gone because he's claiming he was innocent.
So if you add in the fact that he's apparently throwing his Nigerian friends under the bus, he's throwing the police under the bus, he's running one of the most important hoaxes we've ever seen, and the fact that he continues to say it was true, is a continued danger to Trump supporters.
So given his unwillingness to say it's true, that factor I now raise to a higher variable in my thinking, and I think he needs jail.
So I think the correct punishment under the condition that he continues to lie would be jail.
But if he had come clean, I would have said, hey, the media hypnotized him.
He was brainwashed by CNN. Maybe he thought he was making the world a better place in his own twisted way.
So I would have gone easy on him.
But now I'd say, I think jail is a more appropriate punishment.
All right. It was crowded under the bus, somebody said.
So, the whole Kim Fox thing, and the Michelle Obama connection, and the fact that it's Chicago, and the fact that even Rahm Emanuel can't stand it, I met, here's a weird little thing.
Many years ago, I guess I can tell you this story.
I was in Washington, D.C. for reasons undisclosed.
Many years ago. And I was with somebody in politics, and Rahm Emanuel was working there, and he was just walking down the hallway the other way.
And my host said, oh, I've got to introduce you to Rahm Emanuel.
And my host said, after the introduction, it was just briefly I met him, and he went on.
And my host said, someday he's going to be president.
And I thought, yeah, really?
I don't know. Maybe someday he will be.
I don't know. But it was certainly interesting to see him come out against fellow Democrats, it appears.
So that would be an interesting position.
I don't know, can you come out of Chicago and still get elected?
Feels like that Chicago thing would be a little baggage.
Alright. I guess we've got enough for now.
▲
Export Selection