All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
46:31
Episode 579 Scott Adams: Who Won and Who Lost Democrat Debate, Dale on Immigration
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Hey everybody, come on in the air!
What a beautiful, sunny, incredible summer day it is.
At least where I am.
I hope your mileage is the same.
Come on in here, Donna, Greg, Tyler.
Grab a seat. But more importantly, grab a container.
It could be a cup or a mug or a glass.
It might be a tankard, a steiner, a chalice.
It could be a thermos, maybe a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of this simultaneous sip.
Dopamine Rush, coming now!
Ah! I like to shake after I have a sip of coffee.
Because that gets the caffeine to all the limbs.
You need the caffeine everywhere.
I want caffeine in my fingernails, dammit.
All right, let's talk about the debate.
Did you all see the debate last night?
Or did you sleep?
Really, it was kind of the same thing.
So President Trump, I think, did the best job of summing up everything you need to know about the Democrat debate, part one.
Boring! That was his tweet, one word.
Boring! It was perfect.
So, if you're like me and you watched it, probably you were thinking the whole time, hey, what happened to all of their charisma?
There's nothing interesting happening on that stage.
Why are they all so boring?
Why can't I even care about what they're saying?
Why can't I even pay attention?
And then the president's tweet comes across.
Boring! And you're like, oh yeah, I remember what it's like to have a good time.
Suddenly, I remember what fun is like.
Yay! Fun!
So, and then the president, if you didn't see it, it's kind of brilliant.
The president retweeted another carpe donctum meme to mock MSNBC for its bad production values.
It's quite funny.
So we'll tell you who the winners and losers are, and then I'm going to interview Dale, Dale the anti-Trumper, about immigration.
But first, let's go through the names of the people, and I'll tell you who won and lost.
All right, first of all, let's start with Delaney, Inslee, and Ryan.
I can't tell them apart.
I don't know. And I kept looking up at the TV and looking away, because I'd be looking at my phone and tweeting and stuff.
And so I'd look up, and there'd be some generic white guy on the screen, and I'd say, oh, which one is he?
Is that Inslee or Ryan?
I don't recognize these guys.
And then I'd wait for MSNBC to put the name of the candidate under, so we could really get to know them, associate the face with the name.
And then they'd go to the next question.
And I think, okay, I just watched some guy whose name I don't know say some stuff that wasn't interesting about a topic I don't care about.
Who was he? And then the next one's on.
So I would say the people at the bottom did not make much of a dent.
I will say, however...
What's his name? De Blasio.
De Blasio seemed to be doing his best Trump imitation.
Now, I don't know if it's both the New York thing, but he seemed to be using sort of his size and the way he motioned and the way he sort of was...
Trying to take control with just his physicality and his voice and his mannerisms and stuff.
But he wasn't quite selling it because he doesn't have that Trump X factor that makes him interesting.
It was like he had learned the moves, but he didn't have quite the musicality or something to pull it off.
However, I thought he was actually one of the more charismatic people on stage.
It was a very low wattage group, but charisma-wise, he did better than I thought.
I don't think he has a chance.
I don't think he made much of a dent, but he performed well.
Now, let's talk about some others.
Booker. Booker got the most talk time.
And he's always smart.
He's always, you know, he's sort of good with words.
But there's something about Cory Booker that just doesn't connect.
And my take on him is that he looks like somebody who's pretending to care.
Now... That probably describes everybody on the stage and every politician to some degree.
Part of the job is pretending to care more than you really do.
That's just part of the job.
But when I looked at some of the other candidates, they looked like they actually cared.
Not every one of them, but several of them looked like they were genuine.
I'll talk about those in a minute.
But Booker, he looks like he's in a play.
And he's pretending to be a candidate and pretending to care.
And his eyes have a lot to do with it.
Yeah, the wide-eyed look he has.
That wide-eyed look just screams insincere.
Because I don't know if this is really a thing or if it's just something I feel like should be a thing, but I feel like when people are trying to convince me of something that they don't themselves believe, they open their eyes.
I don't know if that's a thing.
It's just something I've noticed.
It may or may not be.
But people who are telling you something they believe have normalized.
And people who want you to believe that they did not murder that victim the other night tell you something like, no, I wasn't even there.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
I was not murdering the victim.
It just screams insincere.
So he's got that problem going for him.
I thought Elizabeth Warren won the night easily.
Meaning that she did project sincere empathy.
Possibly too much.
I think you can go too far with the empathy thing to the point where it makes you look weak.
She is right on that borderline.
Where a little bit more empathy would make her look weak, but I don't think she crossed the line.
So I'm going to say that Elizabeth Warren actually surprised me on the upside, meaning that her performance looked powerful, credible, smart, confident, passionate, and in control.
So I think she looked like the front-runner of that group, and she carried herself that way, and I think she won the night quite easily, which is different from saying that I like her policies or anything like that.
So I'm just talking about persuasion-wise whether she did her job, and I think she did.
Castro, Julian Castro got a lot of attention.
He was the third most time chewed up talking, and he did some interrupting and stuff, but he's got a real problem with his physical size when you put him on a stage with really big people.
I think even the women were taller than him on the stage, and as much as we all want to think that doesn't matter, Every scientific study in the world tells us, oh, that totally matters.
Now, I'm not saying that you can't become president if you're shorter than average.
I'm pretty sure I could become president if I tried.
But it just was a terrible look.
It didn't matter what he said.
His physicality was just overwhelming.
You know, your senses.
So I think, you know, he might have some small pop after that, but I don't think he's going to, he will not be the nominee.
Klobuchar is interesting.
Because I have really mixed feelings about her.
If I were to say who's the most reasonable person on the stage, the one who's least likely to have crazy ideas, I would say probably Klobuchar.
She seems to have a track record of working across the aisle.
She seems reasonable.
But she is not telegenic.
So remember, I'm not talking about policies today.
I'm only talking to you about how people are going to feel about the candidates.
Because how they feel about them is going to make a big difference.
And so, somebody said that Buttigieg is short as well.
He is.
But there's something about being gay that protects them against that.
I don't know what it is. Because if they were...
I'd have to think about why that matters.
But there's something about Buttigieg being gay that just gives him his own brand that doesn't make the physicality as important.
But he is telegenic, so he looks good on camera.
Let's talk about O'Rourke.
O'Rourke was an empty suit.
The fact that he couldn't wave his hands and jump around, I think really hurt him, because he seemed underpowered, and he didn't seem to say anything that I remember.
So I'd say he had a bad night.
Tulsi Gabbard, apparently she won the Drudge poll.
People on Drudge were voting in some unscientific poll, and she had the most search results.
It probably means just about nothing.
I think it means that conservatives liked her best.
So it means nothing in terms of the primaries because the conservatives will not be the ones voting for the primaries.
So I think Tulsi Gabbard didn't do anything to help herself because she's a one-trick pony.
She has basically one thing she says, no matter what the question is, which is, I served in the military.
Let's not have any more wars.
It's a great message, and I don't disagree with her on the general sense of that, but she looked lifeless and uninteresting and one-dimensional.
I don't think it helped her that day.
All right, so I think we talked about most of them.
Now let's talk about the speaking Spanish thing.
If you are like me, and most of you probably are in this one sense, you don't speak Spanish.
Probably most of you watching this don't speak Spanish.
If you're a US citizen and you hear a candidate speaking a language that's the national language of another country, what do you think?
Well, my take on it was, huh, that doesn't feel like he's exactly signing up to represent me.
Because I don't even speak that language.
But I also would not vote against someone or change my vote because they could speak two languages when I can only speak one.
So speaking Spanish, I think, from a persuasion perspective, is something that made everybody who heard it who does not speak Spanish say to themselves, ugh...
That's not speaking to me.
It feels like it's speaking to literally another country.
Now, I know he's speaking to Spanish-speaking people in this country, legal and illegal.
And I would say that as a technique...
It totally works.
Somebody call it hispandering.
If you just made that up, it's hilarious.
Hispandering. Somebody probably said that before the commenter did.
Anyway... So here's my take on it.
For everybody who spoke in Spanish last night, I think it was a good play.
I think it was smart.
I think it shows that they've got a little extra going on.
I think it shows some empathy, and I think it could maybe help them with people who speak Spanish.
And I don't think people who don't speak Spanish are going to hold it against them.
So on a risk-reward basis, As cringy as it seemed to a lot of people, nobody's going to vote against them for that.
I mean, I'm not going to penalize somebody for knowing two languages if I only know one.
I'm not going to say, I sure don't want a president who can do more than I can do.
So you can't vote against them.
But a few people might vote for them for that.
So it's a good play. Immigration came up a lot.
So one of the things that I was looking for is what topics were of most concern.
They didn't seem to talk about Trump too much, which was interesting.
And when they talked about, when they said, what's the biggest, what country is our biggest adversary or problem, I guess, threat?
And I think everybody thought they were going to say China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, whatever.
And some of them mentioned China and Iran and North Korea.
I'm sorry, they only mentioned Russia, China, and Iran.
But they started to get clever and say, our biggest problem, foreign problem, is climate change.
And one said, Trump.
And at the end of it, I just didn't feel like...
I knew what anybody wanted to do about climate change, except they're all really, really worried.
I mean, I didn't hear anything that was different than the normal blah, blah, blah.
On healthcare, the only thing that sounded new was that we saw that Warren and de Blasio are the only ones who want to get rid of your private healthcare.
That's going to be a tough sell.
So I don't think on an issues basis, I think the Democrats came up empty on an issues basis.
They do have issues, you know, healthcare, immigration, etc., but I didn't see any answers.
So speaking of immigration, I thought I would bring on the anti-Trump The anti-Trumper named Dale.
Now, if you haven't seen Dale, he looks a lot like me, but unlike me, he's a big critic of the president.
And sometimes he's good to interview to find out, you know, to get a deeper dive into some of these issues.
For example, I was watching...
All the candidates talking about immigration, and they had very similar things to say about the detention centers.
But I wanted to dig in a little bit deeper, and I thought that Dale could help us.
Dale, could you just come over here for a minute?
I just have a few questions for you about immigration.
Yeah, it'll only take a minute. All right, come over here.
Hello. I am here to answer any questions you have about immigration.
If it looks like I have a hole in my tiny beard, it's because I do.
It's a look. I used to gauge my ears, but now I just gauge my beard, so it's got a hole in it.
What kind of questions would you like to ask?
Well, Dale, how do you feel about the border security, the way it's going?
You know, do you think things are going okay?
What could be changed? Are you kidding me?
It's a disaster.
The Trump administration is killing babies at the border.
They're putting children in cages.
It's the worst thing in the world.
So, Dale, what should we do?
What would you recommend?
Duh! Duh!
Close the detention facilities and decriminalize it.
Okay, that's a start.
Dale, could you describe to us What do you think would happen if we get rid of the detention centers and decriminalize it?
What do you think that would happen?
What would the country look like if we did that?
What would be the long-term impact of that?
We would get children out of cages.
Are you even listening to me?
No, we hear the part about the children in cages.
We all like that. That part seems good.
But would there be any implication?
Would there be any long-term, I don't know, side effects of just letting everybody in who wants to come in?
What would the country look like, Dale?
Well, there wouldn't be any children sleeping in their own snuff, that's for sure.
But where would they be sleeping?
And how many of them would there be?
Do you think, Dale, that if there were no penalty for coming in the country and everybody were to be rewarded for it, how many people do you think would come into the country?
All of them. Immigrants are good.
Immigrants are the power of this country.
And I love immigrants.
And the more of them that come, the more money we'll make.
Well, Dale, I love immigrants too.
And I agree, immigrants made this country and are awesome.
But if it's up to the immigrants how many people come in, is there any risk we'd get too many and maybe there wouldn't be jobs for, let's say, African Americans who are already here, Hispanics who are already here, other minorities who are already here, would they suffer at all?
I'd like to talk about other things now.
The weakness with the immigration ideas that are coming from the left are that they are incomplete.
They are the child's view of policy.
The child's view says, I want candy.
But what about dinner?
You ruin your dinner, kid.
I want candy.
So the child's view completely ignores the Half of every question.
The part about what's the long-term situation, you know, how does that work out?
Yes, the goals versus systems.
The child says the goal is I don't want anybody to be suffering in the detention centers.
Well, okay. What system would you use to get a better result?
I don't want children in the detention centers.
Okay, okay, we hear that, but what would be the process, the system?
How does that work? Describe for me what the country looks like under your plan.
That's sort of the kill shot for the Democrats who want to not have control over the border.
Now let me put my own personal Scott spin on this and tell you why I could get elected president if I were dumb enough to run.
The real question on border control, we're asking the wrong question.
The question is, who should decide who comes in the country?
That's the question.
Because that's the system's question.
What's your system? Who gets to decide?
The Democrats...
I don't think this is an exaggeration.
Correct me if I'm wrong. The Democrats would like to give that decision of who comes to our country...
To other countries.
I'm not overstating that, am I? They would like the decision about who is an American and how our borders are handled to be decided by people who are not in the country and don't vote, people who are in other countries.
The Republicans want the United States to decide what the United States is, who gets to command, and how the borders run.
Now, the United States...
Might do it wrong, and they might do it right, and they might do it wrong until they get it right.
But the big question is, who gets to decide?
And I think you have to solve that first, because we're talking about the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do, but we've passed the question of whose decision it is.
You have to decide who gets to decide.
Then you can start criticizing that group for doing it right or wrong or, you know, what are the long-term consequences.
But until you decide whose decision it is, you shouldn't be talking about the rest.
All right, let's get the system right.
And the system that I like is that the country that's being influenced by immigration, they should be the ones to decide, not the people in other countries.
Possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time is that the employees at Wayfair did a walkout to protest that their company was selling mattresses and beds, or maybe just mattresses, to detention facilities.
And the employees are saying, we do not want to be part of a company that supports detaining children in these little detention centers.
Now, management of Wayfair, to its credit, said, we are a retail facility, and we don't make decisions about who's good enough to buy our products.
I'm putting it in my own words, but they essentially said, there's a pretty long retail, what they call it, sort of like a tradition, You don't decide who's good enough to sell things to.
You sell to people who have money.
If you're going to be a retail establishment in the United States and somebody comes in who has money, you don't say you're not good enough to buy my product.
You'd be out of business pretty quickly.
So to their credit, the Wayfair Management has, at least as far as I know so far, not yet caved To the most destructive idea you might ever see in an economy.
The idea that you get to choose how good your customers are, and if they're not good enough, you won't sell them your stuff.
Those people did not study economics or much of anything.
And apparently, Bank of America is going to end its association with the detention centers.
Same problem, Bank of America.
Do you get to decide who's good enough?
Well, apparently they've decided they are going to do that.
I think that way is not a good system.
Now, I heard something that just blew my mind today.
I didn't know this until I just...
Apparently it's a story most of you heard.
But did you know that the Mueller investigation somehow either don't have, or maybe they lost...
A whole bunch of these Strzok and Page text messages?
Do I have that story right?
Because I think the President said that, and I heard a report on it, and I didn't see anybody debunk that.
Is it true that a whole bunch of text messages between Strzok and Page are missing?
Because that's not good.
Oh my goodness. You know, I've been strongly on the side of saying that you don't want to over-interpret text messages because you don't have all the context.
And the text messages between them in which they were talking about the, quote, insurance policy was the most damning language.
But I've been cautioning you, because we see it so many times, that it's very easy to imagine you know the context and be wrong about that.
If you look at the fine people hoax, that's a perfect example.
People thought they knew the context, but they didn't.
So if you get the context wrong, you can actually reverse the meaning.
And I speculated at the time that the insurance policy reference Was to the idea that the Russians might have some influence over Trump and Trump might get elected, which would put Russia in charge of the United States if Trump was a puppet.
So my interpretation was, well, maybe it's the obvious interpretation.
You need an insurance policy, meaning to investigate Trump.
Just in case it's true that there is some there there, because even they thought that maybe there was nothing there.
But they thought, well, insurance policy, you never know, just in case Russia is running things.
Now, others of you have said, oh, no, no, it's not that.
The insurance policy is just a way to get rid of Trump, and the Russia thing is just an excuse.
Maybe both of those interpretations would be supported by the text we saw.
And I was willing to keep my mind open about that, until I heard that many of their text messages have disappeared.
And then I say to myself, uh, that's a big coincidence, because I don't know how often, you know, text messages of that sort would be destroyed, but it certainly raises a flag.
I don't think you can make a conclusion either way, but raise this flag.
I heard Gowdy talking about how when Mueller talks to Congress, this is going to blow up in the Democrats' face, because the questions that the Republicans are going to ask are going to be of the nature of,
so tell us again why you didn't investigate The Steele dossier, and I don't think Gowdy said it, but I'll put my own spin on it.
Why Great Britain may or may not have been involved.
There are a lot of things that maybe he should have looked into about the intelligence agencies and about foreign interference through the Democrats.
So those questions are going to come out.
I don't think Mueller will be answering any questions of substance, but just the country will have to listen to those questions, and the country's going to say, hmm, that's a good question.
All right.
Let's talk about climate change.
So... I didn't hear anybody mention nuclear, did you?
I saw nothing about nuclear when they talked about climate change.
I guess they still can't say that word because there are too many Democrats who just, you know, reflexively say, oh, no, no, I can't talk about nuclear.
But... If you ever see one of the Democrats, and actually, I'll bet Biden says it.
This will be an interesting question for tonight.
So here's what to look for with Biden.
If Biden wants to win, he's going to say nuclear energy.
Even if it's just in a list.
You know, well, some of the things we need to do are this, this, this, and nuclear energy.
Biden would, I think, retain his lead if he mentions nuclear energy and says that, you know, it's obvious that it has to be part of the solution and maybe the biggest part.
So we'll see.
Here's what I would expect tonight.
I will be watching this with you and live tweeting again.
I would expect that Biden...
He has the riskiest night.
So here's what I'd expect.
I would expect Biden's poll numbers to go down after the debate, even if he does okay.
Because part of the thing that keeps Biden at the top is name recognition.
So just having the debates will improve the name recognition of everybody who's below him.
Sanders, of course, doesn't need it.
But the rest of them will get something.
So what I would expect...
Is that if Kamala Harris has even an average good day, that she'll take a bite out of the top two polling leaders.
So I think you'll see Kamala have a bump if she just does okay.
She doesn't have to have a breakout night.
She just has to look like she's solid.
Because I think Biden and Sanders are going to give up some votes just by being exposed to other younger people.
I think Biden's age will show.
I assume the debate's at the same time tonight as they were last night.
And it's going to be...
It's going to be interesting to see how Biden performs at 9 o'clock at night.
And then, you know, it'll be 10 o'clock at night while he's still going.
Because I got to tell you, after a certain age, you do not perform as well at 10 o'clock at night.
So the time of day of these debates is actually pretty important.
And I would expect that the younger candidates will have better nights.
Because they will simply look like they're a little bit more on the ball.
If Sleepy Joe slurs his words, if he misspeaks, if he names, let's say, if he tries to name the head of another country and he gets the name wrong or he has to search for the name or he bungles the name, anything he does that he misspeaks or looks slow or looks confused Probably will take him out of the race.
What are the odds that Biden will do at least something that becomes a highlight that makes him look confused or slurring or not on the ball or just says something that sounds Biden dumb?
What are the odds you will do one of those things?
Pretty high, right? Pretty high.
There's going to be something that looks a little bit questionable.
Bernie, I think, will continue to look crazy.
And I would expect that...
Here's what I expect.
That if Biden's numbers go down, they're going to go to Kamala Harris and to Warren.
So I think Warren and Harris will be the beneficiaries of any reduction in Biden's support.
That's what to look for.
Is there anything I haven't talked about yet that you're dying to hear for me?
Biden will get Adderall.
I gotta tell you, I'm no expert, but from everything I hear, if somebody were to be on Adderall, it would be a pretty big advantage.
It's almost as if the debates should have drug testing, because it's such an advantage.
Oh, I saw somebody in the comments criticize Kamala Harris by calling her heels up, and I guess that's, was it James Woods who came up with that?
Now, the heels up reference is that she slept her way to a good position with Willie Brown, who was, I think, married at the time, and blah, blah, blah.
You know what I say? It's the worst...
Really, it's the least effective way to go after Kamala Harris.
Because she's going to be running against Trump.
Do you really think that somebody's going to say, I think I'll vote for Donald Trump because Kamala Harris had that one affair that time?
I don't think so.
Right? I don't think so.
It's the least...
Useful thing to say about Kamala Harris is that she had an affair with Willie Brown.
She's running against Trump.
Have you heard of Donald Trump?
Have you heard any stories?
You're not going to get any kind of traction by saying that she had an affair one time.
Every time I see it, I just go, you're wasting your breath.
It's not, here's the thing, it's not funny, you know, when you say he heals up, it's not funny, it's not clever, it's not useful, it's just something that everybody says.
So maybe, maybe you don't want to be that person.
You know, we can, you know, I like I'm always amused by cutting and cruel and inappropriate things said about candidates because they make me laugh.
But that one doesn't even make me laugh.
At the very least, it should be funny.
It's just not clever enough, not funny enough.
All right. Anything else you want to know?
Somebody said, Trump didn't sleep his way to the top.
Well, you know, now that Harris has been a senator, I think you just have to look at that and say, okay, it doesn't matter how she got there, does it?
I mean, she's either doing a good job or not.
I just don't think that that counts.
She flipped, agree, blah, blah.
and I'm just looking at your comments right now and see if I... Yeah, horizontal Harris.
Yeah, all of those attacks are bad.
Oh, Reddit. Yeah, apparently the Reddit, the subreddit, in other words, the subsection of Reddit called the Donald, that's the primary place where people talk about Trump in a positive way on Reddit.
Apparently they got quarantined.
I don't know exactly what that means in the Reddit world, but it was something to throttle back their influence.
So here's something interesting, according to me.
So last night, I tweeted this, but I only kept it up there for a second.
I went to go on and do some tweeting.
Oh my god, it disappeared.
That's weird. Oh, there it is.
So I went to do some live tweeting during the Democrat debate.
And so I opened my phone, and I went to my Twitter app, and the user interface for entering a tweet was nonsense.
I don't know if you can see it.
But can you see this?
So the place where you would enter your tweet was covered up by...
Something else in the UX, you know, the user interface, so I couldn't make a tweet.
So I get on there to go influence the United States and probably say bad things about the Democrats, and I open up my primary portal to the world, and it didn't work.
For the first time.
How many times have I had this problem?
I don't know, never.
Never. Had I had this problem at any time during the day when I was tweeting all day long?
Not once.
But the very moment the Democrat debates came on, and I, one of the more prominent and likely to get retweets kind of people talking about the Democrats in likely a negative way, my tool became unavailable.
Now I said to myself, that doesn't look like a coincidence.
But I just rebooted the app and then it was fine.
So I asked myself, okay, was it a coincidence or just a weird bug, meaning a weird bug?
Is it a coincidence and a weird bug because it was so easily fixed?
Or was it not?
And my best guess is it was just a coincidental bug.
So if you put a gun to my head and you said, Scott, you must now make a bet.
Your life depends on it.
Do you think this was some intentional way Twitter was trying to throttle your voice?
Or do you think it was just a bug in the app?
I would say bug in the app.
Far more likely to be a bug in the app than anything else.
But here's the problem.
Every time something like this happens...
To me or any of you, what do you say to yourself?
You say to yourself, I don't know.
I can't tell.
And if you can't tell, democracy is dead.
Because if you can't tell if your voice is being intentionally or not intentionally throttled, then they can throttle it anytime they want.
So in other words, the social media companies already have the power to determine who sees what and therefore who gets elected.
If they don't use it, they've decided that whoever is leading in the polls can go ahead and be president.
If they decide to use it, they've decided that whoever is leading in the polls is not going to be president.
So even if they don't use the power that they clearly have, They still get to make the decision.
Does that make sense to you?
Whether they act or they don't act, they have the ability, and it's not illegal.
It's unambiguously legal.
It also seems to be undiscoverable.
Because we haven't discovered it yet, right?
I mean, in a sense, we all know it's happening, and I think it's demonstrated by the James O'Keefe stuff and other things that we've seen.
We're all pretty sure it's happening, but because you can't tell in any given instance whether it's a coincidence or this is the time it's happening, you're really kind of helpless, and you don't have any mechanism to check.
There's just nothing you can do about it except complain, And even your complaints can be throttled.
Even your complaining can go away, right?
So, I would say that we've reached a point where we have to have A special court for social media, specifically to look at their algorithms and what things they suggest next and those sorts of things.
So I think there just has to be a social media algorithm court.
Now, that would still leave some possibility that the court could look at the algorithm, but then the real algorithm is different.
That'd be pretty big.
A hole in the plan.
But if they were ever caught doing that, it would have to be an enormous penalty.
I mean, you'd have to have a penalty that would essentially shutter the company.
The penalty should be that big.
It should be put you on a business big.
It should be that big.
If they were to show the special court a different algorithm than the one they actually run in real life.
So you need to make that risk completely unacceptable.
Somebody says, like, the FISA court.
Well, you'd have to do better than that.
But certainly you need somebody looking at it.
And you probably need more than one judge.
So you need some people who know what they're looking at, and you need some people who are on both sides of the aisle.
Very important. All right.
People saying courts cannot be trusted.
Well, almost nothing can be trusted 100%.
Yeah, nothing can be trusted 100%, but you want to improve.
Somebody says, talk about Liz Warren's voice.
I heard on Twitter some people saying that Liz Warren sounded like their crazy ex-wife.
Meaning, in a general sense, not somebody's specific ex-wife.
And I don't hear it as much as I heard it with Hillary Clinton.
My take is that Warren is already better than Hillary was at her best.
So, at her best, Hillary was not as good as Warren was even last night.
Liz Warren is boring.
I thought she had the most personality.
So she had the most passion and the most personality last night.
I don't think she can win against Trump.
But, you know, the other thing that she didn't have to deal with last night is all the Pocahontas stuff.
You know, keep in mind that when she's debating Democrats, they don't bring up The thing that's most embarrassing, the whole Native American thing.
But I don't know if that's going to change any votes.
I don't have a feeling that that will change any votes.
Somebody's asking me about Andrew Yang.
Yang, I think, could be a breakout surprise tonight.
I think Yang is the person most likely to say something That gets on the news.
Because he's the only one who says things that are different and interesting and provocative.
If you saw his offer the other day, he offered on Twitter essentially a contest that for people who retweet him, I think, or follow him, I forget, you would give $1,000 a month for 12 months, part of promoting his idea for a universal basic income, which would be $1,000 a month.
So it was a fairly brilliant move.
Because I think it gained him a lot of Twitter users, got him a lot of attention, brought attention to his idea.
Kind of liked it. So if he brings that up again tonight, it will probably be one of the clips that you see forever.
All right. That's about all I've got to say on that.
And What's the latest on Bitcoin?
Let's see how Bitcoin's doing today.
Bitcoin did go crazy, and when Bitcoin goes crazy, let's see, it's down 11% today.
The when is fluctuating quite a bit, and the when is down at the moment, but it's been down before and up and down.
So we don't know what that means.
But I will tell you that there are so far three or four companies who have texted me since yesterday and they've put the...
They put the WenHub button on their websites, and I'm going to talk about that in a separate Periscope, but I want to get a screenshot of them doing that, and we'll talk about that.
So to those of you who did that, thank you.
I will be promoting your business separately.
I won't do that today. And I will talk to you all later.
▲
Export Selection