All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 6, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
49:55
Episode 685 Scott Adams: AOC and the Parody Inversion, Biden’s Declining Brain, Outrage Theater
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey Kevin come on in here Take a seat. Hello, everybody.
It's time for...
Coffee with Scott Adams.
Yes, it's that time again.
It's the best time of the day.
It's the part of the day that makes all the rest of your day so much better.
And all it takes...
There's a little participation in the simultaneous sip.
It doesn't take much.
Hey, Jackie, Patrick, Beth, come on in here.
Do you have your vessel?
Your vessel to fill with liquids?
You can use any kind of a vessel.
It could be a cup or a mug or a glass of stein, a chalice, a tanker, a thermos, a flask, a canteen, a grail, a goblet, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything amazing.
The simultaneous sip.
Go! Oh, nailed it.
Good job out there.
Your simultaneity was excellent today.
Better than normal. So, as you know, we've reached the parody inversion point, which I called out in the Dilbert comic strip, if you didn't see it all last week I was talking about it.
It's the point where you actually can't tell the difference between parody and reality.
Like, actually, literally, you can't tell.
Best example, of course, was the AOC meeting in which a troll said, maybe we should be eating babies because things are so dire.
And it was a little bit hard for people to tell if that was real.
Like, legitimately, they couldn't tell if somebody was suggesting eating babies to remediate climate change.
Actually couldn't tell.
But it gets better.
Today AOC, I guess it was last night, she retweeted somebody who was saying that it's obvious that the President is being anti-Semitic because he's attacking Schiff and Nadler.
Now, do I even have to continue talking about this, or are we already at the point where we can all say together, I can't tell if that's real or parody.
Now, it gets better.
The claim is that because the president has been going hard at Schiff, Nadler, and AOC, that proves he's both an anti-Semite and he doesn't like people of color.
Okay. The first thing I'd say is, Are you telling me that Nadler and Schiff are Jewish?
I didn't know that.
Did you? Did you even know they were Jewish?
I mean, I think maybe if I thought about it, I could have, you know, I might have pieced it together.
Maybe I've heard it. But was that on anybody's mind?
Is there any voter who is looking at this situation and saying, hey, look at those Jewish guys coming for the president?
I don't think so.
I think all we saw was Democrats, didn't we?
If you're a Republican, do you see anything but Democrats?
I mean, the Democrat brand is so strong that it kind of incorporates woman, person of color, religion, whatever.
That's their brand.
Their brand is... The entire point of being a Democrat, it seems, is the whole diversity thing.
So if you're in a political contest against Democrats, what are you supposed to do?
You're either going to be mocking a woman, a person of color, or something.
Now, here's how dumb it is.
It's not as if the President isn't going after Nancy Pelosi on a regular basis.
He's going harder at Joe Biden than he's going after anybody except Hillary Clinton.
And how about Mitt Romney?
So today, last week, he's after Mitt Romney, Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, AOC, and from that crowd of people he went after, AOC tweets around that he's obviously clearly anti-Semitic.
Now, do you think she even believes that?
Do you think if you had a private conversation and she knew...
She knew that nobody would ever hear what she said.
It's just the two of you.
It's just AOC and you.
And you say, AOC, come on.
Did you really mean that?
Do you really think that because, coincidentally, two of these several people that the president is going after, who are going after him as hard as they can, literally trying to impeach him for bullshit, Do you really think that that's a case of anti-Semitism?
Because really, maybe the president should talk to his daughter and his son-in-law and his grandchildren who are Jewish, and maybe Israel should notice, given that they're naming towns after him.
I mean, really.
Do you think privately she thinks that?
I don't think so. Now, before you're tempted to call her stupid, it's definitely not stupid.
It's evil. I mean, it's really evil.
I can't think of anything the president has ever been even accused of doing.
Now, listen to this carefully.
Forget about what the president, you believe, has actually done or didn't do.
Just talk about the things he's accused of.
Is there anything that the president has ever been accused of?
Well, I guess the people accused him of, some people said he was going to do things.
But let's just take the things he was actually accused of really doing, not the things they think he might do in the future or could have done.
Only the things that are real.
Has the president ever done anything as bad as trying to start a race war?
Because that's what AOC is doing.
Is there anything he's even been accused of?
Even if you imagine that the accusations were all true.
Now, you can't count the crazy people who, when he got elected, said, oh, he's going to have concentration camps for gay people and stuff like that.
Those weren't accusations.
Those were, like, imaginary future things.
But the things that people think he really did, such as a phone call with the Ukraine, Let's say the worst case.
If you took the Democrats' batshit crazy view that it's not his job to protect the elections and the integrity of our republic, let's say you took that view that he was only doing it to get re-elected.
Is that as bad as what AOC tweeted?
Because, to me, it doesn't even look close.
If I were to weigh those things in terms of moral and even risk of life and death, those aren't even close.
If you're trying to start a race war, like literally calling out anti-Semitism where it clearly doesn't exist, That seems way worse than anything the president's even been accused of doing.
Even if you imagined he did everything he's been accused of, it's still worse.
And if you're searching your brain to find the counter example, you're probably saying, well, kids in cages.
There you go, kids in cages.
Well, Obama had kids in cages, and well...
It was kind of Congress has a set of laws that kind of made that situation happen.
And even if you took the worst view of that, that the president wanted to inflict some discomfort in order to reduce immigration, even if you took that narrow worst interpretation, I think AOC still beat it.
That tweet seems more evil Because it's intention.
I think it's because of intention.
It's obviously trying to create a race war situation.
Man. Now, what's interesting is As I was thinking about this, I was thinking, you know, people are worried about some kind of a civil war.
Do you hear people talking, oh, there's going to be a civil war.
It'll be people in the streets, civil war.
I always think, no.
The actual citizens of this country are nowhere near.
Not even 1% close to anything like a civil war among people.
Because it turns out that the citizens...
are better than they've ever been.
The government might be worse than it's ever been in terms of the way it operates, but I think the citizens are better than we've ever been.
Am I wrong? Are your neighbors worse than they were 20 years ago?
I don't think so. I think your neighbors have come along with everybody else.
I think people get along pretty well.
But, as I was thinking that, I thought to myself, Actually, I think we are in a civil war, but a different kind.
It does seem to me that it would be accurate to say that something like the deep state, maybe it's just Democrats, I don't know, whether you want to call it the deep state or the Democrats, what we're seeing with this nonstop, continuous push to impeachment that really started all the way back with trying to invalidate the electoral college,
invalidate the election election, The entire process is a civil war because there are Republicans who are trying to make their vote still count according to the Constitution and all that and keep their president.
And there's some large faction who's trying to remove this president with non-democratic means.
Now, we don't know who the leader of this is.
We can guess.
A few names, of course.
But I would say this is a civil war.
Isn't it a coup? Now, a coup, when you think of a coup, you think of something that happens faster, right?
Don't you think of a coup as something that happens this week, and it's either over or the coup people are rounded up and, you know, jailed or whatever?
So, it doesn't feel like a coup anymore.
It feels like a civil war.
And the Civil War is being fought not even so much by the citizens, but by different entities within the government.
And the citizens are just sort of watching it like it's a movie.
And we're, you know, cheering and clapping for one team or the other.
But the citizens don't seem to be involved in the Civil War.
Coup seems short term.
This is the entire length of his presidency.
With no sign that it's ever going to stop.
It just transforms into a different form.
It's like, oh, Russia collusion.
Well, that didn't work.
Let's try a little Ukrainian business a little bit.
So, we are in a civil war, I would say.
It just happens to be fought by people whose names we don't know, necessarily, and the government.
Along those lines, how many more whistleblowers do you expect to see?
We've seen one, and now there was this news of a so-called second whistleblower.
Now, let me guess.
We don't know the name of the whistleblower.
Let me guess.
The things the whistleblower is saying will be disputed by people who also have a direct knowledge of the situation.
Just guessing.
And whatever the second whistleblower says will eventually be debunked, but not until it's done its damage, you know, in the headlines.
After the second whistleblower is debunked, how many more will we see?
Well, certainly another one.
So we're on whistleblower 2 hoax so far.
I think whistleblower 3 hoax is probably in the pipeline.
I wouldn't be surprised if four and five are already being lined up.
So it looks like it's obvious what the play is going to be, the death by many fake whistleblowers.
So look for that.
There's a weird thing that I'm going to jump around today for some reason.
There's a weird thing that the anti-Trumpers are saying about the Ukraine phone call.
They're saying that what was happening is that the President really was doing his gangster talk, and what he really wanted was Ukraine to manufacture dirt on his opponent.
So, let me ask you this.
Isn't that the same risk for every legal investigation?
Isn't it just sort of like, if you were going to say, let's hold a sporting event, Would you have to ask if oxygen will be there?
Well, probably not.
Because if it's on Earth, probably there will be oxygen.
And you need oxygen to have a proper sporting event.
So you don't really need to say, will there be oxygen at your sporting event?
That would be ridiculous.
Likewise, if you're having a legal investigation, is there ever a risk that somebody will make up some facts?
How about every time?
Is there any such thing as a legal investigation that does not have some risk, just built into the situation, that somebody will tell you something that isn't true?
How do you have a legal investigation without that?
So to say that he wanted them to manufacture evidence, that's kind of a mind-reading stretch, wouldn't you say?
Likewise, when AOC says that his clear intent is to be anti-Semitic, talking about the President, based on what?
Her ability to read minds?
The Democrats have literally devolved into mind reading as their primary evidence against the President.
Actual, literally, they're telling you they can see his inner thoughts.
They're not telling you why he did was so bad, minus his internal thoughts.
Think of this. If you were to separate what the president did with, let's say, the Ukrainian phone call, if you were to separate that from any notion of what his internal thoughts are, is it a problem?
Nope. It's not a problem.
Because what he did was consistent with the role of a president.
Now you say to yourself, here's the other thing that the anti-Trumpers are saying.
I think Romney said this, and this will require the help of my little friend Dale.
And it goes like this.
Why is it that the president is only interested in this corruption, this Biden corruption?
Coincidentally? Coincidentally happens to be his political rival?
Is that a coincidence?
I don't think it's a coincidence. One person out of seven billion in the whole world, his biggest political rival is the only one the president is looking into personally.
Oh yeah! That's likely.
Seen. What is left out of that?
Joe Biden is polling number one in the polls to be the next president of the United States.
At the same time, there's something that looks like, to observers, an obvious conflict of interest with a foreign country.
Now, let me ask you this.
Would Hunter Biden stand to lose money With his situation with the oil company there and his monthly payments, would Joe Biden's son be in a position where he might lose out on a lot of money if Biden did something that Ukraine didn't like?
Right? It's a big risk.
What if Ukraine had some little information about either Hunter or Joe Biden?
Because it looks like they do.
I'm not saying they do.
I'm saying that on the surface, the allegations are certainly credible.
The allegation being that there's a conflict of interest.
Well, there's a large amount of money being paid to Hunter Biden and nobody disputes that.
And it's coming from a large company that probably has connections to oligarchs and leaders and whatever.
So, certainly it's worth asking the question.
Now, how high a priority would it be for a president to make sure that the person who's polling the highest to be the next president of the United States, how important is it for the sitting president To check on an obvious indication that this person could be at least somewhat controlled by a country that's very important.
Now, Ukraine is important because of its position and geography and Russia, blah, blah, blah.
So, Ukraine is more important than it normally would be just because of the Russia connection, etc.
How important is it in the scheme of the President's priorities To make sure that the next president is not owned by the Ukraine.
What priority would you put on that?
Well, if we were at war, I would say the war is a higher priority.
But we don't really have anything that looks like a war.
If our economy were tanking, I'd say, damn it, President Trump, stop messing with this little stuff.
Get on that economy.
There's 20% people are unemployed, but that's not the case.
We're at a 50-year low for unemployment.
So given that the president has, in fact, taken care of a lot of business and successfully, the top priority of the country is probably whatever loose thread or squeaking wheel is left.
Because the big stuff's kind of taken care of.
Now, I would say that health care and a lot of other things need to be taken care of, but they're more the domain of Congress than the president.
I mean, somebody has to come up with a law that people like, or else the president can't do a damn thing.
So, what does the president have that would be a higher priority...
Then making sure, at least according to the polls, the probable next president, or at least one of the possible next presidents, is not in the pocket of Ukraine.
How important is that as a national priority?
Number one?
Top priority?
Right? Oh, somebody's saying China and fentanyl China.
Well, he's doing what he can on that, and that seems to be under control in the sense that there's a lot going on there.
So, under the condition that a president is doing his top priority for the country, and it's well within the job description of what he does, And there's nobody who is in the position of Joe Biden, which is polling number one on the polls to be the next president.
Who else was polling number one to be the next president of the United States?
Nobody. Well, so of course, out of seven billion people in the whole world, does it make sense that he was focusing on Joe Biden?
Well, yeah, Joe Biden was the only one who has obvious Ukraine conflicts.
We don't know if there are problems, you know, it's a problem.
But it's obvious, based on the information we all have, that there's a conflict of interest there.
Could be important, could be not important.
But it's certainly a conflict of interest.
And so I tweeted...
This morning. I said that we must impeach President Trump.
I'm just using the parody and version logic here.
We must impeach President Trump for bringing unemployment to a 50-year low of 3.5%.
He only did that to get re-elected.
When will this grifter start looking out for the American people instead of just himself?
In other words, everything a president does is to get re-elected.
That's our system. We designed a system, we the founders, and most of us have bought into it.
We have a system which by preference and choice allows your politician to pursue his own self-interest right in front of you.
So long as, and here's the important point, it's also his job.
Now if he did something that wasn't his job, and it was just good for him, well I would say you should look into that.
Maybe that's impeachable.
So if somebody does something that's only good for them, it's not good for anybody else, and it's not in their job description, well, you're going to have to look into that.
But if somebody pursues arguably the top most important priority of the country, which is to keep foreign interference out of our government, given that the other stuff is pretty well handled at the moment, right?
War would be bigger, bad economy would be bigger, but they're under control.
So the president pursuing his top priority as a president that a president can actually do.
Again, he can't fix health care by himself, etc.
Congress has to do that.
How in the world can we treat that as impeachable when it's the actual system working the way the system is supposed to work?
That's actually the way the system is designed.
The president is supposed to look at the politics.
He's supposed to look around and say, well, what would get me reelected?
That is also my job.
That is also my job.
That's the part that the critics leave out.
That is also his job.
As long as he does his job.
It doesn't matter if he's doing it because he wants to be elected.
So you can mind-read all day long and say, hey, I'm pretty sure I can see inside the mind of a stranger, in this case the President, and what I see in there is that he didn't care about the Republic.
He only wanted to get re-elected.
Do you know what? That's our system.
That's exactly the way it's supposed to work.
It doesn't matter.
It does not matter what his internal thoughts are.
They're trying to make you believe that it matters what the President's internal thoughts were.
It doesn't matter. It matters, was it his job to protect the Republic from foreign interference?
Yeah, clearly. And in fact, he's the top guy who needs to be doing that.
There's nobody else who has that more of their job than the president, by definition.
And was he pursuing one of the, you know, it doesn't have to be the top priority, but was it one of the top priorities for the country's benefit?
Clearly. You wouldn't want the next president to be in the pocket of Ukraine.
There's nobody who wants that. And how much work did he put into it?
In other words, did he cannibalize all the other priorities to work on this one thing?
Because that would be a problem, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't it be a problem?
You would have a problem with this, too, if he just stopped working on everything else to focus on this little Ukraine thing because it was good for politics.
Well, that would be a problem.
How much work did he put into it?
Two sentences on a phone call?
I believe that was the total amount of effort he put into this priority.
Now, it was probably enough because it looks like Ukraine might look into it a little bit and it caused a lot of focus on it.
So it was probably enough. But with two sentences on one phone call, He created some action around one of the biggest priorities in the country, which is to make sure a foreign entity is not interfering.
Now, you notice that what the anti-Trumpers are doing is they're trying to manufacture a crime out of nothing by changing the words used to describe it.
And you'll see this over and over again.
They're trying to criminalize A president doing his job exactly the way the Constitution is written up.
What's your job description?
Are you doing it?
Yes and yes.
That phone call is his job description and he was doing it.
Is it a top priority? That's also a fair question.
Yup. What was a bigger priority than that?
Not much. The Democrats just spent, what, two years convincing us that foreign interference was our top priority, because it's all they were talking about.
Now the President treats it like it's a top priority, and they want to impeach him for it.
So it's the parody inversion point.
All right. Did you see?
So, I think the mole is working for the Biden campaign.
Now, if you're new to this, the mole, with capital letters T and M for the mole, is a fictitious character that I invented during the 2016 election, in which I was mocking Hillary Clinton for having a bad communication situation.
And her tweets and some of her statements were so bad I joked that she must have a mole, you know, a Trump mole working for her who was giving her bad advice intentionally.
Yeah, why don't you call them all deplorables?
That'll work out. I think they'd like to be called deplorables.
You know, so that was the idea, that wherever bad advice came from, it was from the mole.
So the mole is not a real person.
It's more of a funny concept.
And I think the mole is working for Biden because they designed somebody, designed a logo, You know, a Biden campaign logo for Iowa that featured aviator glasses.
Now, sunglasses.
Now, when you think about aviator-style sunglasses, what do you think?
Apparently, they were trying to make people think of Biden.
I guess he must wear aviator sunglasses.
So the most...
The most positive thing that anybody could think of for Joe Biden was something he bought on a store shelf.
So apparently this...
This is so amazingly pathetic.
I don't know if I can even finish talking about it.
It's so funny. So when you see those sunglasses, you think of somebody concealing their eyes.
That's not good. You think of the Unabomber.
That's what I tweeted. You can see it in the comments.
You think of the Unabomber when you see those glasses.
But you certainly think of somebody who's trying to conceal their real intentions with the sunglasses.
And then here's the other thing.
If you can't think of anything good about your candidate except their sunglasses, you don't have much to work with.
President Trump was trying to make America great again.
And I'm thinking, okay, that works.
Make America great again.
Joe Biden has sunglasses.
Let me say that again.
Here are the two approaches to campaigning.
Just see if you can tell which one is the good one.
Make America great again.
That's President Trump.
And now we'll compare that to Joe Biden wears sunglasses.
One is a little bit better than the other one.
Yeah. Sunglasses literally tell you that there's something shady going on.
Literally. But it gets better.
Did you see the clip of Joe Biden?
He must have been talking to some medical group.
And he said that if there are angels in heaven, they're all male and female nurses.
Did you see that? You have to see it.
Alright. Maybe I can find it on my phone quickly enough that it would not bore you while I wait.
See how quickly I can do this with my fast fingers.
Alright. Where are you, Joe Biden?
There it is. See if I can play it.
I want you to concentrate on how incompetent this is.
Now, I think Joe Biden needs to find a respectable way to leave the race.
But if he doesn't, I think we can stop being nice to whatever's going on with him cognitively.
I mean, at some point, you just have to say, okay, we can't ignore this anymore.
I just want you to...
See if you think this sounds like a competent person who's at the top of his game.
All right? We'll see if you can hear this.
You know, if there are any angels in heaven, they're all male and female nurses.
And they're not getting paid enough.
They're not getting treated enough.
And all those home care workers, they should be trained how to increase their capacity to serve everything.
I mean, we can do this.
Now, did that sound like somebody who was in his right mind?
Because I don't know which parts to even criticize, but where he feels he needs to specify that nurses can be male and female, I think to myself, is this the 60s?
Is there anybody watching this Periscope who didn't already know there are male nurses?
Did he really need to specify there's such a thing as male nurses?
I don't think so.
I don't think so, Joe Biden.
I think he's lost in the 60s.
I'm pretty sure every single citizen of this country knows that nurses can be male and female.
And guess what, Joe? This may surprise you.
Because I know Joe Biden is not keeping up with the latest, but have you heard, Joe Biden, there are women who are doctors now?
Actual doctors. Can you believe it?
Can you believe it?
There are women who are doctors now.
And I'm going to blow your mind, Joe, but have you been in any kind of a commercial aircraft lately?
And I don't know if you noticed this, but there are now pilots who are female.
Can you believe it? Can you believe it, Joe Biden?
There are both male and female pilots of airplanes, of actual airplanes.
And what about college?
Did you know that there are college students, and this may shock you, but there are college students now that are both male and female.
Have you heard about this? It's incredible.
Yeah. And this will blow your mind, but I once met a woman who was a computer programmer.
So now there are men and women and women who can use computers.
Can you believe that, Joe Biden?
I mean, it starts with this nurse thing.
First thing you know, there are men who are nurses, there are women who are nurses.
One thing leads to another, and every gender is going to be doing every job.
Whoa! What's happening?
All right, so, parity inversion.
How can...
And here's something I ask you.
When you watch President Trump do a rally speech, for example, isn't it easy for you to understand Why you might like it, but you can kind of understand why people who don't like the president would find something problem, you know, some problem with the way he's presenting himself.
You can kind of understand it, even if you don't agree with it.
But here's my question.
Do you believe there's any Democrat who's watching Joe Biden's performance and is saying to him or herself, because it turns out, I don't want to shock you again.
Did you know that Democrats can be male and female?
And every other gender as well?
Yeah, that's a new thing.
And voters. Did you know that you can vote if you're a man or a woman?
And it doesn't even matter what you identify as.
You could be any other gender you want.
You can still vote!
Does Joe Biden know that?
This is amazing, these modern times.
But is there any Democrat who's looking at Joe Biden and saying, yeah, that looks right to me.
Yeah, that looks good.
I think he's the guy.
I don't think so. I don't think there's one Democrat who is saying that privately.
I don't think even one.
So we're down to Elizabeth Warren, because Bernie...
Bernie is pretty much done because of the heart attack.
I think the citizens hear heart attack and suddenly his age matters.
It was easy to imagine his age didn't matter when he looked at the top of health.
Now, to be technically correct, this heart attack was so minor and handled so routinely that you really can't make a judgment about his ongoing health except that he's a certain age.
But still, the way the voters feel about it, that's sort of the end of the story.
So Warren should be blazing up to the top pretty soon, and that will free up Biden to drop out.
Biden needs Warren to have a commanding lead in the important polls in order for him to say, okay, people, I gave it my best shot.
But the Democrats, you know, plurality prefers a different kind of candidate and I'm going to respect the voters.
So you need Warren to get like a really serious lead and ideally in national polls versus Biden and then Biden is free To leave the race.
Because his entire argument is electability.
And if it looks like he has no chance of getting the nomination, then there's no electability argument.
So Warren can take Biden out of the race simply by demonstrating she's more popular among Democrats.
That would be sufficient for Biden to have a respectable reason to leave.
And he could say...
Well, I gave it my best shot.
So he could say, you know, I tried.
I did what I could for the country.
The voters have spoken.
I respect what they say.
So he has an off-ramp now.
So Warren's going to give him that off-ramp.
But do you think Warren's going to get the nomination?
What happens to Biden's votes when Biden leaves?
Where do they go? Do they go to Elizabeth Warren?
Because she's sort of the opposite of Biden.
Do they go to Bernie Sanders?
No. No, because Bernie's on the decline.
Where do they go? Well, I think you're going to see Buttigieg, Yang, and Harris all get a little bump from that.
So we'll see. What else we got going on?
Oh, the other funny thing happening is that...
So there's some rumors that Rick Perry, who's Secretary of Department of Energy, I think, that he's talking about moving back into the private sector at some schedule to be determined.
He's not in any hurry, apparently.
So there are two stories about Rick Perry.
One is that he's going to leave government.
Two... Trump threw him under the bus for being the one who suggested that he make the phone call about Ukraine.
I tell you, it's a parody inversion.
How perfect is it that the one guy who's leaving government is the guy that Trump is pinning the phone call on?
You know, I wasn't even going to make that phone call, but Rick Perry said maybe I should.
And coincidentally, Rick Perry's leaving government.
How lucky is that?
Anyway, that just seems like such a corporate thing to do.
All right, I think that's about all that's happening right now, right?
So watch for the Civil War, the dark forces aligned with the Democrats, who will be sending one whistleblower after another, all presumably fake, to confuse things.
Now, let me ask you this.
You know how there are always these indicators of who's going to win the election?
So, you know, there's always dozens and dozens of variables, and there's always some expert who says, you know, this indication means that the president will get reelected.
Let's talk about a few of those.
All right, one indicator of who will win the next election is the incumbency.
So the incumbent always has a big advantage.
So that advantage goes to Trump.
Another way to predict a winner is who raises the most money.
And that predicts Trump.
Another indicator is how well the economy is doing.
And that predicts Trump.
Another indicator would be how good you are at campaigning.
And that indicates Trump.
Another indicator is your policies.
If you have policies that are generally compatible with the public, then you have more chance of getting elected.
Assuming that Warren will take the lead pretty soon, if you're looking at Warren, just hypothetically, Warren versus Trump, which one of them has policies that are closest to what the American people, on average, want?
Trump. Because even though the free healthcare situation is popular among the people who would get it, all the people who would have to pay for it, in addition to their own healthcare, are going to say, I kind of like the healthcare I have with my company, where they pay for it and I don't really pay much or anything.
So Warren has the kind of policies that for every person who loves it, there's going to be a Democrat Who's not in favor of it, because it's just going to cost them money to pay for somebody else.
So if you look at policies, Trump, he has the policies that are closer to the American people.
What are the other variables?
What are the other things that predict?
Can you think of any?
Because it seems to me that literally everything that predicts All those variables, people say, well, you look at this variable and that's the one that tells you what's going to happen.
It feels like every variable is going Trump's way.
Am I wrong? Am I missing one?
Because, you know, even if you were to...
Oh, somebody's saying scandal.
I think scandal's going to look similar both ways.
The thing that the president has going for him is that we're...
Well, let me put it this way.
Imagine Trump...
Against any Democrat.
So it could be any one of the whoever's left, a dozen or so that left.
So imagine it's Trump versus anybody else.
Now let me ask you this question.
Which of those two, you know, one person, whoever's your favorite from the Democrats, versus Trump, the two of them?
And let's say one of them becomes the president for the coming four years, the next term.
Which one of them is more likely to have an undiscovered scandal that comes up after becoming president?
Think about it.
Is Trump likely to have additional scandals that we haven't figured out?
Or is whoever gets elected likely to have something bubble up that we didn't know about?
Which one of those is more likely?
Well, Trump has been analyzed by everybody who can analyze in a thousand different ways.
He might be, and this is the ironic part, Trump might be the cleanest president we've ever had.
Now, let me explain that.
By clean, I don't mean he's never done anything that people would say, hey, that looks sketchy.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we know it all.
We know it all. What would happen if there's some, like, sex scandal about Trump?
What would you say?
You'd say, uh, well, you wouldn't care.
What happened?
Do you think there's any, like, additional Russia collusion or any Russian interference with Trump that we don't already know about?
Well, probably not.
He's been, you know, he's had a scope up his colon for three years.
Probably not. What about transparency, as somebody said in the comments?
He's probably the most transparent president we've ever had.
Now, let's say we don't find out about his taxes.
We're over it.
We're over it.
Because if the IRS doesn't care about his taxes, I think most people, if you took them out of the political mode and you just said, look, if the IRS doesn't have a problem, do you have a problem?
Because we're watching them every way you can watch somebody.
If the Trumps were putting together some new land deal in Russia today, I think you'd know about it, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you know about that?
Completely by accident, the president has become the most transparent, understood president of all time.
Probably nobody will ever come close, I would think.
And now, no matter who you put in there, whether it's Warren or Buttigieg or anybody else, what are the odds that we know as much about them?
It's really low.
The odds that we know enough about any of the Democrats is really low.
The one that we should know the most about is Biden, and he's got a Ukraine problem.
So I would say that the president has a weird...
I know how ironic this sounds, but because we know so much about the president and because he's never hidden...
As he put it when he was running for election, he said of himself, I'm no angel.
And so when people voted, they were voting for the guy who said he's no angel.
And that's what they got.
They got exactly that guy.
So in a weird way, he's sort of Teflon.
Because anything that comes our way that's sort of in the same range of things we've already mentally discarded is just going to get mentally discarded again.
That's the problem Democrats are having with this Ukraine phone call thing.
If Trump were some other person, some other politician, you would say, my God, we thought he was perfect, but here's this phone call thing and now our impression of him has all changed.
But when Trump makes that phone call, you say to yourself, yeah, of course it was self-interest.
It was also his job.
So he's perfectly allowed to do his job, to do his top priority of protecting the republic.
At the same time, he's taking care of himself.
That's our system. So as long as he's following the system the way it was designed, as long as it's transparent, And as long as it's moving in a direction we're generally happy with, economy looks good, etc., I don't see how he doesn't get re-elected.
Unless the revolution is a success.
but I'm sure that all of you will make sure it is not.
All right, just looking at your comments. - Yes.
Yeah, Raul Castro said he wants to phase out nuclear power.
And I would say that that's a case of Raul Castro phasing himself out of the election.
because if you're not in favor of the newer generations of nuclear energy, you know, the newer technology, if you're not in favor of that, you just haven't done your homework, and you don't care about climate change.
I mean, that's just disqualifying right there, because even Democrats are pro-nuclear.
You know, Cory Booker, Yang, Biden, even Biden is pro-nuclear.
All right.
If you would like to learn how to avoid loserthink, my book is ready for pre-order.
You can get it all the places you pre-order books, Amazon, et cetera.
And this book will help you defeat the people you are arguing with.
Because I say right in the book, you have permission, so permission is granted in this book, to take your phone and take a picture of any page, boop, and put it on social media to win your argument.
Because what I do here is I detail bad thinking styles.
You know, how to think incorrectly, and then how to think correctly, so that you can get out of your bubble.
So if you find somebody in a bubble, and you can say, oh, they have a half-pinion, or they are using the mind-reading illusion, one of the classic problems of thinking, you can just take a picture, boop, put it on social media, you have my permission, if it's just a page, and...
If it's just a page and you can win your argument by referring to an official book.
One of the things about books is if you're lucky enough to get a book published, people take you seriously.
So just the fact that it's in a book makes it seem like it's more authoritative.
So that's part of the magic of this.
All right. That's all I got for now.
Let's watch for Whistleblower 2, 3, 4, and 5 as the revolution continues in slow motion and Outrage Theater continues.
▲
Export Selection