All Episodes
Previous Next
June 24, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
49:09
Episode 576 Scott Adams: Middle East Peace, Project Veritas, Trump = JFK, Advice for Kamala Harris
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Dale.
Come on in here. Zeno Keen, good to see you.
Where are the rest of you?
Hey, hey. Where is everybody?
Come on, come on, hurry up.
We've got to have some coffee. There's so many things to talk about.
Get in here. Come on.
Gather round. Do you have your beverage?
Because you know what time it is.
It's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
Sean, be nice.
Be nice. All right.
If you've got a cup or a glass or a mug, maybe a stein or a chalice or a tankard, if you have some kind of a thermos or a flask, possibly a vessel of any kind, and you filled it with your favorite liquid, then you're ready.
For that intense pleasure that I call the simultaneous sip.
Sip. Sip.
I call it the simultaneous sip.
Not step. There's no such thing as a simultaneous step.
Don't do that. Do the simultaneous sip.
It starts now. Shudder.
So good. So good to see all of you.
You make my morning better all the time.
No Scaredy Cat USA? That's a funny name.
Alright. Let's talk about all the funny stories of the day.
Number one. My video, was it yesterday?
My video for June 22nd was instantly demonetized.
I think it was the 22nd.
So, you've been watching me for a while.
Would you agree As far as I know, I've never...
So I've got 500-some videos, right?
So I've got over 500 videos.
Those of you who've watched pretty much every one of them, would you agree that I've never said anything, not even close, that would be in sort of a terms-of-service problem, a banning situation?
Would you agree that I've never said anything that was close to the line?
Right? And I'm demonetized consistently.
So here's the thing.
I was looking at my YouTube analytics, and it's got little messages of encouragement when your videos do well.
It's a really...
Let me say this.
The YouTube... Interface and ecosystem is really well made.
From an engineering perspective, it's just brilliant work.
And one of the things they do is they compliment you if your video is doing well.
The machine compliments you.
So the machine is telling me that I'm doing great.
On my views.
Subscriber interest is high.
I'm killing my numbers.
I'm putting on subscribers like crazy.
My watch time is up.
All my stats are up.
Except for monetization, which is down.
So, interest is up.
I have violated no rules.
Not even close. Because I'm literally...
Running sort of a long-term experiment to see if I stay way away from any lines that would be controversial if I still get demonetized.
And the answer is yes.
I get demonetized like crazy.
Apparently because of topics.
Which leads us into Project Veritas video that came out today.
And what it shows is a Google employee who seems to be in the know, talking about their algorithm and their AI, etc., with some troubling quotes.
Troubling quotes.
But here's the problem.
The troubling quotes are not quite as clear as you'd want them to be.
So, for example, The Google employee, I think she'd be an executive, I think she's in management somehow, said that they want to, quote, prevent another Trump situation.
And they also talk about if they'd done things differently in 2016, she asks, would the result have been different?
She also said...
Let's see. Let's see if I can find that.
I want to find some actual quotes here that are damning.
So this is from Janae.
So her name is Google Executive, and her name is Jen Janae.
And she says, quote, We all got screwed over in 2016.
Again, it wasn't just us.
It was the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like everybody got screwed over.
So we're rapidly been like, happened there, and how do we prevent it from happening again?
Prevent what? Prevent it from happening?
Prevent what? Prevent it from happening again.
We're also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?
So the first thing she says is that everybody got screwed.
Now, is she saying that the people on the left got screwed?
Or the people on the right got screwed?
Neither. She's saying everybody got screwed.
So is it damning to say that everybody got a bad result?
Meaning that there was something that made everybody unhappy?
Because if she was talking about the fact that they were...
That the social media had waited one way or the other, left or right, half of the country would have been happy.
But she's talking about whatever she's talking about is something that would make, she says, everybody unhappy.
Everybody got screwed.
The people got screwed.
The news media, Google got screwed.
So what is she talking about that would mean everybody got screwed?
And the answer is, I don't know.
I don't know what that means.
So is she saying that something unbiased happened and they want to make it biased next time?
Well, she's not saying that.
So I would say the way it's expressed here and the context it's given makes you say, whoa, you know, all my flags are up.
This is terrible. Why are you saying that?
And then I look at it and I say, But I don't know exactly what she means.
And if I don't know what she means, I'm going to withhold my judgment.
But she says a lot more, so this might clear it up.
She says, Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google.
And like, I love her, but she's very misguided.
Like, that will not make it better.
It will make it worse. Because all of these smaller companies, who don't have the same resources that we do, meaning Google...
We'll be charged with preventing the next Trump situation.
It's like a small company cannot do that.
So she's saying that Google could prevent the next Trump situation, but smaller companies perhaps could not.
And so all of you just said, are you kidding?
She just admitted she wants to prevent another Trump from getting elected?
That's what you just thought, right?
When I read that, did you think, wow, she just said in direct terms she doesn't want Trump to get re-elected again and they can change it with her AI. Is that what you heard?
It's not what she said.
It's not what she said.
That's what the headlines say.
That's what Twitter says.
But it's not what she says.
She calls it a Trump situation.
What's that mean? What is the Trump situation?
Well, I think the Trump situation could be Trump got elected, and that's the way most people are interpreting it.
But that's not necessarily what it means.
It could be Russia ran some troll ads and it took them too long to find them.
Right? If what she's talking about is finding foreign interference or finding trolls, etc., and that's the reason that she thinks maybe Trump was helped, is that evil?
Would it be evil to prevent a Trump situation, which for the left seems to be a Trump situation is that Russia helps Trump get elected?
Would it be inappropriate for Google to say we'd like to prevent that again?
That wouldn't be inappropriate. In fact, every Republican would be in favor of that.
I'm watching the rebellion in the comments.
So, trust me, I see what you're saying, and you're resisting my interpretation, right?
But I'm not giving you an interpretation.
I'm telling you that what you have could be interpreted two ways.
So I'm not telling you to interpret it the other way.
I'm telling you that what we have has two movies, and they're both supported by the facts.
So Scott, quit it.
All right, so here's the thing.
Before you make up your mind on this, you need to hear what Jen Jenay says in response or Google says on her behalf.
I don't know if she'll be able to respond because Google lawyers would say, you know, let us respond perhaps.
But until you hear her version of what she meant, you don't know anything yet.
You don't know anything until you hear her version.
How many times have you watched your side, whatever your side is, you know, the people on both sides here, but how many times have you heard your side taken out of context in the past three years?
A lot, right?
A lot! In fact, it's more common than being taken in context.
The most common thing in politics is to be taken out of context.
So all of these statements Look, when they're taken out of context, very, very damning, and I hear you.
I hear you. If somebody said, we've got to fix this Trump situation, bam, red flag, red flag, red flag, red flag, red flag, sets off all of your alarms, and it should.
It should set off all of your alarms.
These words are very scary words, and in other parts, they're saying quite directly, They're saying directly that they can control what people are seeing.
But she does talk about fairness.
What's that mean? Well, that's a problem, because fairness is an opinion.
There's no such thing as fairness.
The universe does not give you fairness.
Fairness is only subjective.
Completely subjective.
So if you have Google working on getting more fairness, that's a problem.
Because that's their opinion of fairness.
Fairness is not a thing you could measure with any kind of reliability.
So, I would say we've got a major problem.
And the major problem is that our primary, let's say, gatekeeper to reality, Google in this case, but also the other social media, the gatekeepers to reality are not credible.
That's the problem.
The problem that we can't determine is how unfair they are, because partly that's an opinion, and partly we don't have enough information.
So we can't see all the ins and outs.
So we can't see what they're doing.
Do we have reason to think that this is a dangerous situation?
Absolutely.
Does it threaten the integrity of our entire republic?
Absolutely. Because it reduces credibility.
When I see this Project Veritas stuff, and I see that Google can manipulate the results, is talking about manipulating the results, Knows how to manipulate the results and says they want more fairness next time, which is purely subjective.
Is that a problem you can live with?
Nope. No, you can't live with that, right?
So here's the thing.
No matter what you think of Project Veritas, whether this is a...
if you think this is a smoking gun, where they've admitted that they're rigging the system, or even if you think it's not a smoking gun, it's exactly the same.
Do you get that?
It doesn't matter How you interpreted this.
If you interpreted it as a clean admission that they're manipulating and trying to keep Trump from being elected, well that's bad.
But it's just as bad if none of that's true.
It's just as bad.
Because if all they're doing is saying, yes, we can change the election results, we're going to change the election results by how we change the algorithm, and we're going for what we consider fair, That's the end of the story.
That's all you need to know.
Because those facts alone, without the smoking gun of admission of what they've done or plan to do, without that, it's 100% bad.
Because it takes all credibility out of the system, and it shows you that you're voting.
It's either programmed by the system or doesn't matter.
So I push again that the government needs to take some steps to get a handle on this for the benefit of the people.
Short of telling us what the algorithms are.
I don't think the public should see the algorithms, because then we would game them.
We'd try to figure out ways to manipulate the system.
So I think there does need to be some kind of proprietary element to the algorithm for practical reasons, but I think maybe a special judge or a special social media court could be in charge.
Let me give you a new framework for this.
Is artificial intelligence, not the kind we have yet, but the kind it's becoming, you know, because it'll get better and better over time, at what point would we need a court for artificial intelligence?
Just blew your mind.
Because we have human courts to judge guilt for human beings.
We do not have a court to judge guilt for animals because animals are not intelligent.
They don't make decisions, etc.
They're not guilty per se.
But what about an AI? An AI could actually commit a crime and know it was doing it.
It could know it was a crime and do it anyway.
Should we have someday a court, a human court, To try algorithms.
Should an algorithm ever be put on trial?
Because the human creates the algorithm, and so you'd say, no, no, it's not the algorithm, it's the human.
But aren't we approaching a point where the algorithm will program itself?
Meaning that we'll create algorithms that can look at the environment and make its own decisions about how to change things.
And at some point, will humans lose the ability to know where it will all end up?
Because if humans don't even know where it's all going to end up, that's sort of like the AI has free will, at least as much as humans do.
And if that's the case, if that's the case, maybe we need a court, a special court.
But in the short run, I think we need a special judge to look at the algorithms to protect the Protect the country.
Alright. Let's talk about Bernie Sanders.
Oh, Lindahl. Let's talk about the NBA. So the NBA has decided that they will no longer call the people who own the teams owners.
So they don't want to call the NBA team owners owners anymore because most of their Employees are black.
And so you don't want to have a company where most of the employees are black and the common name of the team owner is owner.
Now, your first impression of that is, come on, come on, that's too much political correctness.
To which I say, no, it's not.
No, it's not. That's not too much political correctness.
I'm completely in favor of that.
I expect 100% disagreement on this.
Here's my standard.
There are things which are silly and there are things which are important.
What we call things is usually in the silly category, right?
It doesn't matter what we call it.
That's not important. But how would you like it?
How would you like to be a black athlete on a team where your boss is called your owner?
I don't know. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to suggest there might be a better word for it.
I don't think anybody should go to jail if they use the wrong word.
I don't think it should be a thing.
I don't think anybody should be ostracized if they say owner instead of...
They want to call them governors, I guess.
But I'm in favor of it.
I think that's a low-cost...
You know, it's well-intentioned.
I'm okay with that. But I acknowledge that most of you think it's silly.
All right. Bernie Sanders has a plan to eliminate all student debt and make college and trade schools free.
And he would do that by taxing Wall Street transactions.
So you'd get taxed if you sell a stock, I guess, or sell an asset.
And... It is surprisingly a better idea than I expected.
Now, I've been saying forever that I'm left to Bernie, but without the bad math, because the math just doesn't work.
Because normally you think of an income tax to pay for all these things he wants.
But when he puts it in terms of a Wall Street tax, it turns out to be such a small percentage of these gigantic transactions that you and I wouldn't even notice it.
It's almost like free money because it's coming from the richest of the rich who are moving billions of dollars around.
And if his numbers are right, It's a surprisingly strong plan because here's the thing.
Let me give this some context.
When you tax, if you were to tax the middle class to pay for other people's student loans, well, that's not going to be very popular, right?
Because the middle class would have spent that money, and that would have been good for the economy.
But now that money is taken away, and they have to struggle, and it just helps somebody else who might have been middle class.
So it's, you know, taxing the middle class just doesn't make a lot of sense economically.
But taxing the richest of the rich for financial transactions alone, where they're just moving paper back and forth, if that resulted in a better educated population at the low end, and people who had more spending money because they didn't have to pay their loans, who would that benefit the most?
Who would make the most profit because people's student loans got cancelled?
It would be exactly the people who got taxed.
So in other words, the richest of the rich do well whenever the country does well.
They do disproportionately well.
If the country goes up 5% in, say, economy, the richest of the rich might double because they always have the better deals.
So when things are going up, they just gain more than other people gain.
So, I have a real question about Bernie's plan.
And I know you don't want to hear this, but I'd like to see what the economists say about it.
Because this might actually work.
Right? I mean, believe me, if this had been an income tax plan, where middle class and up were paying income tax, you know, more income tax to lower the cost of college, I'd say, no way.
You know, that doesn't sound good.
But this tax on Wall Street assets ends up taxing the people who will actually benefit the most by a good workforce.
It's not bad.
It's not bad.
Now, I don't know if Bernie will be able to sell it as well as I just sold it.
I mean, I could probably sell his plan better than he could sell it.
But wait for this argument.
Wait to see if Bernie closes the loop and says, I'm going to tax the rich Wall Street people because an educated population benefits them the most.
So for them, it's actually an investment.
But it's a long-term investment.
Somebody's saying, good grief, it won't.
So I'm putting this as a question mark.
So I'm not telling you that it would benefit them more than the cost.
I'm saying it's definitely worth a look, because we don't know.
And I like to hear what some economists say, even if I don't believe them.
All right. San Diego is building some tent cities for all of its poor.
So I guess they're putting in a lot of money into building some kind of tent structures to take care of all the homeless.
And I have the following question.
You have all of these cities and municipalities who have lots of things to do.
You know, they've got garbage to pick up and crime to fight and everything.
So cities are really busy.
But these cities, on top of all that busyness they already had, are having the smallish issue of homelessness turn into a gigantic issue.
Are the cities qualified to take that on?
Maybe not. But what about this?
At some level of homelessness, and we've probably achieved that, Would it make sense to build what I'll call poor city?
A city that didn't exist before.
Let's say you find some place in the world where the land is cheap and the weather is reasonable all year long.
So it's probably California sort of weather.
Find a place and build a city there that's just for poor people.
Then, ship the poor people from the various cities where there are homeless everywhere to one place where you can do it right.
Because cities are not really qualified to handle this gigantic problem that went from small to big fairly suddenly.
But if you had one place where everybody could say, okay, all we need to do is organize a bus trip, And all you homeless people who need a place, we're going to bus you to poor city.
And you're going to maybe learn some stuff.
Maybe, you know, maybe they'll have better services.
But at the very least, I would think the economics of centralizing your homelessness situation would be extraordinary.
Am I wrong? From a purely economic perspective, Wouldn't it be better to have one poor city so that all, let's say, all of the California cities could ship their poor to that one place for the maximum qualified economical way to handle it instead of every city trying to reproduce things with limited space and time and resources?
So I'll just put that out there.
I think we may be seeing The development of whole new cities.
And then the second part would be, if you had all this labor that is in these homeless places, could you also deal with their, you know, drug addiction, their mental illness in a more effective way because of economies of scale?
And... And here's another problem that nobody talks about.
Let me say this is not my original idea.
I don't think the person who gave it to me maybe wants to take credit for it, so I'll hold off on that for now.
But if you look at the difficulty in finding a home in, let's say, a Southern California city, Los Angeles, for example, part of that is because there are so many people who have come in through immigration who are just filling up those places.
So one of the things that's happening with the homeless is that they're not just people who can't afford homes, But the secondary problem is immigrants who can afford homes.
Because if you bring in lots of people who can afford homes at the low end, then the people who used to be able to afford them don't have as many homes.
So there's a great deal of competition at the low end, creating more homelessness, not just of the people coming in, but the people they replace by taking up the homes that people who are already here could have used.
We don't hear anybody talk about that.
All right. I think maybe this will end up being some kind of a solution for urban blight.
Maybe it will get us closer to building homes.
Somebody says concentration camp.
Yeah. Anytime you concentrate people in one place, it's a concentration camp, according to some people.
All right. Let's talk about the new Iran sanctions.
Why is it there are always more sanctions we can put on?
Does it seem to you that we should run out of things to sanction after a while?
But I guess the pressure is going to be on Iran some more.
At the same time, that a top Saudi diplomat is reported to have said, and I'm a little wary of this because the diplomat is not named.
But a top Saudi diplomat says it's time for the Arab world to realize that the, quote, age of war with Israel is over.
So there's a top Saudi diplomat probably talking with the blessing of the boss.
So Saudi Arabia's position seems to be, if you believe the unnamed Saudi diplomat, That's history.
It's over. It's time to work together.
Now, why is that important?
Well, the obvious reasons.
Let me read it again to you and see if you can pick out the key word in the statement.
It's time for the Arab world to realize that the age of war with Israel is over.
Key word, Arab.
So the Saudi is saying it's time for the Arab world to realize that the age of war with Israel is over.
Do you know who's not in the Arab world?
Iran. Because Iranians are not Arab.
So, Iran seems to be the one that's going to be on the ounce with both the entire Arab world, or at least most of it, if not almost all of it, as well as Israel, as well as the United States, etc.
So, it's more isolation for Iran.
And that's a big deal.
Now, let's talk about Jared Kushner's peace plan for the Middle East.
Let's look at it, you know, obviously...
I think it's obvious that if the Trump administration had a Middle East peace plan, that we'd all be talking about it, and it would be the top of the news.
So let me go to Fox News, and I'll read from just...
This is the top page of Fox News, and I want to read about the Middle East peace plan.
He's offering them the deal of the century.
Okay, I was just going to make a plan that I now revise.
I was going to make a point that I'm revising, which is...
I couldn't figure out why there wasn't enough talk about it.
And so I guess I'll need to read this story.
But the $15 billion in grants and $25 billion in low-interest loans and $11 billion in private equity.
I don't see where it's coming from, though.
They said the White House money would be invested over 10 years.
And the White House.
Lead to investments in other places.
All right, so this is all brand new, so I haven't seen the details.
But of course, the Palestinian leadership and other people rejected it out of hand.
And what they said was, you can't buy our dignity, or something along those lines.
You can't buy our rights. You can't buy our dignity.
And so the Palestinians took a stand on principle.
They want to reject $50 billion on principle.
Now, I don't want to be unkind, but for years I've been hearing something that made me just laugh.
Because people would say, the reason that there's not peace in the Middle East is because the Palestinians are stupid.
And I always said, okay, stop being a racist.
The Palestinians are not, like, extra stupid.
That's not a thing. They just have their interests that are different than yours.
There's religion. There's lots of things going on.
It's complicated. It's not stupid.
Like, that's not happening.
That's just being racist.
But I have to revise that opinion.
Let me give you some advice.
If somebody says to you, Bob, let's say your name is Bob.
They say to you, Bob, you have ten problems.
But one of those problems is money.
So I'm going to give you 50 billion dollars to handle one of your problems.
Still got nine problems.
I think the 50 billion might help indirectly with the other stuff.
But I'm gonna give you 50 billion dollars.
What is the smart answer?
The smart answer is, well, hell yeah!
I want your 50 billion.
Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't I take free money?
And then, I'll take your 50 billion, but we're also gonna talk about the other nine things, right?
Is that right? And I say, yeah.
Yeah, of course we're gonna talk about all the things, but I'm gonna give you 50 billion dollars.
You just have to say yes.
The Palestinians have decided to say no.
That's just stupid.
I'm sorry. That's just stupid.
Now, let me be careful. I'm going to be as specific as I can.
I'm talking about the leadership and the people who make pronouncements.
I'm not talking about the citizens.
I'm sure the citizens are lovely, intelligent people like most of the world.
But the Palestinian leadership has proven themselves to be stupid at a level I didn't think I could have ever seen.
Have you ever seen anything that dumb?
If somebody offers you $50 billion, let me teach you how to answer this, okay?
We'll do a little role play.
I'm going to ask you, You have 10 problems.
One of them is money.
I plan to give you $50 billion and then talk about the others.
What is your answer? In the comments, give me a yes or a no.
How many of you take $50 billion that's offered for free?
Yes. Because every single frickin' person on this Periscope is smarter, clearly, I mean obviously smarter, than every single person Who is apparently in charge of the Palestinian situation.
Every one of you is smarter than them.
Every one of you. It's mind-boggling.
I suppose it could be some kind of a negotiation thing, but it doesn't look like it.
Somebody in the comments said something very funny, but I'm not going to repeat it.
But yes. But to the funny comment in the comments, exactly.
That is the correct answer to, do you want $50 billion?
The only correct answer is yes, and then let's talk about the other stuff.
All right. I've said that to death.
Now, what I love about the $50 billion is that it's a shake-the-box-add-a-new-variable Really big.
Can't ignore it. And it should completely split the Palestinians.
Meaning that for...
I have this imagination of some Palestinian leaders going on TV and saying, we reject this.
This is an insult to our dignity.
It ignores our rights to right of return.
It's bad in all of these intellectual, psychological ways.
And then when the camera is off, and the leader's friend says to him, but you're still going to take the 50 billion, right?
And the guy says, no, no, no.
I mean it. This is far too insulting.
And his friend just says...
No, seriously.
They just offered us $50 billion.
You're actually going to say no to this, right?
Yes, it's an insult.
No, seriously, dude.
$50 billion.
You just have to say yes.
That's it. You just have to say yes.
No, no.
That was an arrow hitting the Palestinian leader.
That arrow being sent by somebody in his own family.
I would think this would cause a lot of infighting.
Because for every leader who says, no, no, this would be bad for our egos and our honor and our rights and whatever else they say.
And by the way, those are all important things.
But none of it is changed by accepting some money.
So this would have to split the Palestinians right in half, I would think.
For every person who says this is an insult, there's going to be somebody who says, I'd like to eat.
Eating's good too.
Don't forget eating.
We like to eat.
So the beauty of this offer is that if the Palestinians ultimately reject it, think ahead, right?
There are two things that happen when you have a peace plan.
They accept it. Yay!
Everybody wins. They accepted it.
Unlikely, right? And the other thing is they reject it.
Who wins if they reject $50 billion?
Israel. Right?
Am I right? If the Palestinians reject $50 billion because it doesn't solve all of their problems, Israel has a free pass to treat them any way they want.
Now, not literally, but you get the point, right?
If they turn down an offer that, at least on paper, is so enormous, nobody can ever take them seriously again.
You can't take their leaders seriously, and the entire world is going to say, look, now it's just on you.
Apparently, according to the Saudi diplomat, the Arab world has already decided, hey, Palestinians, we can help you, but you've got to do a little bit to help yourself.
If you're not going to do a little bit to help yourself, we're out.
So it looks like the Saudis and maybe some of the rest of the Arab world is out.
And that would further isolate Iran.
So, whether or not Jared's plan is accepted, it's brilliant.
It is brilliant if it's accepted, and it is brilliant if it is rejected.
He found two ways to win and no way to lose.
Have you ever seen this before?
Have I been talking about this for three years?
That Trump consistently finds two ways to win and no way to lose?
This plan wins both ways.
It wins if they take it, and Israel wins if they reject it, because then Israel has way less pressure to make a deal, because then it's obvious that no deal can be made.
Likewise, it would allow more pressure on Iran, because it's clear that we're trying to do it the right way, and if the right way doesn't work, All that leaves you is the wrong way, and the wrong way is dangerous.
Iran has apparently threatened that they could shoot down more of our drones.
Now, I don't know what to threaten means, maybe, because that doesn't sound like a threat.
You know, if somebody says, if you do that again, I'm going to punch you in the nose, that's a threat.
If somebody says, you do that again, I'm going to kick your bicycle.
Well, it's still sort of a threat.
But are you worried?
Are you worried? I would maybe change my behavior to avoid a punch in the nose.
But I don't know if I'd change my behavior too much to avoid somebody kicking my bicycle.
I mean, I don't want anybody to kick my bicycle.
But if they threaten it, It's not the biggest problem.
There's an online company called Ravelry that is for knitting and crocheting enthusiasts.
And they have decided that they're going to ban Trump discussions because they don't want to support white supremacy.
So this knitting and crocheting site believes that discussions of Trump are the same as white supremacy, and so they banned it.
Now, I would say this company should stick to their knitting because if they don't, everything will unravel.
To which I say, so?
So what? Let's say they missed a stitch.
Well, anyway, I'm just only in this for the puns.
I don't really care too much about it.
Anyway. What else we got going on today?
Oh. So Jordan Peterson has a new, some kind of a social media site coming.
I don't know the details because it hasn't been announced, but it will be called ThinkSpot, one word, ThinkSpot.
And he's tweeted about it and don't know when it will come or what it will look like, but I think we'll all take a look at that when it happens.
Here's some fun. Have you noticed how similar Trump and JFK are lately?
Joel Pollack wrote an article in Breitbart pointing out that the Cuban Missile Crisis and the way Trump is handling Iran, they have some comparisons in brinksmanship.
But JFK's personal life looks a lot like the president's as well.
And when you look at the crowds that come to Trump's rallies, It feels a lot like he's a Republican JFK, doesn't it?
I mean, if you ignore the fact he's in a different party, his personal life looks very similar to JFK's, and the way he handles geopolitical stuff looks kind of similar.
And JFK presided over a good economy, did he not?
Pretty similar. So we're having this weird similarity with JFK that's fun and just worth noting.
As other people have noted, Pete Buttigieg appears to have no chance of getting elected because the way he's handling this police shooting in his city is not making anybody happy, and he's just not looking like a leader.
He's looking like a...
Well, he just doesn't look like a leader.
So I think the Pete Buttigieg campaign has no place to go.
So I wanted to fix Kamala Harris's biggest problem for you right here.
Don't know if she'll ever see this, but I want to show you her biggest problem, and I'm going to have to change the lighting on my phone before I hold it up so that you can see it clearly.
Can you see this picture?
Yeah, it shows up pretty well.
So look at her expression.
Look at her smile and her eyes.
This is her biggest problem, and let me explain it.
She has what I would call an unconfident smile and laugh.
She has a very unconfident smile.
Have you noticed that the president, President Trump, never laughs at his own jokes?
Right? And when he sees something that's funny, you know, let's say somebody in his rally crowd says something funny, he gives a smirk, and then he gives a smile, and then he sort of turns away.
And he turns away.
That's how you register humor in a confident, leaderly way.
He registers humor like he's on top of it.
Humor is something that he controls.
His reaction to it shows that he's having a very controlled reaction to it.
When you see Kamala Harris laugh, she has a nervous laugh, and she has a nervous smile, which projects...
What does it project?
Not just lack of confidence.
Yes, it does project a lack of confidence.
But it projects something else.
Weakness, almost.
Almost. So somebody said weakness, uneasy, lack of confidence, insincerity.
Yeah. All of those things.
Something worse. Something way worse.
Weakness is close, but it's not what I'm getting at.
There it is. There it is.
Subordinate. It is a subordinate laugh.
She laughs like she's laughing at her boss's joke.
Watch for it.
So it is an unconfident, submissive facial expression and laugh.
Submissive is what I was looking for, but subordinate gets to the same thing.
It is a subordinate's laugh and it projects subordinate's personality.
You can't be the President of the United States if your face and your nervous laugh are projecting that you're the lowest ranking person at the meeting.
When you laugh, you want to laugh like a boss.
Think about the leaders you know.
You've seen Bill Clinton laugh.
You've seen Ronald Reagan laugh.
You've seen Obama laugh.
You've seen Trump laugh.
You've probably seen Margaret Thatcher.
You've probably seen Elizabeth Warren laugh.
You've probably seen Hillary Clinton laugh.
Well, Hillary... Hillary's was not a submissive laugh.
She just had sort of a weird cackle.
But it was not submissive whatsoever, wouldn't you say?
Would you say that Hillary Clinton had a submissive laugh?
I would say no, right?
I mean, she had a personality that was hard to love.
Some people are calling it evil.
Yeah, her laugh was more evil.
When Hillary Clinton laughed about killing Gaddafi, Did any of that sound submissive?
It did not. It sounded the opposite of submissive.
She laughed about killing somebody, and it was a leader laugh.
So say what you will about Hillary, but she did not project weakness.
Hillary Clinton projected leaderly qualities.
Now, she had her flaws, but the way she projected, the way she handles herself, the way she carries herself, the way she smiles and laughs, what she reacts to, very much in the leaderly mode.
Kamala, now that I've talked about her for a little bit, look at it again and see if you can see it.
You see it, right? That's a low-confidence, submissive approach that says, I'm not the strongest person in the room.
I'd better make you happy so you don't hurt me.
That's what that face says.
Now, I believe that she probably could control that.
In other words, if somebody goes to a funeral, They can control laughing, right?
People can control their responses if they're doing it intentionally.
I believe that she could fix that.
And if she does fix it, she's going to pop up in the polls.
I think it's their biggest problem right now is that her facial...
I think she probably went too far in trying to seem like a real person who is a person of the people and she can have a laugh with you and she can have a beer with you.
So I think she went a little too far in that direction.
All right. And that is all I had to talk about today.
▲
Export Selection