All Episodes
Previous Next
June 20, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
57:39
Episode 572 Scott Adams: CNN Taking Out Biden, Reparations, Iran Shoots Down Drone, Warren
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum, bum, bum.
Bum, bum, bum, bum.
Hello everybody. Come on in here.
What a great day. Sun is out, at least where I am.
And that means...
It's an excellent morning for coffee with Scott Adams and a little thing I call the simultaneous sip.
So while you're filing in and finding your seats, getting ready, fill your cups, your mugs, your glasses.
Could be a tankard, stein, chalice.
Might be a thermos. Could be a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit that's going to make your whole day good.
It goes like this.
Good stuff.
Alright, thank you for joining me on that.
We've got interesting and fun stories.
I always like waking up and reading interesting and fun stories.
I remember a time when the news was usually bad news, but no more.
Now the news is mostly entertaining news.
Even the stuff that seems like it's really bad is, I don't know, we have to stretch a little bit to make it sound bad.
Here's what is in the news.
First of all, let me talk a little bit more about the president's new slogan for 2020, which unless it changes, it could change.
But the idea is keep America great.
Hey, you must be racist.
So, Make America Great Again, while it was the single best political slogan of all time, it had a really serious weakness that people could say, hey, the past wasn't so good, why do you want to do that?
Keep America Great fixes that problem, because you know what people can't say?
They can't say, I don't want to go back to today You don't have to go back at all.
If you like low unemployment for the African American community, if you like women succeeding even better than men in college, for example, if you like all the stuff that we have right now, You might want to keep it.
Now, I want to mention an important concept in persuasion.
And this has been tested many times.
Science is pretty clear on this point.
Your human brain will put more importance on keeping things you already have Compared to maybe getting something new that you don't have.
So as much as we like to get new stuff, we like to get new money, we like to acquire things, we love all that stuff.
But we don't love it as much, and it's not even close, to how much we don't want to lose the things we already have.
Now, this can be a little tricky, because people said to me, well, Reagan beat Jimmy Carter...
And, you know, the country wasn't falling apart then.
Why weren't people afraid of losing what we had under Carter?
And the answer is that people didn't see what we had under Carter as a good thing to keep.
The economy was weak.
The, you know, patriotism was flagging a little bit, no pun intended.
And so, generally speaking, when things are going poorly, You take on risk.
That's always the smart thing to do.
When things are going poorly, you can inject some risk, because the risk of doing nothing means you just keep going in the wrong direction.
So it's actually riskier to do nothing if things are going in the wrong way.
So, when Trump ran against Hillary Clinton, he made the case that things weren't going well.
So you didn't have anything to lose.
In fact, when he talked to the African American community, he said basically, what the hell do you got to lose?
Things aren't going that well.
So that was a very, very strong argument for change.
But once you've got your president in there, and he's got some track record, and the country's doing well, even if you think the reason is because Obama gave us a strong economy, whatever the reason is, things are going well.
And now the stronger argument is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In fact, that statement, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, it would be a real strong campaign slogan if it were not sort of an old, tired saying.
Because the sense of it is, things are going well, you don't make a change when things are going well.
You don't change your horse when your horse is halfway across the stream and doing great.
So I would say that the President has, once again, Correctly found exactly the right sweet spot for persuasion in his slogan.
And I don't know how many times he has to do this before people get that it's not luck.
This isn't luck.
This is skill.
This is the highest level of branding skill You've ever seen, bar none.
I mean, there's nobody close.
There's nobody in his category.
And I think a lot of it is just sort of a natural talent that he can tell that Keep America Great is a better deal.
Now, I'm not going to say he's going to keep this slogan.
He might revise it.
Everything's an A-B test.
If it doesn't go well... Maybe not.
It doesn't have a great acronym.
But in terms of persuasion perfection, it's exactly where it needs to be.
Make people afraid of losing what they've already gotten.
That's the strongest persuasion lever.
Let's talk about something else.
Let's talk about reparations.
Here's a topic that will make your head spin.
First of all, pretty much everything you're seeing on the topic of reparations so far, if you're watching Fox News, is just all wrong.
It's just all fake news reporting on the topic.
Why do I say that?
The reason I say that is because this is what's happening.
The people talking about reparations say, let's have a conversation about reparations.
We don't know what that's going to look like, but what it's not going to look like We agree.
What it's not going to look like is that the people who are not African American are writing checks to simply give money to the people who are African American and have some legacy of slavery.
So the people talking about reparations say, that's not the plan.
That's not what we're trying to do.
We're trying to have a conversation and to see if there's some way to make any kind of a change.
That people would agree on.
So then you turn on Fox News, and Fox News will say, how can you say you want to make the people who were not slave owners and weren't even here, our families were not even here during reparations, why should we pay for it?
And the reparations person will say, we're not even talking about that.
And five minutes later, your next Fox News host will say, how can it be fair to give a check from people who weren't to blame to people who were descendants from people who are already dead?
How could that be fair? And the reparations people will say, again, nobody's even talking about that.
So, beware that almost everything you see on this topic is fake news, but let me tell you the real news as best I understand it.
First of all, I watched some of the hearing, I watched a good deal of it actually, the opening speeches, and I gotta tell you, There's a strong case to be made for reparations.
Now, when I said that, what did most of you just think?
I just said, there's a strong case for reparations.
I'll bet 70% of you just said, what do you mean?
You can't tell people who were not involved with slavery to write a check to people who were not even alive then.
No. Nobody's talking about writing a check.
I'm not talking about writing a check.
You're not talking about writing a check.
And you can see in the comments, right?
People are going, oh boy, oh boy.
This is moving some stuff from me to you.
I don't want any of this.
There's nothing you can say to me that's going to make me think reparations are a good idea.
Watch me change your mind.
You ready? How many of you think I could change your mind in the next few minutes?
On the topic of whether reparations are a good idea or a bad idea.
None of you, right? Wouldn't you say that none of you think there's anything I could say in the next few minutes that would change your mind on it?
You think that, right? Let's see.
Give me five minutes.
Probably less. Let's just see.
Number one, listening to the people who know the most about the history, etc., including, let's say, Sheila Jackson Lee, and including listening to Cory Booker.
I listened to both of their little speeches ahead of the hearings, and they were really good.
Really, really good.
And I'll tell you what I liked about them.
They educated me about, you know, when you think about slavery, it's easy to have this sanitized version that you learned when you were in school.
Because when you're in school, you don't learn the bad stuff.
When you're in school, you learn that slavery exists, and that was bad, and they died, and maybe they were punished for things.
So you learn a lot of the bad stuff.
But you don't really learn the bad stuff.
You don't learn that rape was literally a tool of controlling the slaves.
You don't learn that.
You don't learn the really bad stuff.
So when you get a taste of this, it's good to remember it.
Now, the first thing I would say is that if you look at, say, the way Israel has weaponized the Holocaust, Now, I think we'd all agree that the Holocaust is one of the worst things, if not the worst thing, that ever happened in the entire world.
But there are plenty of other horrible human events that are on the same scale, but we don't really talk about them.
So they're not weaponized.
They don't help the people who are alive today because their stories are sort of disappearing.
Israel is very smart.
There's power in the story of the Holocaust, and so they keep it alive and use it as an asset, which has a real advantage for Israel.
I think it's smart that they do that, and it has power.
What I see is that the folks who are talking about reparations are trying to do some version of that.
In other words, they're trying to raise our awareness, how much we care about it, how much we think about it.
Is that good? Might be.
It's definitely good for the people who might want to weaponize that for some kind of negotiating, etc.
So the first thing I'll say is that we're a democracy or a democratic-like system or republic.
And I always respect it when people are doing a good job persuading on something that's a real thing.
You know, they're not making it up.
There really was the horror of slavery.
They're educating us.
I'm okay with that. So, so far, I'm okay with the conversation.
Here's the part you don't know, and here's the clever part.
When the folks who are pushing this are talking about it, they're talking about forming a committee to talk about it.
Here's how I think this is going to go.
It seems to me that reparations as a topic won't go away.
But there are two problems with it.
You can't do it because anything that we talk about in terms of doing it is so unfair to other people that you just can't get there.
It's a non-starter. At the same time, you can't stop talking about it.
So you have something that's hanging over us that you can't fix.
It's the worst possible situation.
Terrible problem, unfixable.
But it looks to me like there are some very smart people involved with this who are not saying exactly what it is that they're trying to do.
If you read between the lines, this looks like what they're trying to do.
It looks like they're trying to finesse the problem that you have this problem hanging out there that won't go away, the way we feel about slavery and the legacy, etc.
At the same time, it can't possibly be fixed.
With reparations or checks or anything obvious.
They want an off-ramp.
So the smart people are looking for an off-ramp.
And if we're smart too, we'll let them look for it.
I don't know if they can find it, but the process of talking about it is valuable.
If you can get...
You and I and the people who are not descended from slaves, if you and I will take this conversation seriously, we've made progress.
We can take it seriously and then agree with the black community, with every other community.
Once we've talked it out, once we've sort of educated the public, re-educated them about the history, then, and only then, do we have an off-ramp.
And let me give you an example.
Did you ever see the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?
There's the famous opening scene in that where there's a card game and the Sundance Kid and Butch Cassidy are there.
And the Sundance Kid is a famous gunfighter.
He's so fast he'll never lose a gunfight.
And somebody accuses him of cheating in the card game and it looks like they're going to draw down and there's going to be death right there at the card table.
Because Sundance is starting to talk about, you know, you should stop accusing me of cheating.
And, you know, and Butch Cassidy's trying to talk him down.
It's like, don't do it, don't do it, you know, because he knows that this other guy's going to get killed in a minute, so he doesn't want anybody to get killed.
And then in the famous line, Sundance says, I won't leave unless he asks me to stay.
And nobody quite understands what that means, so he has to sort of repeat it a few times.
He's looking at the guy like he's going to kill him in a second.
You know, his gun's going to come out and he's just going to blow this guy away.
He just says again, I won't leave unless they ask me to stay.
And then the guy finally gets it.
He understands who this is.
He realizes it's the Sundance kid, and he's one second from being dead.
And the guy says, would you stay and play?
And the Sundance suddenly changes from, I'm going to kill you at any second, to, no, I got to go.
He takes off his chips, and he walks away.
It seems to me That the smartest people in this conversation about reparations, it looks to me like they're smarter than maybe you thought on the surface.
I'm talking about everybody.
I'm not talking just about the civil rights leaders types.
I'm talking about the Democrats, the generic white Democrats who are part of this.
I think they're creating an off-ramp very much like the Sundance Kid.
They need to have the conversation before they can say no thank you.
Do you see it yet?
You have to have the conversation before you can say no thank you.
Doesn't sound the same now, right?
Because you're thinking about it and you thought, wait a minute, that's not exactly the way this is being reported.
No, it's not.
Because nobody can say what I just said.
Nobody can say that this is theater, but really, really useful theater.
This is theater in the best sense of government, in the best sense of healing.
I want to have this conversation.
I would like to be a constructive part of it.
I've already written about it.
I've blogged about it. I've suggested that we should do it.
Let me tell you how you could thread this needle and have reparations without any reparations.
Are you ready for this? Are you ready for me to tell you how you can have reparations for slavery at the same time there are no reparations for slavery?
Can be done. And I think that they're starting to navigate toward it.
Here it is. This is the Hawk Newsome strategy.
Hawk Newsome, leader of Black Lives Matter in New York, once told me one of the smartest things you'll ever hear.
He said that if you help the black community, You can't do it without simultaneously helping everybody who's in the same situation.
It doesn't matter your ethnicity.
The only way you can help the black community, realistically, is in a way that helps everybody.
So, hypothetically, if the government said, let's do a basket of things that are really good for people at the lowest level of the economic spectrum, We'll do some things to help them get jobs.
We'll do some things to help low-income people get to college better.
We'll get them better mentors.
We'll help them be safe.
We'll get them fed better food, maybe because nutrition matters.
Maybe we'll work on, wait for it, prison reform.
Which of the things I said are black-specific?
None. None.
There's not a single thing I said.
That is specific to the African-American community.
But if the way we get there, if the way we get there to a place where we figured out collectively an agreeable number of things we can do for the people who need the most help, if we can agree on that, it's good for everybody, the African-American community will be primarily responsible for getting that done.
They will be one of the biggest beneficiaries, just because of the numbers of people who are in different categories.
But they will not be the sole beneficiaries.
And it will be good for all.
Now, my minimum requirement for this is that the only people who pay for it are the rich.
But it should be the rich black, the rich white, the rich brown, the rich whatever else.
As long as it's the rich, not the middle class, but only the rich, That includes me.
If only the rich are paying for it, and it helps everybody, it's not limited to ethnicity, but it does help the black community more, because there might be more of them in a certain economic strata.
Would you be against that?
Because it would solve two problems.
Number one, it would help people who need help.
And number two, it would take the conversation about reparations off the table, and it would make the black community in this country the heroes.
Think about that.
Think about the legacy of slavery.
Evolving all the way through Jim Crow to a better situation to something that's a lot closer to equality in 2019.
Don't stop there.
Take it to the next level.
Take the legacy of slavery all the way through to hero status.
If the black community is the primary mover of this conversation and what it ends up with is helping white, black, brown, everybody in the lower strata, Best win of all time.
If that happens, you're going to say, Sheila Jackson Lee is one of the best politicians on the planet.
And she would be. Right?
So the small number of people who are pushing this are doing it with nuance that you don't quite appreciate.
They have a better plan than it sounds.
This is a really, really positive thing that's being presented as a stupid thing, really.
I mean, if it was just white people write checks to black people, it would be a stupid thing, but that's not going to happen.
All right, let's stop talking about that.
This topic makes people really uncomfortable.
You can see it in the comments.
People are begging me to change the topic.
Alright, but we will.
So, speaking of this stuff, Joe Biden is now...
I think he's gone to zero chance of winning.
Does anybody think Joe Biden has any chance of winning?
I thought his odds were low, but I think it's gone to zero.
And the main thing that's changed is that CNN has turned on him.
And man, did they turn on him.
So, Biden, the human gaffe machine...
He said, this is the first sentence on a CNN article about it.
So the first sentence of a CNN article about anybody tells you their editorial opinion.
The rest of the article might have some facts that sort of soften it, but look for the first sentence.
The first sentence was, This is CNN talking about Biden.
His campaign started the day by defending his nostalgia for a more civil Washington when getting things done meant working with segregationists on occasion.
So, Biden apparently praised his own ability to get things done in the past, saying that he could work with these two senators who he named who were famous for being big ol' racists.
Now, Did Biden do something wrong?
Well, in terms of a gaffe, it was a gaffe.
So yes, it was wrong in terms of he created a trap and then he fell into it.
But did he say anything wrong that makes him a racist?
No. Because the whole point of it was he could work with anybody.
And so he picked two people who were the best example of the worst people in the world.
He said, I could even work with those guys and be civil with them.
Now, maybe that's a bad idea.
Maybe that doesn't play in 2019.
So it was a gaffe.
Probably put the final nail in his attempt.
So now you see CNN headlines on their page.
It's all anti-Biden.
It's anti-Biden.
And then interspersed with, gee, Elizabeth Warren's looking good.
Bernie's falling. But how about that Elizabeth Warren?
Huh. Elizabeth Warren looks good.
Huh. What about Elizabeth Warren?
People are saying good things about her.
Huh. Elizabeth Warren's poll numbers seem to be improving.
Huh. It seems that Elizabeth Warren has lots of plans for things.
People are starting to get excited about Elizabeth Warren.
Oh, and oh, by the way, Joe Biden keeps making racist gaffes, and we're going to put a panel together to discuss whether Joe Biden is out of touch.
They're absolutely killing Joe Biden.
CNN has turned on Biden like you've never seen.
You should look at their front page today.
It's hilarious. So, or as one of the pundits on CNN said in a little clip, that it feeds the narrative Now, whose narrative was this?
But it feeds the narrative that Biden is of another time or end of step with the modern party.
And as soon as they start talking about it, it becomes the news, right?
So the more CNN asks a question, the more the question turns into effect.
So I'm just asking the question, is Biden end of step with 2019?
Just a question. What do you think?
Do you think Biden's out of step?
How about you? Should we talk about how Biden might be out of step?
I'm not saying he is, but let's talk about it.
It's a question. Until they talk about it, until it just becomes what everybody believes is true.
You must be out of touch.
So it's clear that they're taking him out.
Talking about Warren, here's another statement from this on CNN, that she has a plan for everything and people are craving substance.
Are they? Are people craving substance?
Have they ever met people?
If there's one thing I know about people, they're not craving substance.
That's one thing they're not craving.
They're craving a good show.
They're craving revenge.
They're craving money. They're craving sex and food.
People crave a lot of stuff, but you know what people never, ever crave?
Political substance.
The fact that they would even say that on CNN is hilarious, because nothing could be less true than that.
But this gets better. Oh, and let me make an overall statement about Biden that is everything you need to know.
Whoever is the candidate for the Democrats becomes the de facto, let's say, figurehead or logo or brand for CNN and MSNBC. So, CNN and the embassy and the other anti-Trump news, they start by just talking about these candidates.
So at first, it's just, hey, let's talk about Biden, we'll talk about these other candidates, Buttigieg had a good week, blah, blah, blah.
So in the beginning, it's easy, you're just talking about them.
But there's some point, and I wish I'd said this ahead of time because it was easy to predict, but now it's sort of too late.
So it's not a prediction, it's just something for you to look at.
Once it becomes clear that one of them might win, or that somebody pulls out in the polls, as Biden did, then instead of just talking about them, they're imagining their future in which they talk nonstop about how great Biden is.
Let's say you're the executives and the on-air hosts of CNN. Do you want a year from now to be spending all your time talking about how awesome Joe Biden is?
That's not a good accessory.
In other words, it doesn't go well with your clothing.
It doesn't fit your brand.
It's boring TV, as somebody's saying in the comments.
It's a really bad future.
And I think that CNN and probably the rest of the anti-Trump media has now had to, like, live with the imagined future of a Biden candidacy, or worse yet, a Biden presidency, and they're saying, he becomes our brand.
You know who's good for the brand?
Who is really good for CNN's brand?
Who is really good for MSNBC's brand?
Obama. Whether you love Obama or you dislike Obama, that's not the question right now.
The fact is, he was pretty cool.
Still is pretty cool.
You can hate him and all the political reasons you hate him and you think he's the devil incarnate, whatever.
But he's still cool.
He was a cool, interesting, overachieving, you know, surprise came from nowhere.
Black guy. He was cool.
He's still cool.
I'm not a big fan, by the way.
I'm not a big Obama fan.
But you can't separate from the fact, pretty cool guy.
Cool president. And so you're CNN, and you say to yourself, do I want to associate with a cool black guy?
You know, he's young. You know, he's just got a lot going on in the coolness area.
And the answer is, heck yeah.
Heck yeah, you want to associate with that, because that's cool.
Now imagine they have to live with old man Biden as essentially their mascot for four years.
Oh my God, it's horrible.
So it was predictable that they would have to make a change.
Here's the best part. I'm saving the best part.
So one of Sanders' top advisors is Simone Sanders.
You know her as one of the, I don't know how much she's on CNN lately because she's taken this role, but she was one of the more prominent pundits on CNN. And she was one who was always calling President Trump a racist.
So there are two just precious tweets from her this morning.
She's responding to the fact that people are getting on Biden for saying that he could work with these segregationists.
So Simone says in her tweets today, two tweets.
First one, Joe Biden did not praise a segregationist.
That is a disingenuous take.
He basically said sometimes in Congress one has to work with terrible or downright racist folks to get things done.
And then went on to say that you can't work with them, work around them.
Now, Simone's take on this is 100% correct.
100% correct.
Joe Biden is being misinterpreted.
They are making something out of nothing.
And then she correctly says, no, it's more of a statement about Joe Biden being able to work with anybody.
The whole point is that they're terrible people.
He's not agreeing with them.
He's calling them terrible.
That's the point. He can work with anybody, even if they're terrible.
So, first part of her tweet, I agree completely.
But you know what's funny about it?
She's one of the biggest pushers of the fine people hoax.
She got fine people hoaxed herself.
This whole thing about Biden praising a segregationist never happened.
It's fake news.
She is the biggest pusher of the fake news about Charlottesville, and it happened to her.
So, Karma just gave her her own fine people hoax, and she'll probably never get out of it.
But it gets better. There were two parts to her tweet.
Here's the second part.
Then Simone Sanders says, tweet number two, let's be honest here.
And then she goes on to be dishonest.
She goes, let's be honest here.
A person currently sits in the White House, who has, in all capital, actually praised white supremacists.
That's the fine people hoax.
He never did that. In fact, he condemned them.
The very thing she says happened is the opposite of what happened.
Easy to check. Just read the transcript.
She's been pushing this fine people hoax harder than just about anybody on CNN, and she just got totally trapped by it.
So, I may have tweeted back a couple of responses to her.
You might want to read those just for your entertainment.
Let's talk about something else.
God, that was a delicious story.
That's my favorite story of like the whole month, is that she got fine people hoaxed on herself.
That could not have been more perfect.
It just couldn't. All right.
Iran has shot down a US drone.
We say it was in international waters.
They say it went over Iran at some point.
But here's what's interesting.
When in our history, our military history of Earth, how often do you get to attack something that doesn't have a human in it?
Attacking somebody's drones It's starting to get really close to a Star Trek, the first Star Trek series on TV plot.
You know which one I'm talking about?
So there was a futuristic scene in Star Trek in which they found some planet that was at war.
But instead of having a real war where people were getting killed fighting each other, they would have some kind of a simulated war in the computer.
And then whoever won the simulated war, the other side, the losers, would have to have their citizens, you know, go to voluntary, you know, a death machine.
So it would go into some machine that would just kill them.
So instead of having a proper war, there would be the same number of people dead, but they wouldn't do a physical war.
They'd just kill the people who lost.
This shooting down a drone kind of tells you what the future looks like, right?
Here's what the future looks like.
Whoever owns the sky will win every war, if they care enough to fight it.
So because of the power of drones, whoever owns the airspace over a country effectively owns that country in the future, wouldn't you say?
And most of that doesn't need to be real people.
So the Air Force in the future will be unarmed drones, because why would you put a person there?
You don't need to. And there will be lots of them.
And the unarmed drones will fight it out.
Now, do the unarmed drones need to kill people?
They don't. Because whoever owns the airspace can simply tell those people, you better do what we want, because now we own the airspace, because we can kill you at will.
We can do anything we want with your country, because we own the space above it.
So in the future, undoubtedly, entire wars will be fought by unmanned vehicles in the sky.
And they'll be, you know, they'll be falling like flies as they shoot each other.
Eventually, one force, one country or one entity, will win, and only their drones will be in the sky.
At that point, the war is over, because the humans underneath have no chance against the drones.
They have no chance.
Drones can just hang up there all day long.
If you go outdoors, they kill you, unless you do what the country with the drones tells you to do.
So I think we're going to see entire wars that fought Without a single human being being involved.
Right? Why wouldn't that be the case?
Now, you could say, hey, we control the sky over countries that we can't conquer, but that's with human aircraft.
If you've got drones, and you could have almost a ceiling of drones at all times, you can just see everything.
You can shoot everything.
You would not be able to run any kind of a country That's blanketed with drones from an enemy.
You just couldn't do it. So I think that's where we're going.
We're going to wars that there are no humans involved.
Just no humans. The humans just find out who won at the end.
Except, you know, the humans are running the drones.
All right. Lindsey Graham has said...
That we should make a target list, and if Iran continues making trouble, military trouble, that we should, quote, take out their navy and maybe their refineries.
Now, that would be some serious stuff, wouldn't it?
And I thought to myself, probably do need to do that.
I think the odds of us taking out the entire Iranian navy, as well as their refineries, is pretty good.
I'd put the odds at 50-50.
I think we're up to 50-50 chance that we will militarily take out their entire Navy and some or all of their refineries.
I think that'll happen. 50-50 chance.
One other thing about Elizabeth Warren, if Elizabeth Warren makes it to the big show, and she's the candidate against Trump, and I'm not predicting this, I'm just saying that if it happened, if it happened, wouldn't she look like the grandmother running against the dad?
Because even though I think she's younger than Trump, right?
But she comes off as older because she's got the grandma glasses and the grandma haircut and stuff.
And Trump doesn't quite look like a grandfather, right?
I mean, he is, but he feels more like the older dad.
And so here's the interesting thing.
I think when everything's going great, grandma looks like a pretty good deal because she'll make you some cocoa and give you a hug.
Yeah, that's all you need. Things are going great.
Give me a hug. Give me a cocoa.
When things are dangerous, the more the way they were when Trump came into power, then you want the badass dad.
You want the one who goes downstairs with the baseball bat.
Now again, I'm talking in human stereotypes.
I'm not saying that there are no badass grandmas who are good with a gun.
I'm not saying every dad will pick up a baseball bat and take care of work.
People are all different. But in our stereotypical biased heads, it's going to look like grandma versus dad.
Right? How does that turn out?
Well, the other thing that Grandma has, Grandma Warren, I don't know if she's actually a grandma, but she just projects sort of grandmotherly qualities, which, by the way, does not eliminate anybody from being president.
I'm not saying that's bad at all.
It could be the perfect vibe for the country in the right circumstances.
But she has two bigger problems.
Here are Warren's two biggest problems.
She's a lawyer and an academic.
And for every person who says, yes, I crave substance, and I want to hear all of her policy ideas, and my god, she certainly understands the details of the policy.
For every person who says that, there are going to be three people who say, she's boring, and I don't like her energy, and she just doesn't seem like she's strong.
So her strengths, unfortunately, don't translate well to the political realm.
Trump's strengths translate perfectly because he understands that facts don't matter and that how people feel matters.
Warren believes that how people think matters and not how they feel so much.
That should be a blowout if she is the candidate.
I still think that when Biden and Sanders tank, which I predict will happen, if Warren became the top in the polls, or close to the top in the polls, I think that you would see also Kamala Harris starting to creep up into that second or third position.
And I've always said she's the sleeper.
I think Kamala Harris is the sleeper here.
Somebody's prompted me to talk about the Central Park Five.
Well, the Central Park Five is another story that's similar to the Fine People hoax in the sense that Trump used the attention that that story got to make a larger case about having the death penalty.
Then people illegitimately said, oh, he wants to kill innocent black people, therefore he's a racist.
Nothing like that happened.
And even though he is concerned that the five were guilty of other crimes, remember the prosecutor, well not everybody knows this, but the woman who prosecuted the case agreed that they were not guilty of the primary crime, but they were guilty in her opinion, and there was plenty of evidence for it in her opinion, that they could have got a conviction on other similar bad behavior that night.
But not that specific crime.
So, Trump made a statement about crime in general, never mentioned ethnicity, did not mention specifically these people, but it's obvious that's what inspired it.
Being against crime is pretty different than being a racist.
I'm pretty sure you can be black and not like crime.
I think that's a thing.
Pretty sure. So the Central Park 5 thing is just one of the backup hoaxes in case the fine people hoax falls apart, which it is.
Apparently, a number of companies are moving out of China.
I wasn't sure this was going to happen, and I'm still not sure it is happening.
But Fox News has a list of several, fewer than ten, but they're big companies, who are either considering a move or are planning to move out of China.
Now, you should be careful about making too much of this, because I don't know this is true.
But I'm going to speculate that if you were to throw a dart at a timeline, anytime you looked at companies moving in around China, there would probably always be a few companies who were considering moving out.
Is that true? Somebody fact check me on this.
But it seems to me that where you do your production is an ongoing revised process all the time.
So even if you had moved to China 10 years ago, you're probably still looking at Vietnam.
You probably have somebody in your big multinational corporation whose job it is.
To look at China and say, okay, that was a good idea 10 years ago, but Vietnam is making us an excellent offer, or Guatemala or something.
So I don't know if we're seeing a real uptick in companies leaving.
But here's what we are seeing.
We're seeing the risk of companies staying go up considerably.
I think we're seeing companies say to themselves, hey, it doesn't look like there's any chance of a real trade deal with China.
By a real trade deal, I mean one in which they're not stealing our technology and using it to build a military to oppose us.
If you are an Apple computer And you're saying, okay, at the moment, we can sort of get away with having a Chinese production facility, but it's starting to shape up the way public opinion is moving, because the president's moving public opinion on this amazingly.
I mean, it's one of his greatest successes is how he's moved public opinion on both sides about China's unfair trade practices.
There will be a point coming very soon where if you're a great American company, That you can't, even on your own conscience, you can't be in China.
So if you're a public company and you care about what your customers and your stockholders say, you're going to be looking at this situation and you're going to say, you know, it's sort of okay now, but it would be actually dumb to plan a move into China.
Could we agree...
That if you were contemplating moving to China before, let's say a few years ago, you were ramping up and saying, yeah, we've targeted China.
We want to build some facilities.
Would it be fair to say that you would not proceed with that project if you had to decide today?
So if you're sitting around a meeting table today in a big Fortune 500 company and somebody says to the boss, we need a final decision.
Are we going to move our production into China?
What's the CEO going to say?
Hold. Give me some options.
No smart CEO would commit a large amount of resources to moving into China under these conditions.
And it doesn't look like those conditions are going to change.
I don't see China moving against fentanyl.
They talked about it, but there's no action.
I don't see them doing anything really about theft of intellectual property.
I don't see them ramping down their military.
And their military seems primarily aimed at us, right?
China's entire military, who else are they fighting with?
They don't have anyone else to fight.
They're cool with Russia.
What do they need a navy for?
They don't need a navy to fight Russia, right?
The navy is about us.
So, I don't think an American company can move into China.
There's the big story.
The big story is not how many are moving out.
The big story is that nobody's going to move in.
That's done.
In my opinion, any big company that makes a new decision, one that they can actually decide either way, No big company can do that now.
When was the last time you heard some big company announce they're moving to China?
It would be suicide.
It would be crazy.
It wouldn't matter what the tax situation or the employment situation is.
You just wouldn't do it.
So I think that you might see at first a slow trickle of people moving out of China, but every day that the trade negotiations go on, and it seems more and more obvious that no deal can be reached, Because apparently China doesn't do business that way.
Apparently China does not do honest business where they make a deal and then they keep it.
It just doesn't seem to be part of the set of possible things.
And as long as that's the case, I would expect China's economy to crash in the next 20 years.
So that's my prediction.
China's economy will take quite a beating in the next 20 years.
All right. That is what I wanted to talk about today.
I have these little pieces of paper so I look more like a real newsman.
Check that off. Check that off.
Check that off. All right.
Can we laugh a little more?
Somebody says. I don't know.
What's funny? Let's talk about concentration camps.
So one of the things that is very amusing about AOC... Is that she can even tell you what she's doing and you'll still act like it's not happening.
So she did it again.
She's right in her sweet spot.
So she called the detention centers for immigrants on the border.
She called them concentration camps.
What happened when she called them concentration camps?
Well, suddenly we started seeing photos of these detention centers, which I've never seen.
Had you ever seen a photo of the detention centers?
I hadn't. But as soon as she calls them concentration camps, Photos all over, right?
So suddenly we know a lot more about these detention centers.
Suddenly the priority of them has gone up.
We're talking about AOC. We're talking about the detention centers.
We're talking about a topic in which she is relatively strong because she's got sort of a moral argument, if not a practical one.
It's not very practical.
And everybody's saying, AOC, how dare you compare this to Hitler?
How dare you compare this to the Holocaust?
And they're completely correct.
As I often say, there are at least two things you should never compare.
Don't compare the Holocaust to anything, ever.
There's no right time to compare anything to the Holocaust.
And American slavery.
There's nothing like it.
Stop saying there's anything like slavery in America.
There are other slavery situations, but these are unique things and you should never compare anything to them.
You just look dumb.
But she did it.
And she did it.
She did it.
That's funny. The people who come in here and...
Anyway, I'll just block that troll.
And... So anyway, AOC is doing what she's really, really, really good at, even if you don't like a lot of things about her.
She focused all attention on the thing that helps her, helps the Democrats, and hurts the President.
And maybe could someday help the immigrants themselves, although I'm not sure that that's the top priority for AOC. I'm not reading her mind, I just don't know one way or the other.
So, there's still people on here saying AOC is an irritate head and she looks pretty dumb.
You are so missing the show.
For those of you who don't know, AOC was selected based on an American Idol-like contest.
She literally auditioned for the job of politician with Democratic people who knew how to pick people.
It's not an accident that she's this good.
It's not an accident.
She was selected out of thousands of people because she can do this.
This is special.
You don't have to like it.
But it's special. And she can reproduce it over and over again.
And every time she does, people say, that's a stupid thing she's saying.
How could she be so dumb?
And then we go on and talk about all the things she wants us to focus on.
And she gets more powerful.
And it's all because of our reaction to her.
All right. So that's all I have to say about her.
And by the way, you know what the smartest thing...
Well, no. Never mind.
mind.
I'm not going to say that.
I changed my mind in mid-sentence.
She All right.
Right.
She like you now.
I'm looking at your comments.
I just want to make sure I haven't missed any topics that you want to talk about here.
Alright, there's just more bad AOC stuff.
You know, it's kind of, I don't know, it makes me sad that you can't appreciate the talent at the same time maybe you're hating her politics.
I feel like you could hate her politics and still respect how effective she is.
I feel like you could do that because I hate her politics.
You know, there are things which she said, calling, you know, Republicans racist every five minutes, etc.
There are things I absolutely deplore about her stated opinions.
Who knows what she's thinking?
But man, you can't say it's not effective.
Oh, the Libra.
So Facebook is introducing its own crypto.
That's the scariest thing in the world, isn't it?
Is there anything you would want less than Facebook to control your money?
That just feels like the worst idea in the world on just sort of a conceptual level.
You don't even need to know the details.
You know, just start with this.
Hey, Facebook wants to control money.
What? What?
What? It's crazy.
So let me give you an update on my own shadow banning.
I expect that this video will get demonetized, almost certainly.
So this video...
So remember what I talked about here.
So during this periscope, was there any material on here that you think is controversial or should be demonetized?
Anything? No.
No, in fact, I came out in favor of the fine people, different fine people, but the good people who are talking about reparations, I'm on the side of the angels, right?
There's nothing I said on here that should be demonetized.
But I am calling out the fine people hoax again.
I didn't want to, but it was in the news again.
So this will be demonetized.
Or it will be like my video yesterday where I did a test where instead of saying fine people hoax, I just used the letters FPH. I wanted to see if their speech-to-text would pick that up and flag it by its initials.
In theory, it would not.
And what happened, instead of getting demonetized, the video was suppressed for the first several hours.
So it was completely throttled back.
It was sort of taken out of the recommended video cues.
So if it doesn't get recommended to people, it just is limited to the audience itself, and that's much smaller.
I complained about it in public and said it had to be human interference or human intervention.
There had to be a human being who is watching my videos and probably other political voices and looked at it and said, we don't want this opinion To be seen.
They didn't demonetize it.
They just throttled it.
Which is way, in a way, demonetizing at least is honest.
But since you can't defend the demonetization, it's better to hide it.
Because when you demonetize, people complain.
Hey, I'm demonetized.
But when they just hide your traffic, you can't tell unless you look at the curve, and then it's really obvious.
So let me explain to you.
So there's a...
Within YouTube, there are these analytics.
And one of the things they'll do is, if you've had lots of videos, they'll show you sort of a zone...
That your video traffic is almost certainly going to be in if it's like the others.
Because it's a pretty big zone.
It's your worst video and your best video, so there's a lot of space in there for where the new one is.
The first one, if this is normal, the first one did this.
It was a straight line for like hours.
It's not even possible.
You can't get that curve of just like a straight line when all of your videos go like this.
Just one for several hours just goes into a straight line at zero.
It was pretty obvious that that was human intervention.
And whoever that human is knows I'm talking about them right now.
So here's the weird part.
There's somebody watching this, probably.
I don't know if they watch it to the end, but there's probably somebody watching it right now whose job it is to suppress my voice, or at least they think it is.
They think it's their job.
But I want you to look at this video, because I'm talking to you now, whoever's watching me for YouTube.
Tell me if there was anything in here that cannot be validated by looking at the Find People transcript.
You can look at it yourself. Just Google it, Find People transcripts.
Charlottesville transcript. See it for yourself.
There's nothing I said that's untrue, and there's nothing I said that would be even slightly, slightly socially unacceptable.
Do your job.
Please. Just do your job.
And that message is for whoever's watching.
▲
Export Selection