All Episodes
Previous Next
March 30, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
47:53
Episode 474 Scott Adams: Trump Solving Climate Change, Mueller TDS, Creepy Joe
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello Divine Girl and Nolan and who's the next person coming in?
Polly and Mark and Jeff and Maria.
It's good to see all of you.
And I'm sure that being the prepared people that you are, you are ready With your beverage, you probably have a stein or a glass or a cup or a mug.
You might have a thermos or a tankard.
You may have filled it with your favorite liquid.
It might be coffee. And now, please join me for the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip.
Ah, I think I got the simultaneity just right that time.
Mmm, extra good.
Mmm, mmm, mmm. Well, the winning just keeps on coming.
And when I say the winning, I'm talking about President Trump.
And when I say winning, I mean, as CNN would report, chaos in the White House.
There's chaos. It's all breaking down.
The world is going to hell.
On their part of the world.
On the other part of the world, things are going great.
Let me tell you the most exciting news.
It goes like this.
Bill Gates... Bill Gates, and let me start off by saying, I've said this before, but Bill Gates might be my only actual hero.
Because here's what I like about him.
Early in his career, when people were accusing him of being a robber baron capitalist who was crushing the competition and everything else they said about him, he was saying way back then that his purpose was to give away all of his money.
Or, you know, 90% or whatever it is.
And then sure enough, years go by, he builds the Gates Foundation and he starts giving away his money in a smarter, more effective way than anyone has ever done anything like this.
So he was the best capitalist we ever had at the time.
And now he's the best philanthropist we've ever had.
And I would go beyond that and say that he may have just saved the world.
Let me say that again. He went from the best capitalist we've ever known, arguably, to the best philanthropist.
I think most people would agree that Gates Foundation is worlds beyond probably anything.
And it looks like, and I don't think I'm exaggerating this, he may have saved the world.
And what I mean by that is that his opinion on things carries more weight than most people.
So in the rare occasions where his opinion is against, let's say, the administration's impulses or the public, he can break through.
So his signal breaks through the noise better than almost anybody, because you can't even tell what party he's with.
You don't really know, is he a Democrat?
Because it seems like, you know, he's socially liberal, but he's also sort of a common sense, whatever works kind of guy.
So I don't think you could really put him in a box, which also helps his message.
Here's what I'm getting to.
He tweeted yesterday that a bipartisan group of leaders in the U.S. Senate, how often do you hear that?
A bipartisan group of senators?
What? That rarely happens, right?
But on this topic it did.
They were bipartisan. And they introduced the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, which establishes an ambitious plan to, here it comes, accelerate the development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies.
And then Gates finishes his tweet with, I can't overstate how important this is.
And he's right.
He couldn't overstate it.
That's one of those times where it looks like an exaggeration, but it's not.
He can't overstate how important this is.
Because most of the world believes that climate change is going to destroy the world.
And this is literally the only feasible way to address it.
It's the only way.
So there are two parts of the world, let's say, the people who believe climate change is dubing us all, and a lot of people who think it's no big problem and it's overstated and it's a hoax.
But in both cases, everybody wants nuclear power.
They don't know they want it yet, but they do, because it's the only way to save the world if climate change is a risk, and it's the only way to move forward and not waste a bunch of money on solar and wind and things that don't have as much impact if there's no risk.
Both sides, in order to save the world according to how they see it, one side is saving the world from warming, The other side is trying to save the world from wasting money doing the wrong thing to address climate change.
So both sides see a potential end of the economy, at least, if not end of the world, if things go wrong.
And yet, there has been and always was a solution that worked for both sides.
Now, in our current split world, where if one side wants something, the other side automatically says they're the devil, and nothing like that can work, it's very unusual that anybody can break through that two sides noise, go right through the middle of it, with enough signal-to-noise ratio, as Doug Gates has, to say, Hey everybody, it doesn't even matter what you think.
It doesn't matter what you think about climate change.
It's still the right thing to do.
Because the technology is mature.
Mature in the sense that we do know we can build nuclear reactors at less risk and less impact on the economy than every other source.
That's new. New since, let's say, the 60s.
The nuclear power plants we have in this country are sort of 60s-era generation.
They are dangerous, relatively speaking, because they could melt down.
The new ones can't melt down.
They're built so that they can't.
There's no mechanism that would allow that to happen.
Physically, it can't happen.
But there's still much development and iteration that needs to go on.
And so the big push here is some kind of, I don't want to call it a Manhattan project, but it's in that direction.
It's sort of a concentrated, high-end government effort to accelerate the development of advanced nuclear reactor technology.
Now, How much have you heard me talking about this?
A lot, right? And so I'm going to have Mark Snyder on next week, Tuesday, I think, and we're going to talk about the technologies a little bit, catch people up.
But here's the thing.
President Trump has famously called climate change a Chinese hoax.
I assume there's some hyperbole built into that, but that generally he does believe that the risk and the projections are hoax.
Now, whether or not he's right about that is irrelevant to the fact that this is the right way to go.
But the weird thing here is that the president who is the most skeptical of climate change probably just solved it.
Probably just solved it.
Because there was only one way to go for a solution.
Bill Gates has really looked into this.
Bill Gates doesn't say stuff like this, you know, just because he read somebody's tweet.
He's done a deep dive.
He's visited the sites.
He has a massive investment himself in new nuclear technology.
But nobody believes that Bill Gates is doing this for the money.
If there's one thing you can be sure, if Bill Gates put his money into nuclear technology, it wasn't because he thought that was the best place to get a good return on his investment.
It might be. I mean, it could end up being a good return.
But you know that's not why he put his money there, right?
He's doing it for social purposes.
That I think we can all trust.
So, this is close to being The biggest news of my lifetime.
It just doesn't seem like it yet.
And I think that that's a fair statement.
This might be the biggest news of my lifetime.
Because it's such a massive transition to cleaner power that it has massive global, social, civil impact.
More than war, I would say.
I would say this is bigger than the Iraq war.
Wouldn't you say? I mean, because it has more impact on potential life and death over time.
I'd say this is bigger than...
Let's see, what's it bigger than?
It's bigger than the Vietnam War.
It's bigger than 9-11.
What is bigger than this?
I can't think of anything that's bigger news than the fact that the United States just decided to take a full push into clean, safe nuclear power.
In terms of civilization transformation, I mean, even if you think about it, even our ability to colonize space.
Yeah, that's right.
Well, the moon landing was big news, but didn't make a big difference.
Because it's not like we built colonies on the moon right after that.
So the moon landing was big in terms of our psychological situation.
It did help the technological development a lot.
So a lot of those technologies have seeped into the public to good effect.
So yeah, that was pretty big.
I would say not the landing on the moon, but the technology that went into it was big.
But not this big. This is bigger than that.
Bigger than a smartphone?
Well, that's a good one.
Somebody said, is this nuclear announcement bigger than the smartphone?
Good question.
It's different. The smartphone is reprogramming What it means to be a human being.
So that's pretty big.
I would say that the smartphone signals our transition from organic species into a combined organic digital species, because your phone is really part of you now.
So, you know, I guess you could make an argument that the evolution of human beings into cyborgs, which is what we are at the moment, that's a big deal.
I'll give you that one.
That might be bigger than this, but it's big.
All right. Now, let me ask you another question.
How much persuasion does it take for something like this to become active in the government?
Do you think Bill Gates got it done on his own?
Do you think Bill Gates was the primary mover of this?
Because I don't know how much direct lobbying he does with Congress, but he writes and talks a lot, and I'm sure that people in Congress have seen his opinions on this.
But you've also been watching for the past year.
So for the past year, what have I been advising on this Periscope?
Primarily with the help of Mark, who we'll be talking to on Tuesday.
So Mark Schneider, who's an expert in nuclear power, has been my personal, let's say, guru for that category.
And I've been saying that for quite a while that the United States needs to do something like a Manhattan Project for clean, safe nuclear power.
And that's what I think Mark's been advocating for that for a long time as well.
And I didn't know this was even brewing, did you?
Did any of you know that this was even being considered?
And so here's the question I ask you.
Who else in the United States was advocating publicly?
I know a lot of people privately were saying this.
But how many media sources were advocating for this?
Because, yeah, a lot of us individually were doing it.
But how many people were doing it publicly, besides Bill Gates?
And besides me, and besides Mark Schneider, New Gingrich has been doing it for years.
You were correct.
New Gingrich. But I haven't seen New Gingrich active on this for a while.
All right, here's where I'm going with this.
Here's where I'm going. Michael Schellenberger, yes.
Michael Schellenberger has been active, but I don't know that he gets the same media attention.
Rick Perry is apparently on the job here.
Rick Perry seems to be killing it on this topic.
So I think that's pretty special.
So my point was that for something like this to happen, there needs to be a certain amount of persuasion in the public for it to happen.
This sort of thing probably doesn't happen just because some politicians got an idea on their own.
This doesn't really sound like an idea that the senators and the representatives were sitting around and one of them said, hey, I got an idea.
Let's do this. They couldn't really get it done unless there were some persuasion coming from the public.
So I think that all of us who have been talking about this get to claim some amount of Alex Epstein as well, yes.
All of us who have said anything about this in public We get to take a little bit of credit for whatever our small pieces of persuasion were on this, because Congress doesn't really act unless they think the public is going to buy into it.
And one of the things that is interesting about this topic is, you know, there are always people on both sides of everything, but the people who are against the new cleaner nuclear development Are only against it until you explain to them that their thinking is sort of stuck in the 60s.
Once you've explained to people that it's not the 60s and that the old technology for nuclear, which did have some substantial risk, safer probably than a lot of things, but still had risk.
It was real. That's not the same thing we're talking about anymore.
It's a different technology.
Once they understand that it's not Fukushima, And that it's not Three Mile Island, and it's not Chernobyl.
Those are all older technologies.
Once people understand that, then it's pretty easy to get them on board with the new, clean, only way to go, really.
All right, that's enough about that.
At Trump's rally...
I guess people were chanting, AOC sucks.
And then AOC did a clever tweet about it.
And once again, name the Democrat that everybody's talking about.
AOC. I'll tell you.
Who had a better week?
Joe Biden, with the article in Vox that he's a little too touchy with the women?
Or AOC, who had Trump supporters chanting, AOC sucks?
No contest. If you could be one of those two Democrats, you would choose AOC this week.
Not only that, but if you were any of the people who the Trump supporters were not chanting about, you wish you were AOC too.
Because if people are chanting about you, you're doing something right.
Meaning that your team probably is embracing you because the other team has identified you as being too powerful and they have to work against you.
So every time the Trump supporters chant, AOC sucks, they make her stronger.
Mike Cernovich points this out often.
I point it out often.
And then you watch it right in front of your eyes.
You can observe.
That both Mike and I predicted exactly what's happening.
Over a year ago, we both said, watch this.
Now, how right was Mike and how right was I on this?
We said, don't take this lightly.
She's got real skills.
And it may not be obvious, but these are real skills.
This is not luck. This is not luck.
If there's one thing you should have as a mantra, this is the recording you should play in your head every time you see a clip of AOC. She'll be saying something that you'll say, that's ridiculous.
You'll say, she can't afford to pay for that health care plan.
You'll say, that's not, you know, that's not a good idea.
But the whole time you're paying attention to her, there should be a recording that plays in your head which says, I'm not thinking about those other Democrats right now.
Wait a minute. Is this intentional?
It's not luck.
It's not luck.
Don't let yourself believe it's luck, because that's how you get fooled.
Alright, I told you that when the Mueller...
Report was public that there would be shockingly little change in people's opinions because people don't make opinions based on facts.
And I told you this clearly as a prediction.
It will not change substantially.
It will not change people's opinions on Trump.
Now, the dead-enders who are still in that cave in Guam Who are unwilling to accept that Bill Barr's summary of it is probably an accurate summary.
The people who don't accept that yet are still saying, yeah, but wait for the report itself.
My God, there's going to be good stuff in there.
Sure, it might not be enough to convict, but we know it's enough to condemn him forever for his whatever.
And, you know, the weirdest thing, The weirdest thing is that there might not be any new information in it.
Have any of you considered the possibility that the Mueller report literally won't have anything we don't know in it?
Because when he says there is evidence, well, how did...
How did Barr summarize it?
I think this is my paraphrase, but the idea was the evidence does not come to the level that you would proceed with any kind of a legal problem, right?
Which doesn't mean there's no evidence.
So the anti-Trumpers have said, aha!
Yes, maybe it's true.
Maybe it's true that this is not enough for a conviction.
But he's clearly signaling that there's something like evidence in there.
And when we see the detail, we're going to see that evidence and we're going to judge for ourselves how bad that is.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe it's not technically up to the standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but this is politics.
And that's not the standard in politics.
So we're going to get this red meat and we're like, ah, I can't wait for the details.
But what if...
What if the details are the stuff you've been watching in the news for the last two years?
What if the details are that Don Jr.
went to a meeting once in his own building?
What if it's like that?
What if the evidence is that there were some people who talked to Russians?
What if the evidence is that a number of Trump supporters did not accurately report at first contacts with Russians, which we already know?
What if all of the evidence is the stuff we already know?
Maybe there'll be a couple of, like...
Interesting tidbits, but nothing of substance.
You know, just maybe some color on things.
Maybe things are a little bit different than we thought they were.
But what if there's not really anything new, but there is some stuff that looks like, well, this is something we should look into kind of stuff, which would be completely ordinary for any complicated situation.
All right. So I think...
Let me read to you some text from CNN talking about the polling.
So after Bill Barr's summary of the Mueller report, this is what CNN said about their own polling.
While nearly every voter CNN talked to said they want the full Mueller report to be released, among the most striking conclusion was how little the probe changed their opinion of Trump.
A fact borne out by a recent CNN poll that found only 13% of voters, 13%, said Mueller's findings would sway their 2020 vote.
Now you say to yourself, well, 13% is a lot, right?
That's a lot. Except that of those, of the 13%, 7% said they are now more apt to back the president, while 6% said they are now less likely to do so.
So all it did was, a few little people on the fence, about half of them fell one way and half of them fell the other way.
Now, I suspect that this poll is misleading, like most polls are.
And let me give you my potential spin on this.
Just in terms of this is possible.
I'm not saying this is the case.
I'm going to say this is possible.
Isn't it possible when you say the 6% are less likely to support the president and 7% are more likely, isn't it likely that the 6% who say they're less likely were already never going to vote for Trump?
What reasonable person could hear Bill Barr's summary of the Mueller report and say, based on the summary that exonerates the president, that based on his exoneration, they're less likely to vote for him?
Does that sound like a real number?
Do you think there's one person in this country who was pro-Trump And likely to vote for him, but once he was exonerated from the worst charge any president's ever had against him, now they're less likely to vote for him because he's not a criminal.
Does that even make sense?
So here's what I think.
I think the 6% who said they're less likely to vote for him, we're never going to vote for him anyway.
They're just angry people who got angrier because that's what they do.
And guess what? If you check them again next week, angrier still.
You could do this poll every week forever, and you'd find 6% are more angry this week than they were last week.
They are less likely to vote for him this week.
Oh, no. Sure, he solved global climate change.
Yes, he did, but I'm a little less likely to support him now.
So they're always going to be the people who never would have supported him.
But here's the interesting part.
7% of the people in the poll said they are now more apt to back the president.
Were they also the people who were going to back him anyway?
Maybe. And it could be the groups in both ways are just identical.
It could be that they were always just going to vote the way they were going to vote, and they're just saying they're more or less apt, but really, not really.
It's just the way they decided to answer the question.
But I have a feeling that there are some independents who said to themselves...
Not many, maybe 1%, that's it, who said to themselves, I am actually going to wait for the results.
I'm actually going to make a decision based on what we find out here, because it does matter to me.
Maybe 1%.
And I guess the point of that...
And then they said, a combined 86% say that they had already figured out whether they would vote for or against Trump, and that the investigation won't matter, even though they are undecided now.
What? None of that even makes sense.
It's like the public just went suddenly crazy, or the poll was crazy, or the interpretation of it is crazy.
But none of it quite makes sense.
Which shows you where we're at.
All right. I'm enjoying watching the Joe Biden situation.
Now, as you know, opinions are not independently arrived at in this country, if they ever were.
I don't know if they ever were, but certainly at the moment.
Our political opinions are assigned to us by our preferred news stations.
Now, that would not be the case if people sampled news from both sides of the political spectrum, because they'd probably get a taste of it from both sides, and then they'd say, huh, these are very different.
I guess I'm on my own.
I'll just make a decision. But people don't do that.
For the most part, the people on the left especially are locked into a silo where they don't even hear the real news.
The real news is not even available to them.
They don't have an option of hearing anything like real news, because they're in their silo.
The people on the right also have a strong preference for their news sources, and if they only stuck to their news sources on the right, they would never hear the other side.
But because the mainstream media is the pervasive one that's everywhere, the people on the right, even their news sources, talk about the news on the left.
If you go to Fox News, you'll often see them reporting what the people on the left said so that they can give their counterpoint and show the other side.
But the left doesn't do that.
The left makes fun of the right for, you know, the crazier stuff, but they don't showcase the other arguments.
Or at least I don't notice it as much.
It seems that the left wants to keep you ignorant of what the other team is saying, whereas the right says, here's what the other team is saying, here's what we say, this is why we think we're smarter and the other team is crazy.
Now, both sides are biased as hell.
I'm not going to tell you that one side is unbiased.
You're not going to ever hear that from me.
I will tell you, it seems to me that the people on the right are getting both sides more often.
Not as completely as it needs to be, and not even close, but far more often.
And the Joe Biden situation is a perfect example of this, because apparently MSNBC and CNN are not reporting the national story that Joe Biden is a hair sniffer.
Although, let me take that back.
Let me check the CNN homepage, because I think I might have to retract that, because I was reading on Fox News that they're not reporting it, But then I also thought I saw it on...
So I'm looking at the homepage of CNN. I'm looking for the Biden.
Let's just search for it.
Oh, there it is. A former Nevada politician alleges Joe Biden kissed the back of her head.
So here's a case where...
The front page of CNN, not on the top left, which is the headline news, but it's a little bit semi-buried in the middle of the page.
I couldn't see it right away.
I had to look. I had to actually do a search of the page.
All right, so CNN is reporting it, while at the same time, over at Fox News, it looks like they may have changed their reporting because it wasn't long ago that they were saying...
Oh, here it is. In the entertainment section of Fox News, the headline is, CNN, MSNBC ignore explosive misconduct allegations against Biden.
Now that might be true of their television coverage, so that I don't have an opinion on.
But it is not true of their webpage.
So here's a case of Fox News having a false or at least misleading headline.
Because it says very clearly, CNN, MSNBC, ignore explosive misconduct.
But you can click over to CNN and there's the report.
It's right there. So if I'm being fair, CNN has fake news on this topic.
It might be that they're not talking about it on air, which would be a valid point.
And that's probably closer to true than not true.
All right. So here's my take on this.
The mainstream media will determine who is the Democratic nominee.
The public will believe that they decided, but nothing like that will happen.
Whoever the news decides to back is going to make it through to the final.
Now, it might be, and it looked like initially, that Kamala Harris was clearly the establishment choice.
But, because she's fourth, I believe now, in the polling, And the media doesn't want to be on the losing team, nor do anybody who's an anti-Trump.
They don't want to be on the losing team.
They're sort of in a dilemma, because it looks, based on polling, that the people who are most likely to have a good chance against Trump are not their first choice.
It looks like Kamala is you know it's just gonna have trouble breaking into the top three who weirdly are all white men now and two of them are elderly white men and so the Democrats have a problem the size of which you rarely see in politics because the only people who have a chance Of winning are the same people who have no chance of getting nominated at this point.
Because either Bernie or Biden would get torn apart and Beto would be torn apart by Trump.
And part of the problem is I just don't think the Democrats are going to get the people of color and the women to support aggressively any of the white men that might be nominated.
At the moment, having a, let's say, a 30% majority in a field of 16, that might be his cap.
Remember what people said about Trump early on in the process?
He had the most votes, but people said, ah, it's just name recognition.
And he could never be above 25% popularity.
And probably he isn't, so they might have been right about that.
But, you know, he's obviously far more popular among the Republicans.
I should correct that.
When he was at 25% popularity, that was just among Republicans.
And he's climbed from 25% popularity just among Republicans to something like 90%.
You know, an amazing amount of persuasion to get from 25 to 90.
Amazing. I mean, that's hard to top.
But, you know, you can never convince the other side.
So, Biden, in my opinion...
is the weakest candidate the Democrats have to offer.
I'll say it again.
In a match-up, one-on-one against Trump, the weakest candidate on the left is the one who is leading in the polls by far.
Now, keep in mind that when people compare their image of this great guy Biden to this horrible monster Trump, They say to themselves, how could he possibly lose?
Biden, great guy.
Trump, monster.
How does a great guy not win against a monster?
I can't even process this.
But the part that they miss is that it hasn't started yet.
The fun hasn't even started.
The videos and the attacks against Biden for his overtouching of women is a complete kill shot.
It's a complete kill shot.
There isn't a chance in the world that Joe Biden could get elected president under the current conditions.
Now, if it turned out that some new thing came out about Trump that was worse than anything we've heard before, Well, maybe.
Maybe in that situation.
But you'd end up praying for some new information after Trump is the most vetted and researched person on the face of the earth.
You still have to hope there's some new stuff there that we don't know about, or else Biden doesn't have a chance.
Now, do the Democrats know what I just said?
Do you think that the people who are the movers and the shakers, the people who know politics, the people who are the main Democrats, do you think that they know that the guy who's dominated in the polls, Biden, do you think they know he has no frickin' chance whatsoever?
I mean none. He has no chance.
I don't know. I don't know.
Because even the Stacey Abrams rumor turned out to be a horrible choice.
It just looked like an old man saying, I'm an old white man.
Have I apologized enough?
I don't think I've apologized enough for being an old white guy.
What can I do? I know.
How about I'll pick a vice presidential running mate, which is not normally done, but I'll pick an African American woman.
Yeah, yeah. That'll solve my problems.
And everybody looking at it will just say, yeah, that's how you solved problems 40 years ago.
And now it just looks like tokenism, because it would really look like that.
And that's no insult to Stacey Abrams.
I literally don't know anything about her politics, so I don't have any positive or negative things to say about her whatsoever.
But the way the public would look at it was...
I don't know.
Looks like you're trying too hard.
Whereas, if Kamala Harris were running, if she were the nominee, nobody is going to say to Kamala Harris, Hey, Kamala, you're trying too hard to be a person of color.
Because she doesn't have to try.
She just is. Nobody would say, Hey, you're trying too hard to be a woman.
Because she just is one.
So those are just going to be a given, and then she can do her political stuff.
So she's by far the strongest candidate on the intersectionality stuff.
And she's got good enough experience, and she's a senator.
That's better than being a mayor.
So she's got a lot going for her, plus she's got the Hillary machine, or some part of it has moved to her.
But here's the problem.
She is seriously boring.
She is boring.
She's tried to make herself interesting with her.
Look, I really have a personality.
I'm not cold, Kamala.
I laugh at things.
I try on funny-looking outfits in public.
I have a good laugh.
Oh, I'm so funny.
But none of that comes off as looking...
What's the best word for it?
All the videos of Kamala laughing and having a good time, she doesn't come off as genuine.
I don't...
Maybe that's...
Is that just me? It could be that's just a biased observation.
I wouldn't rule that out.
Maybe it registers differently to different people.
But she just doesn't look genuine, authentic.
I will give Beto O'Rourke the following compliment.
That whatever he is, it looks like that's who he really is.
In my opinion. I mean, obviously, everybody's being a politician, so everything's an exaggerated look at who they are.
And I'm not saying that Beto has good policies or that he'd be good at the job, because I don't see evidence of that.
But it looks like he's presenting something that looks like who he actually is.
So, at least that's good.
Alright. Does anybody have any questions?
Because that's all the news for today.
But I love you so much.
I don't like to quit early.
Oh, let's talk about Amy Klobuchar and her $1 trillion for infrastructure.
I'd like to give you my monologue now on Amy Klobuchar's groundbreaking plan for $1 trillion in infrastructure Planning.
Okay, I'm done.
And that's all you need to know about infrastructure.
Right there. Somebody says, I don't agree.
He feels insincere.
Well, the political stuff is insincere, meaning that the policies, you shouldn't take the policy statements or the criticisms of Trump's policies as being literal.
That's just the political thing.
So that part, nobody is sincere about.
That's part of the game of politics, and we accept that.
Because they're all playing the same game, and as long as we know that, I don't give anybody a bad grade for the policy part.
But the way Beno's personality is, the way he uses his hands and he stands on things and his mannerism, that all seems pretty authentic to me, I think.
Now, that doesn't mean it is.
It just means it registers that way.
There's no wire hangers. .
Alright, Peter Buttigieg.
Honestly, I have avoided talking about him because of two reasons.
One, I can't pronounce his name.
Two, He hasn't made enough of a dent to take him seriously.
And he's another white guy.
Is he gay? I can't remember.
Is he publicly gay?
Or do I have him confused with somebody else?
Can somebody confirm that?
And I don't know if that's anything he's...
I'm just looking for your answers here.
So I haven't really paid attention to, and I probably won't pay attention to any mayors.
The odds of a mayor getting elected president feels like, if you're a voter, don't you say to yourself, well, I like you, you're a mayor, but maybe try to get a job as a representative or a senator first.
Maybe do a little national stuff first.
I'll take a governor.
Every now and then, I'll take a governor.
At least they ran a state.
But a mayor?
A mayor?
A mayor probably has a city manager who's doing all the hard work anyway, depending on the city.
And Oprah interviewed Beto.
Yeah. Yes, he is.
Good on TV. Yes, he is gay.
Well, I like him better, just for being gay, honestly.
If I'm being honest, it just feels like a plus.
I don't think it will necessarily help him.
Oh, he's married to a man.
All right. So, I'm very much in the camp who says, wouldn't it be great to have a gay president?
Now, it's a small camp.
I'm not saying that any of you are in this camp, and I'm not saying that you need to be in this camp or anything.
For the same reason that I supported Obama, I know you don't want to hear this, there are some things that the country just needs to get past.
And then once you've done it, you don't have to get past it again because you did it once.
And having our first black president, even if you don't like the job he did, was insanely good for the country in a way that's just permanent.
Because you can never again say, well, the country would never elect a black guy because we did.
Twice. And a lot of people loved the job he did.
So it's good for society to move past these little stumbling things that put us at each other's necks.
Likewise, and I've said this many times, that Hillary Clinton, by winning the popular vote, coming so close, and really, she didn't lose because she's a woman.
I mean, I think she claims that once in a while, but it's on her list of 45 reasons she lost.
And I think Hillary Clinton broke the glass ceiling in the sense that nobody thinks that being a woman is a disadvantage running for president.
It's just not a thing anymore.
And thank you, Hillary Clinton, because you did that.
For the same reason, eventually, we've got to get ourselves a LGBTQ president.
Sooner or later. And I'm not saying that's a plus.
I'm not saying it's like some kind of advantage.
I'm just saying that let's get past it.
It would be nice. Now it doesn't have to be this time.
I'm just saying that in general, wouldn't it be great to have somebody who's a member of that community who is just so good at being a politician that people can't see that anymore?
Somebody who's so good, they make that invisible to us as voters.
That'd be great. That'd be a great thing for the country.
But I don't think it's his time.
It is not his time, but I like the fact that he's such a serious candidate.
All right. Somebody says, no, we don't have to get past this.
Well, we don't have to do anything.
But it would be good to take it off the table as a social barrier.
Somebody says, race relations got horribly worse because of Barack Obama.
No.
Well, is that true?
Or is it true that the media, who was anti-Barack Obama...
Weaponized the people who follow that media to believe that he was far worse than he really was.
I leave that to you as an open question.
Yes, as long as gayness isn't his or her agenda, somebody says.
I mean, I don't think anybody wants to see it as a Some kind of primary plank at this point, because, you know, unless there are some rights that are not yet granted that need to be.
He speaks six languages.
He's a combat vet. I mean, he's a solid candidate.
Someday, someday a gay man will be president.
I just don't know if it's going to be soon.
All right. Someday there'll be a lesbian woman.
Someday there'll be everything. All right, that's all I have for now.
▲
Export Selection