All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 30, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:23
Episode 646 Scott Adams: Talking About Racists, Biden, Warren, Bernie, The Brain of America, Mattis
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
with Scott Adams.
I hope you have your beverage ready, because if you do, it's going to be a good time.
And if you don't, you might still have a good time.
But one way to guarantee that your day gets off to a good start, it's a simultaneous sip.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of stein, a chalice, a tank or a thermos, a glass of canteen, a vessel of any kind of fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now.
For that moment in which your dopamine will begin to spike and your whole day will get better, it's going to be good.
Here it comes, the simultaneous sip.
Go! Oh yeah.
Oh yeah. So, I thought I would start with a whiteboard presentation, a very short one.
There are going to be two of them today.
Whoa! Exciting, huh?
Oh, first I should tell you that the title that I put on this Periscope, you may have noticed that it mentioned three Democrats, Biden, Warren, and Bernie, and it used the word racist.
Now, that's not going to exactly describe what I'm going to talk about today, but I was looking at my YouTube analytics page, And I discovered that there seems to be a pattern to my demonetization.
Now, as the regulars know, YouTube demonetizes me and hides my videos.
And so the amount of monetization that I'm seeing on YouTube is actually shrinking every day while the number of subscribers and the view times are going up.
So I'm doing everything right, as you can tell by the customer or the viewer response.
They're watching it longer, etc.
But it's so demonetized that the demonetization is shrinking to zero.
But I noticed that whenever my title...
On the YouTube clips, had Democrats, the leading Democrats in the title, those were twice as monetized as any other content.
Think about that.
When the title had one of the Democrats mentioned, like Biden or Warren, those are all at the top of my ones that got monetized.
The ones that got demonetized were when I said other things.
So it's possible.
We have speculated that YouTube is so clever that it's doing some kind of speech-to-text of my entire video and picking out all the keywords.
But I'm starting to think maybe it's just looking at the title.
And my guess is that putting the names of the Democrats in the title puts it at the top.
Now, we're going to test that, because the things I'm saying in this video, if it were being watched by actual human beings, or even if they were doing some kind of clever voice to text, it would pick up that I'm not saying good things about those three people.
Although, actually, I am going to say good things about one of them.
But instead, I think it's going to see that they're in the title and say, well, let's give some more attention to Democrats.
So we'll see. Changing the topic, we're going to talk about the brains of the Internet.
Now, I'm not the first person to note...
That the internet feels like a giant brain in which we're all components of this larger brain.
So social media and all of us connected by the internet feels like sort of a higher level creature in the same ways that we have living cells in our bodies, but they don't mean much until they're summed up to become an intelligence, which is our brains.
We human beings collectively sum up to the internet, and the internet is like our brain.
But I notice there's an interesting thing going on right now, which is that America's brain, you know, the part of the internet that's sort of America's special brain, sort of requires Trump.
And I don't know how much of this is intentional versus, you know, we just evolved into it.
But when people are saying, hey, Trump is just throwing out crazy ideas about bombing hurricanes, which may or may not have actually happened, crazy statements about this or that, crazy ideas about this or that, and he's being impulsive, and he's not listening to his advisors, and all the things you hear about him.
If you imagined a traditional president in a pre-internet world, that would be pretty scary stuff.
Because in the pre-internet world, well, let's say pre-Trump world, you had a leader And then some advisors.
But basically, it was sort of a top-down process where voters would be important for electing people and polls would matter.
But basically, the boss is the president.
They've got some advisors and sort of a top-down leadership situation.
Trump has kind of changed that equation.
He's created sort of a virtual brain, which is, let's call it America's brain.
It's a collective brain.
And the way that works is he throws out ideas the same way you do internally.
Your internal thought process probably sounds a lot like this.
Hey, maybe I'll jump out that window.
No, I don't have any reason to jump out a window.
Boy, wouldn't it be fun to dynamite that building over there?
But I'm not a terrorist, so I'm not going to dynamite a building.
Huh, I wish dogs could fly.
That'd be cool. I wish my dog could fly, but it can't fly.
I don't know about you, but my internal process looks a little like that.
My internal process is a whole bunch of bad ideas which I'm tossing out to myself and then rejecting all the time.
I'm just thinking of ideas and rejecting them, mostly.
Every now and then, one of those ideas will get through all of my internal filters and then it will turn into action.
The president is sort of like that.
He tosses out ideas all the time, and then these ideas are being filtered through the media and his advisors and polls and social media.
But he's got this immediate feedback mechanism, and then he gets the feedback, and then he knows what to do.
So... I don't know that there's any practical use to seeing the world this way, but it is the way I see it, that the internet has become a brain, the president, this one anyway, has become sort of the executive part of the brain, the conscious part that has ideas and then tests it with the rest of the brain, you know, in a general way, not in a physical way.
So yes, I would say that the President's style would have been a disaster in pre-Internet days.
But in internet days, it might be exactly what you want.
Somebody throwing out some ideas and seeing what happens.
Seeing how people react.
Because how people react is an important part.
Now, one of the things that this president gets criticized for a lot is probably one of his smartest strategies and systems, really, which is watching cable news a lot.
Because if you watch the major cable news channels, and you can get as much as you need from CNN and Fox News probably to get both sides, you are going to have a real good idea what the citizens of this country, at least the ones who are paying attention to the news, you're going to have a real good idea how they think.
Now, if you were President Obama and you only read the New York Times and then listened to your advisors, you might have really accurate information.
Maybe, maybe not.
But you would be trying to determine the accuracy of your information and then acting upon that.
And that sounds good, right?
President Trump is feeling the country.
And even if you dislike this president, you probably do agree that he's tapped into the country.
He understands the country at a level that other people don't.
Who else is good at that?
Michael Moore. You could hate everything about Michael Moore's political philosophy.
You could hate his movies.
You could hate him personally. But you would probably still say that Michael Moore has a really good understanding of the American public, you know, the mass center of it.
So, like Michael Moore, President Trump has a good understanding.
And I would say that the president watching cable news a lot Is a really good way to get tapped in.
I don't know. It seems to me that every president should do that if they don't.
Yeah, finger on the pulse. All right.
Let me give you my latest opinion on where things are going to go with the Democrats.
Now, I don't think there's any Democrat that can beat Trump in the general election.
And I don't see that changing unless there's some new information that happens.
But let me show you where the field is.
And I thought it would be helpful to write it down just so it's easier to talk about.
So if you all saw the...
I'm sure most of you by now have seen the news about Biden making up this big confusing story about trying to pin a silver star on some soldier who allegedly was protesting because he didn't actually save the life of somebody, but he risked his life trying.
Blah, blah, blah. So even the Washington Post has said That Biden got every part of that story wrong and it's just made up.
Before he told it, Biden actually said that he was swearing was true on his Biden family's name's honor.
He actually swore to God and the honor of his family name that it was true.
And 100% of the media and 100% of everybody who heard it said, nope.
That's not only not true, it's not even close to true.
It's not directionally true.
It's not slightly true.
It's just a bunch of BS. And here's the sad part.
I think he thinks it's true.
Now, yeah, so as people are saying, it isn't funny anymore.
It really isn't.
And I think we can all safely say that he's not going to be the nominee because the Democrats who have power over things, you know, the people who are the money people, the real movers and shakers, the serious power behind the power, Within the Democrats are never going to let him get the nomination.
It just can't happen.
So let's agree that Biden is incapable.
So the new word that I'm going to be using for Biden is incapable.
Because I don't think we need to get into the details of what's going on.
Everybody at this point can tell there's something going on.
Both sides would agree.
You just have to watch him in action and you'd say, okay, there's something going on.
We don't need to know what it is.
Let his family work that out.
Let the Democrats work that out.
But let's just say that we all agree he's incapable.
He's not going to get the nomination.
Bernie is interesting.
So I watched most of Bernie's interview with Joe Rogan.
Have you seen that?
Have you watched the Joe Rogan interview with Bernie?
It's amazing hearing any Democrat or any candidate, really, have time to actually answer questions.
It's actually phenomenal.
You watch it and you think, why have I never seen this before?
There's Bernie explaining in detail his policies in a way I've never heard before.
And I thought, wow.
And let me give you my overall impressions of Bernie based on the Joe Rogan interview.
If I were not an experienced, mature person, I would really have bought everything that Bernie said.
In other words, if you hear Bernie without the benefit of anybody fact-checking him or asking about his numbers or the practicality, if you don't see him being challenged by somebody who has a different opinion of what's practical, and you only hear him talking, and he's got time to explain his opinion, He's really persuasive.
The other thing that I would note about Bernie is that he seems to be completely in control of his faculties.
So where it's obvious that Biden has lost a step, shall we say, it doesn't seem to be the case with Bernie.
He seems to be 100% on the ball and And his full story, where he describes everything from the lobbyist influencing laws to how that changes the tax structure to what that does for healthcare and everything else, it's a really convincing story.
And when he says that the things that he wants to do, such as one of his ideas is to tax stock companies Transactions, just a tiny bit, less than 1% per transaction, so that if I buy some stocks with Schwab and it costs me, I don't know, $5 to make a transaction, I would pay a little extra, you know, something less than a penny to sell those stocks.
And apparently if you sum that up, because the big players are doing lots of transactions all the time, So if you summed up all the big player money and you put that less than 1% on them, according to Bernie, it would pay for a free college forever and, I don't know, cancel all the student debts and everything else.
I don't know if that's true, but if you hear it out in context, it's pretty convincing.
Likewise, when Bernie talks about healthcare in other countries and how they all seem to be able to provide universal healthcare, it's obvious we could, too.
That sounds very convincing.
If other countries are doing it, it is obvious that we could do it, and I believe we could.
But you don't hear the counterpoint.
You don't hear anybody say, but Bernie, if you try to get these health services in Canada, you're going to wait a long time, or you're not going to get everything you want, etc.
So, again... Out of context, when nobody is sitting there to challenge his description of reality, it's pretty darn good.
And I would say that Bernie has another thing going for him, which is that he's super authentic and credible in the sense that you don't think he's lying.
And I was trying to think of any time that Bernie has been accused of lying, and I'm sure it's happened.
It must have happened.
Because he's a politician.
But he's probably Trump-like in the fact that there's something authentic about him.
Now, Trump misses the fact-checking a lot, but you know why he's doing it.
You know the direction he's trying to persuade.
It doesn't come off...
As being inauthentic, it comes off as hyperbole, which is exactly what he tells you he's going to do.
So I think that Bernie and Trump are the two authentic candidates.
Now, here's the thing with Bernie, though.
So after giving him my compliments.
So I have lots of compliments for Bernie and lots of respect for really his whole thing.
Respect for him as a As a human and as a politician and as a potential leader, I give him a lot of credit.
That said, I think there's a cap on how much support he could get within the Democratic Party.
And the reason I say that is, look at Biden.
Look how weak Biden is.
And Biden is still taking more voters than Bernie by a lot.
Both Bernie and Biden have similar meaning universal name recognition.
If name recognition were enough, Bernie would be doing a lot better because he would be compared to another person with great name recognition who has clearly lost a step, whereas Bernie has not.
If name recognition and competence mattered, Bernie would already be the front-runner by far.
But there's something holding Bernie back where even an incapable candidate can best him in the polls.
There's something about maybe what people would perceive as the extremeness of what he wants, the magnitude of the change he's suggesting.
This seems to put off some Democrats.
And so I don't think Bernie can get his support much higher than it already is.
People are mentioning his age, and that is a factor.
But again, after watching him on Joe Rogan, there's nothing about Bernie that looks like he's lost a step.
I do worry that he's at that age where it could happen quickly.
I worry about that with Trump.
I worry about it with anybody in that age group.
But at the moment, he's in good shape.
Then there's Warren. Warren, everybody's talking about, she's doing a great job campaigning, she's building momentum, she's sort of the one we're talking about.
And I think this is true, that she's only getting 1% of the African American vote within this world, the candidates.
If that's true, and I'll need a fact check on that, but if it's true that she's not getting African American support, she can't win.
So even if you imagine that most Democrats will end up supporting the candidate, if you don't have the black vote pretty much nailed down, I don't know that you can be a viable Democrat.
Can you? I don't know.
So something tells me that what's going to happen is that when Biden leaves the race, and that's going to happen, Bernie won't be able to move up that much.
Warren will not look like a viable candidate because she can't do better with black voters.
And I think Harris is going to look like the only person who has potential.
But she's got a problem.
She's a bad campaigner.
Harris is maybe a terrible campaigner.
She sort of has disappeared.
Her tweets are so nothing that they don't even register as good or bad.
They just sit there on the page like nothing had been written.
And apparently she's unable to do anything that puts her in the news.
If you're running for president and you can't get in the news and you're in the top four, what the heck are you doing?
So she's done pretty well in debates, but she doesn't seem to be good as a campaigner.
Apparently she doesn't have much of a stump speech, etc.
However, she has a few big advantages.
Two advantages are that she's a woman and she's a person of color, so she's got the basics down that make her brand and the Democrat brand very compatible.
So she is the kind of candidate who, if she did a good job, you could imagine the Democratic Party gathering around her, and she's young enough and she's smart enough that there's no obvious problems with age or capability.
But she does have a serious charisma problem.
Somebody says she laughs at her own jokes.
She just doesn't have leader face.
She just doesn't have a leader face because she seems non-confident and seems to be giggling at her own jokes and just not authentic.
But, here's the thing.
Of all of the problems that I've listed, which ones are fixable?
Can you fix Biden?
I don't think so.
I don't think that's fixable.
Whatever's going on there is not fixable.
Can you get Bernie to have more support?
I think it would have already happened.
Because we all know who he is.
Democrats know exactly what they would get.
And apparently half of them have decided that's not the way they want to go.
So I don't think he can get enough support that he would be viable.
Can Warren go from almost no African-American support to enough to be a good candidate?
Probably not, because again, we would already see signs of that.
It's almost unimaginable that she could go from almost no support to something like full support.
That's a little bit too much of a stretch.
What would Harris have to do to become viable?
Probably the only thing she'd have to do is pivot toward the middle.
Because remember, one of the criticisms about her is she's flip-flopping and seems to be unclear about what she wants.
Does she want reparations or does she want just a committee to talk about them?
Does she want you to give up your private health care or not?
There's a little ambiguity about what she wants.
Which could work to her advantage.
Because as long as you don't know exactly what her deal is, she can still craft it and shape it toward the general election.
So she's the only one who has a problem that can be fixed.
And even her charisma, her demeanor, her campaign style...
Pretty fixable. Because you're talking about somebody who's smart and has good advisors and is willing to put in the work, etc.
And under those conditions, yeah, there is a scenario in which she could improve her game.
None of them, I think, can beat President Trump.
So I'm still going to stay with my original prediction.
Because I don't think it would be fair to change my prediction.
So my prediction from one year ago was that Harris would be the nominee, but lose in the general election.
So I'm going to keep with it under the assumption that the three above her can't put together enough of a coalition.
And Biden leaving will be the key to that.
When Biden leaves, where will that support go?
Well, for one thing, it'll put Harris in the top three.
That alone would be a pretty big deal.
All right, let's talk about Comey.
The IG report says that Comey did some weaselly things with some memos and some confidential information and blah, blah, blah.
You've all read this story by now.
But, at least for this portion of his activities, the part that the IG report covered, so it hasn't talked about FISA applications or anything yet, but the things they covered apparently are not Something that the Justice Department thinks needs to be taken to court.
Now, Comey, of course, is claiming victory.
But here's the thing I don't quite understand about the IG report.
Do we know his motivation?
Because if you look at just the things he did, I'm willing to accept that our justice system looked at him and said, no, we can't get, there's no conviction we can get here, so it wouldn't matter who it was.
With this set of facts, we probably would not make a case out of it.
I'm okay with that.
You know, I feel okay trusting our justice system to decide whether or not that's illegal.
But here's the thing.
Was he trying to overthrow the government?
Shouldn't we know that?
Because it feels like there are two versions of motivations that would explain the facts that we all agree are in evidence.
You know, the facts that he claims as well as the facts the IG report confirms.
And one version is that he was honestly worried about Russian collusion or something.
And the other version is that he was trying to overthrow the legally elected president of the United States.
Don't you get executed for that?
Does it need to be illegal in order to execute somebody for treason?
Now, I'm not suggesting he should be executed.
Because, you know, I haven't looked at all the facts and I'm no lawyer or I'm no judge, but I'm just asking the question, does it have to be illegal, technically illegal, to be a coup?
Can you run a coup that technically follows the law but is still a coup?
Because it feels like that's what happened.
It feels as though he was Involved in trying to overthrow the President of the United States, he just happened to know how to do it in a way that wasn't illegal, you know, according to the specific laws that he was dealing with.
But shouldn't it also be illegal to overthrow the country?
Is that not illegal?
I mean, just by its nature, is that not illegal?
Don't people get hanged for that sort of thing?
I don't know. So I guess people who are smarter than I am will have to sort that out.
And I guess there's more coming on Comey.
And we would also need to know if the people he was working with were on the same page and what were all of their motivations.
And I don't know if we'll ever know that.
Because the people involved are going to say, well, we were just doing our job.
And if the president had been compromised, it was our job to find out.
So it feels as though we may have discovered a plot to overthrow the government that wasn't illegal.
I mean, that's just the weirdest thing in the world, but it looks like that's what's happening.
I don't know how to explain that.
In other news, Donnie Deutsch, his show on MSNBC got cancelled.
That's right, Donnie Deutsch, a big critic of President Trump, had a show on MSNBC and it got cancelled.
The news here is that Donnie Deutsch had a television show?
I didn't even know that.
But it got cancelled.
So, apparently, if you ask yourself, is there no limit to how much Trump hatred can be on MSNBC? Well, maybe there is a limit.
There might actually be a limit, and I guess Donnie Deutsch's TV show might be the limit of how much Trump derangement syndrome people are willing to watch for entertainment.
Here's a question that I asked on Twitter.
I said that every American CEO who is doing business with what I call hashtag fentanyl China needs to go on record for why they're supporting the world's biggest illegal drug dealers.
Don't you think we need to start doing that?
Don't you think that the CEOs of every major American company need to be on record, in public, you know, on a public record, for why they think they need to be doing business in China or with China?
I think they need to explain that.
Because all the business they do with China Is supporting the biggest illegal drug operation in the world?
And maybe they have reasons.
Perhaps their reasons are they're saving money for their shareholders.
But I think it's fair to say it.
Give us your reason.
Is your reason for supporting 50,000 fentanyl overdose deaths a year in the United States, is it because you can save some money?
Just tell us your reason, CEOs.
CEOs, tell us your reason that you think it's okay to deal with China.
Is it for profit?
If it is, just tell us.
If you're on the side of killing 50,000 Americans a year for a little extra money, just tell us.
We'd like to hear your explanation.
Now, when China killed my son, Which is indirectly true.
So as most of you know, my stepson died of an overdose that included fentanyl in his system a year ago, a little under a year ago.
And we know that most of the fentanyl, almost all of it, comes from China and goes through Mexico.
So when China killed my son, what they didn't realize is that they took out a son of The person in the world who is most capable of embarrassing managers.
Is there anybody on the planet Earth that you can think of?
Literally, on the planet Earth, can you think of anybody in the world and of seven billion people who could be more effective at embarrassing managers?
It's what I do for a living.
I literally embarrass management for a living.
I'm actually world famous for embarrassing companies and managers.
And now they've put me in the position, I mean, I didn't ask to be here.
Certainly there's nothing about this situation that I would have asked for.
But by chance, China took out my son.
And by doing so, I'm going to take out their whole fucking country.
Or I'm going to try.
Now, who knows how things are going to go.
But I'm going to make it very difficult for American companies to continue doing business in China.
They're going to have to answer for it.
And they're going to have to take a big kick in the balls if they want to do it.
So let's make it hard to do business there.
I understand one of the problems is that China is where we get most of our pharmaceuticals, and if they decided to stop doing that, we would be in big trouble with pharmaceuticals, for which I say we'd better hurry.
We'd better get that stuff out of China as quickly as possible.
Let's get anything out of China that has a, let's say, national security element to it.
So, China, you messed with the wrong cartoonist.
It's to the death now.
Now, I asked somebody who is an expert on China and knows a lot.
I won't mention who it was, but somebody who would be considered very knowledgeable on China.
And I asked, do you think China is watching me?
And he said, yes.
Now, there's no way to confirm that.
But if you were China, wouldn't you be paying attention to whatever pundits are saying about politics in the United States?
Of course you would. Of course you would.
So, if China could take me out, would they do it?
Probably. Probably.
But I'm going to be a little bit hard to get to.
And let me put this out there as clearly as possible.
As clearly as I can make this.
If China takes me out, you know what to do.
And it will be totally worth it.
If China kills me, which I think is actually possible, I think it's unlikely, if I had to put the odds on it pretty low.
But if I die in a mysterious accident, it probably wasn't Hillary Clinton who got me, right?
If I die in a mysterious accident, just make sure China knows that you didn't like it.
All right. Iran had a little problem with one of its rockets.
It was trying to launch a satellite, but the rockets that they used to launch satellites are the same rockets that they might use for intercontinental ballistic missiles.
So people who are not friendly with Iran, let's say the United States and Israel and Saudi Arabia and others, would not be too happy.
If Iran were successful in launching satellites.
So let me ask you this.
Do you think it was an accident that three times in a row, Iran's attempt to launch major missiles, they've blown up on the launch pad?
Do rockets blow up on launch pads a lot?
Is that something that happens a lot?
Because three in a row feels like no longer a coincidence.
It feels like I could easily see three rocket tests that didn't work.
You know, it's easy to imagine three that didn't work, right?
But three that blew up on the launch pad?
Now this comes right after we heard that the United States apparently did some kind of a cyber attack in which we managed to wipe out an Iranian database that was somehow important in tracking ships or doing something in the Gulf.
And that was our response to the mining of a ship.
Now, if we can get that deeply into the Iranian databases such that we can erase one of their most important databases that presumably has military-grade protection, do you think we can get at their missile program?
Probably. Probably.
And I would think that the best way to destroy a rocket on the launch pad would be with a hack.
Because if you did anything kinetic, you know, you shot anything at it, it would be noticeable.
But if you did something with software that made the launch sequence work in the wrong order, my guess is that we at least tried to do that, whether that worked or not, I don't know.
Mike Cernovich...
Tweeted something that I was thinking but had not said.
So I'll give Mike credit for this.
He said, remember when it was a big deal when Mattis resigned?
No one even notices.
That's one of the great lessons in life.
If you've ever worked for a company, especially a big company, and you've probably been in this situation where there's some manager or some key employee who gets fired or quits and you say to yourself, my God, how can we go on without that key employee?
And then a year later, you don't even know they're gone.
Right. You can't even tell the difference.
It's very rare to have a key employee.
I believe they exist.
But it's very rare. So when Mattis was originally quit and the world was worrying, oh my God, you know, he's the only one who's keeping President Trump sane, I thought to myself, I don't think I said it, but I thought to myself, well, here we go again. This will be the 10 millionth time somebody said that, what can we do if this person leaves?
And then nothing's really different.
I'm seeing in the comments somebody saying Steve Jobs was a key employee.
Now, I'm not sure that's a good example because although it is true that Apple has gone on to do great things, I don't know that they've innovated anything.
Has Apple innovated in any sort of radical way the way they did when Steve Jobs was there?
So he might actually be a case of a key employee who mattered.
He might be. I don't know.
But I didn't think Mattis was important because if he...
Let's put it this way. If Mattis had been as good as everybody said at doing his job, and let's say he was.
Let's say Mattis was as good as his biggest supporters say, because he had a lot of support, so I don't think they were all wrong.
If he was as good as everybody said...
He would have made sure he had good people working for him, good people who could come up and take the position.
You can't be that good of a leader and not have a deep bench behind you who can be a strong player should you leave.
And apparently that's what happened.
Apparently there was a strong bench, if you can call it that.
Top guy left.
Strong players came off the bench.
I don't know. I haven't noticed.
Have you noticed that things are worse because Mattis left?
I haven't noticed. And you're going to have to fact check me on this next thing.
My understanding is that Mattis, the last straw for Mattis, and the reason he left, is that he was opposed to pulling out of Syria when Trump wanted to.
Well, what has happened since Mattis left?
What's happened? Has everything gone wrong in Syria?
Because maybe it has.
I feel like we're not getting all the news out of Syria.
I don't know what's going on there.
But hasn't Trump been proven right?
So I could put that in the form of a question statement because I'm not willing to say for sure That Trump is right about Syria and that we should at least draw down our forces to some kind of minimum.
But I think that's the opposite of what Mattis wanted.
And it looks to me like drawing down our troops, at least to where they are now, doesn't seem to be hurting anything.
And I heard that Mattis' sort of larger complaint, and I think Syria was part of it, Was that we're not doing what we committed to our allies.
I don't know if he's talking about Israel in this case.
But we watched Israel just take out an Iranian drone operation in Syria quite effectively.
I don't know if Israel needed our help.
I mean, maybe we did help in some way.
But things seemed to be going fine.
So I guess we didn't need Mattis after all.
All right. And the President has officially turned Space Force into a sixth branch.
I think it's official now.
And in the sense that there are people who are assigned to turn our space operations into a real military force.
Some people say Don't militarize space, to which I say, it's too late.
If we don't, other countries are already starting to put assets up there.
You have to militarize space.
Militarizing space is really not optional, is it?
I don't see any world in which militarizing space is optional.
You kind of have to.
Because you know, what would happen if a country unfriendly to us militarized space and we didn't?
Well, whoever militarizes space also owns Earth.
Because if you can be in space and, you know, shoot stuff down, it's going to be hard to shoot things from the ground up and hit you.
I mean, speaking in very simplistic terms, I would think that militarizing space gives you a pretty, pretty big advantage on terrestrial stuff.
All right. There's a big hurricane coming for Florida.
We hope that everybody's safe.
If anybody wants to report on that during the hurricane itself, let me know.
I would like to see live video from it.
You don't have to use my app.
And if you do, you can set the price you charge to zero so people don't yell at me again.
The outrage tourists like to say, wait, it's a tragedy.
Don't suggest using your app.
But if it helps you, you can set your price to zero and there will be no money changing hands.
It will just be an asset that you can use.
And you don't even have to use that.
You can use FaceTime, anything you want.
But I would love to see live pictures of the hurricane for people who are safe.
If you're in a safe place and you've got some interesting pictures, I would like to help you share them.
So the news industry can do that too, but I'd love to see them.
So if you use the Interface by WinHub app to do that, You don't have to set the price.
You can set it at zero.
You can just do it as a public service.
And that would be great. All right.
Yeah, it's too late to nuke it.
And I will talk to you later.
▲
Export Selection