All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:08
Episode 696 Scott Adams: Third-Rate Politicians, Sharing All That Syrian Sand, The Hypnosis Coup
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Hey everybody, come on in here.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
And as you're streaming in here, because I know you don't want to miss it.
No you don't. Today will be a good one.
Oh yeah. Today it's all kinds of fun news.
The kind that goes well with coffee.
And if you're prepared, and I know you are because you're that kind of people, You may already have what you need.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a snifter, a chalice, tankard, thermos, flask, canteen, grail, goblet, vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And now, get ready for the dopamine hit of the day.
Hey, Hartwick. And the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Go! Oh, that's good simultaneous sipping.
So Felicity Huffman has reported to prison.
You know about that story from the college admission scandals.
And here's the local angle.
So it turns out that the jail that Felicity Huffman is going to is right down the street from me, practically walking distance.
It's technically walking distance.
It's about five miles.
But it's a place I drive by all the time.
And I thought to myself, I should tell William Macy to stop by sometime.
He'll probably be in the area a lot.
Probably needs a nice place to stay.
So, William Macy, if you're watching this, DM me.
We can have lunch or something.
But it'll only be two weeks, and then I guess she'll be out.
So, this is one of the funnier days in the news.
Am I right? Am I right?
So, watching Schumer announce to the press that President Trump had called Nancy Pelosi either a third-rate politician or a third-grade politician.
And they really needed to figure that out.
Is it third-rate or is it third-grade?
There's some controversy about that.
So, here is my takeaway.
First of all, the funniest tweet about this is when you see the pictures of Schumer and Nancy Pelosi talking to the press, somebody tweeted a picture of the two of them and said, I heard the cryptkeeper and his mom are having a bad couple of years.
The cryptkeeper and his mom.
It's cruel, but it's funny.
Now, here's my takeaway.
The whole Pelosi-Schumer walking out thing is nothing but outrage theater.
And if you know what outrage theater is...
Or if you don't, let me invite my partner, Dale, to come over and explain it to you.
Outrage Theater goes like this.
Oh, Trump calls her a third-rate politician!
And then she walked out.
Now, let me ask you this.
How much importance does Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, what importance do they put on saving the Kurds?
So she goes into a meeting, Pelosi does, with Schumer and Trump, and they're trying to literally save the lives of the Kurds, our allies.
But they decided not to save the lives of the Kurds, Because Trump may have insulted her.
What? She decided not to save the lives of the Kurds because Trump said something mean?
And so that was a better thing to do.
Go to the cameras, go to the microphones, and try to win a point.
Win a little point.
Ah, we got him. We got him now.
He's saying insulting things.
Whoever imagined that President Trump would say something insulting?
Now, who was President Trump talking to with this alleged comment that he or she, mostly she, was a third-rate politician?
Was it the third-rate politician who's been calling the president A deranged racist for the past three years?
I think if somebody calls you a deranged racist for three years, and you call them a third-rate politician, I don't even know if you're even yet.
I would say the President actually owes her a few insults.
He's a few insults short.
He could crank it up a little bit, just to get even.
But I think we can conclude from this that neither Schumer nor Pelosi could give a rat's ass about the Kurds.
We're all on that page, right?
Is there anybody who thinks that Schumer and Pelosi care anything about the Kurds?
Nope. I'm going to make a prediction here that will be the strangest prediction, given what the headlines say.
I think that Trump's decision to pull out of Syria Will, once the fog of war settles and there's a little historical context and we know what's actually turned out instead of just guessing, I think Trump pulling out of Syria is going to turn into one of the great decisions of any president.
And every time he talks about it and they mock him for his, let's say, his plain-spoken way of just telling it like it is, I can't help liking him more.
Is that happening to you too?
Let me give you some quotes from Trump about the Syrian situation.
And I swear I just like him more every time he talks like this.
He said, I wish them all a lot of luck.
He waved off concerns that he was providing an opening for Russia, Iran, and Syria to swoop into the area.
Quote, I wish them a lot of luck, Trump said.
If Russia wants to get involved in Syria, that's really up to them.
And the president appeared to make light of the situation when he said...
He said, they've got a lot of sand over there, so there's a lot of sand they can play with.
They've got a lot of sand over there.
I can't tell you how perfectly that explains what I feel about the situation.
There's a lot of sand over there.
I'm not even sure if anybody owns it.
Right? I mean, at one point, I'm sure there were property rights and stuff, but at the moment, I don't even know if anybody owns that sand.
And there's a lot of it.
They probably have enough to share.
There's a lot of sand over there.
There's no more perfect way to describe how low our national interest is than to call it a bunch of sand.
So he got, somehow the president got all of our enemies and frenemies to fight over a big pile of sand.
And he left. He left them to fight over a pile of sand.
That's actually what happened.
How is this not going to be one of the greatest decisions a president ever made?
Because everybody told him he couldn't do it.
Now, I think that the criticism will start to concentrate on the question of whether he could have done it more elegantly, prepared the Kurds better.
And you know what I think?
I think that no matter what was going to happen, the Kurds and the Turks both wanted to fight.
Were the Kurds begging for mercy and saying, please, Turkey, don't attack, let's talk?
That wasn't happening.
Unless I'm wrong, you know, if I hear later that that did happen and the Kurds were saying, please, please help us have a conversation.
Don't let the Turks in here today.
But I don't think that was happening.
I think the Kurds said, let's fight.
And the Turks said, let's fight.
And Trump said, well, there's a lot of sand.
Good luck fighting over it.
I don't know. That feels exactly like the right thing to do.
So I think history is going to judge this very kindly, like very, very kindly, as in it was just sort of the best thing a president ever did, one of those situations, at least in foreign affairs.
And Trump is even being honest about the Kurds.
He goes, the Kurds know how to fight, and as I said, they're not angels.
He's just acknowledging that all of the Kurds are associated with part of the Kurds that are flat-out terrorists, at least in terms of Turkey's perspective.
So the president is just saying, well, we helped them win.
Wasn't that nice to help us?
But because we helped them once, that does not obligate us to help them forever.
It doesn't work that way.
Now, the way the illegitimate news is trying to frame this in the coup by hypnosis, so if you're new to this, what's going on is a sort of a slow-motion coup in which the coup planners are using brainwashing and hypnosis to do a bloodless coup.
And part of that is the way they're framing the Syrian situation.
And they're framing it as we've abandoned our allies.
Except that both sides were allies.
One was a NATO ally.
One was a different kind of ally.
We didn't have a choice of abandoning an ally.
It could be one or the other.
So that's illegitimate framing by the hypnosis coup people.
They also act like it was impulsive.
Was it impulsive? Because I'm pretty sure the President's been talking about this forever.
Do you think President Trump was getting the answer he wanted from his generals?
No. Because the generals never want to leave.
The generals don't want to leave.
The generals want to finish the job.
So, if you spend three years arguing with your own generals, and they haven't changed your mind, and you're the civilian leader, You get to make the adult decision, which he did.
And the adult decision was, I'm going to shake the box, some people are going to die, but it's the fastest way to get to a stable situation that doesn't involve us dying.
So he shook the box.
And here's what we don't know.
So I looked at Fox News homepage, I looked at the CNN homepage, and what I was looking for is an update On the violence between Turkey and the Kurds.
Did you find any?
Can you find any current reporting, at all, any, that would indicate who's shooting at who?
How many are dead?
Can you tell me how many Kurds have died?
Approximately. Fewer than ten?
Fewer than a hundred?
Fewer than a thousand?
I don't know. There's no reporting, is there?
Which leads me to believe not many.
Now suppose that history says, oh my god, the president pulled out and, I don't know, 200 Kurds were killed.
And X number of Turkish troops were killed.
In the process of wanting to fight each other.
They both chose to fight.
Probably didn't need to.
Because they're going to work out a deal, and they had that deal all along.
They always could have invited Russia in.
They always could have invited the Syrians in.
But now they got flexible.
So there's that.
Now what about all those ISIS fighters that got released?
Here's what I think happened.
I think what we'll find out after the dust settles, I think we'll find out that the Kurds either intentionally released Some low-value ISIS family members, as opposed to ISIS, you know, top lieutenants, family members, so that they could have a legitimate story that said ISIS is getting away.
Don't you think the Kurds were behind that?
Don't you? Because if they weren't, they're stupid.
The one thing that everybody says about the Kurds is that they're smart and capable.
If the Kurds are in fact smart and capable, what's the first thing they should do when Turkey starts heading toward them?
The first thing you do is let a few ISIS family members away, get out, and say, whoops, we don't have enough personnel.
Looks like some ISIS people are getting away.
Maybe you ought to pay attention to us.
Now, it could be that something got bombed and some ISIS people got away that nobody wanted to get away, and then they didn't have to release them intentionally.
But if it turns out that there was a genuine ISIS escape, I think they would have had to do one that was fake if the real one hadn't happened.
In other words, no matter what, there was a guarantee that some small number of ISIS would escape because that works for ISIS and it would work for the Kurds in terms of positioning and framing the situation.
So I think the president alluded to that by calling them, you know, low-value ISIS people.
And I think that he's sort of wise to the fact that these so-called ISIS escapes are not really ISIS escapes.
Now, I think I'm the only person who will say this in public.
All you would need is one Kurd guard...
to guard all of the ISIS prisoners because that really involves assuming that everybody else had to go and fight Turkey because that guard would just go around and machine gun the the ISIS people in their cells at least at least the combatants maybe not the family members but You only need one because they're not going to let them free.
There isn't the slightest chance the Kurds are going to say, you know, we captured all you murderous killers, but, you know, it looks like we've got a personnel problem.
We don't have enough staff.
I think we'll let you go.
Not a freaking chance.
The last Kurd at the prison is going to machine gun ISIS. And if they don't, Well, they got some explaining to do.
Because even I would machine gun ISIS if I were the last Kurd.
And that's not even a joke.
Put yourself in this position.
You're the last Kurd guarding the ISIS prisoners who have killed your family members, raped their way across your country.
And if you let them go, they're going to do exactly the same thing again.
You know they will. They even tell you they will.
What are you going to do?
You're the last Kurd.
You're going to burn down the jail.
And you're going to machine gun anybody who runs out in flames.
Even I would kill them all.
I swear to God.
No joke. I would murder every ISIS prisoner if I'm the last one with ammunition.
I can't believe it would go down any differently with the Kurds.
And probably we'll never hear the details as we don't hear the details from that area quite often.
Now, I speculated yesterday that one of the reasons we might not hear about the Turks slaughtering the Kurds is that the Kurds might be a whole lot more capable than anybody is giving them credit for.
And what I mean in particular is, do you think that America left them with no good weapons?
And when I say good weapons, I mean the really good stuff?
I don't think so.
I think that when we left, we probably managed to leave them with some good stuff.
Now, yesterday I did hear from a reliable source who has sources there, I guess, that in fact we did leave them some good stuff.
Now, it's just one source, so I can't say that that's confirmed.
I would need at least one more source to, you know, have a legitimate two-source opinion.
But commonsensically, do you think we left our allies unarmed?
That didn't happen. So my guess is that Turkey's bogged down with a combination of the Syrians and Russians moving in, the Kurds being probably really well armed.
Oh, and here's another little story we heard.
Before I tell you this, keep in mind that every bit of reporting on the first few days of a conflict is likely to be wrong.
But the story we heard was that the Kurds were sending the families, the women and children, toward the Turkish invasion.
Unarmed men and women, the Kurds, were walking toward the Turkish invasion.
And how was that being described?
It was being described as they were using them as human shields.
Is that what was happening?
Now I don't know if, first of all, the reporting is correct.
But let me speculate.
Let's say you're the Kurds, and you are part of fighting force, and part of civilians, and you're all in the same places.
You're in urban areas.
What would you do if you were the Kurds?
And remember, you always have to keep this in mind.
The Kurds are the most effective fighting force, and they're most strategic.
They're the most strategic.
They're the best... In terms of just figuring out what to do strategically.
What was Kurds' best way to stay safe and also defend their territory?
It was to send all their women and children and families toward the invasion.
Not to be human shields.
That's the part that the coup people are going to tell you.
You know, the hypnosis coup would sort of describe them as human shields.
What would Turkey do if they saw a bunch of non-combatants coming their way?
Would they shoot them?
I don't think so. It's Turkey.
You know, Turkey is going to have their issues in a war situation, but do you think a standing Turkish army is going to machine gun women and children walking their way with their hands up?
No. What's it going to do?
It's going to take all the women and children out of the blast zone and it's going to slow down the invasion because the invaders are going to have to deal with all of the non-combatants.
They're going to have to do something.
What do they do? Do they round them up?
Do they feed them? Do they just sort of get out of the way?
Do they negotiate with them?
Do they try to get some intelligence out of them?
Whatever the Turks do, it's going to slow them down.
And during that time, the combatants who remain fortify their positions.
So something tells me that Turkey's not having a good day militarily.
But we won't know.
Maybe we'll never know because there's just no reporting coming out of the area.
And that tells you something too, right?
How important was it for us to stay when, once we left, it's not even important enough to report on?
Now, I mean, somebody must be trying and maybe it's just too hard to report.
It might be too dangerous. I could respect that if it's just too dangerous.
But it's not feeling like a priority, is it?
I feel as if this were some kind of American priority We'd have a little bit better reporting out of the area, but we don't.
So, here's some other takes on this situation.
Ian Bremmer called this Trump foreign policy crisis.
So he said it's a foreign policy crisis, to which I said, what's the crisis?
Can somebody describe to me what the crisis is?
Now, I've heard the speculative what-if crisis.
The what-if speculative crisis goes like this.
If people can't trust the United States because of our president abandoning the Kurds, that will hurt us later in ways that we can't quite specify.
But will it?
Is there a country that won't do a trade deal with us because of this?
No. Is there a country that won't partner with us militarily because of this situation?
No. Because what are their other options?
Partner with us to defeat your local enemy or don't partner with us and good luck.
It turns out that when you're the strongest country in the world, People still going to work with you because the second choice is way worse.
Who is not going to work with the United States?
No one. All right.
Which countries uncritically trusted the United States under all conditions when we promise we'll do something?
Which countries believe the United States will definitely do something if we say we'll do it?
How about nobody? How about nobody believe that?
Because at the very least, we elect a new president every now and then.
Is there some country that could trust that the next president won't reverse everything that this president did?
No. Nobody could trust that.
We have a system.
Because democracy, our system guarantees that we can't be trusted.
We can never be trusted because we'll just vote in a different government and they'll have different priorities.
So if there's one thing that everybody can be sure of is that the United States can't be trusted forever because our priorities change and our government changes.
They all know that. So what exactly is the crisis?
Is it the few dozen, maybe, Kurds who are being killed?
Is that a United States crisis?
Because I'm pretty sure people were getting killed there all the time, and I'm pretty sure something bad was going to happen whether we pulled out 50 people or not.
So, what's the crisis?
Is the crisis the one that's so bad that nobody's even reporting on it?
It's not even on the front page of any of the news sites?
The crisis is what?
The military will stop fighting?
I don't think so.
The crisis is that the military will stop obeying the commander-in-chief?
Not a chance.
We are so far from that even being worth talking about.
Not even close.
Somebody says we lost the moral high ground.
Well, we had the moral high ground before, right?
We never had the moral high ground.
We only said that to ourselves.
Do you think Syria and all those other countries were saying, well, we hate the Americans and death to America, but I gotta say, they have the moral high ground.
No! We never had the moral high ground.
Why should we pretend we ever had it?
Nobody has the moral high ground.
All there are is countries pursuing their own best interest.
That's all it is.
And this whole moral high ground thing is something that comes from the hypnosis coup people.
The people who are brainwashing you into thinking that something terrible has been lost.
Nothing terrible has been lost because there was nothing there to lose.
We never had the moral high ground.
It's just something we said.
We never had the moral high ground.
We never wanted it.
It's just countries pursuing their own self-interest.
Every time. No exceptions.
Right? Why is it we're not mobilizing to send billions of dollars into Africa to bring their standard of living up to ours?
Why? Where's our moral high ground?
We didn't have any. There's no national self-interest in using our blood and treasure to fix countries that are not well off.
Now, we do give some money to countries because we think it gives us some leverage with them.
But that's about leverage.
We do give money to Central American countries, or at least we used to.
I don't know if we are now, because we think it might help their economy, and that helps us because it would reduce immigration.
Just one small example.
But it's always self-interest.
Countries operate on self-interest.
There was no moral high ground.
Nobody had it. If you could find the moral high ground and you went up to it, you'd be all alone.
Switzerland isn't there.
Japan isn't there. Russia isn't there.
China isn't there. Nobody's there.
We never had the moral high ground because that would require other people to agree that we were there.
Nobody would agree to that.
Nobody would agree. Here's what I think this whole Syria thing, the withdrawal part, is going to look like.
Once some time has gone by.
I've used this example before of corporations will always say, oh, we have this employee who's so important, you can never fire this employee because they're just so critical.
And then one day that employee quits.
And you check back in the air and everything's the same.
You can really spin yourself up into believing things are important that are not important.
Why is it that we think there's a crisis with the Syria thing?
I can't think of any idea.
Honestly, I don't even have a theory.
Do you? It's only a crisis because the coup plotters are brainwashing the public to believe some kind of a crisis is happening.
Literally nothing bad has happened.
Now, did something bad happen to the Kurds?
Yes. Who chose that bad path?
The Kurds.
As far as I can tell, they weren't begging for peace.
They weren't begging to have a conversation.
They thought a little bit of war would get them to a better place.
A little bit of war, and then maybe offer some peace.
Because then you get a better peace deal, right?
If you don't offer a little bit of war, you're not going to get the same deal.
I don't think we can take responsibility for Turkey making decisions that kill people.
It's kind of not our problem.
We could stop it, but we could stop a lot of bad things in the world and we don't do that.
Where's our moral high ground in stopping whatever country's got some civil war?
Why are we not moving our troops into Yemen to stop that horrible civil war?
Why not? But where's our high ground?
Why are we not moving into Yemen?
Is it because we have no national interest in Yemen?
Yes. We have no national interest in Yemen, so we have no troops there.
Guess where else we don't have any national interest in?
And by the way, if I were to describe this situation, tell me if you should stay around or leave.
Here's the situation. Well, it looks like it's going to be a mess between Assad's Syria, whatever's left of it, Russia, Iran, Kurds, and Turkey.
And they're all going to have to sort things out, and they're fighting over the same sand.
That pretty well describes the situation, right?
Does that sound like a place you want to be?
To me, that sounds like the place you leave.
If you tell me that's what's going on in any part of the world, at any time, anywhere, my first reaction is, get out of there.
Get the hell out of there.
There's nothing good that can happen by injecting Americans into that mess.
Sometimes you've got to get back to your own backyard, right?
Now, when we inject ourselves into the lives of, say, Hondurans, Well, at least they're neighbors.
At least you got some commonality, common interest because of geography.
But man, we got nothing going on over there.
So that's my prediction, that Trump will not only weather this crisis, that's no crisis at all as far as I can tell, But it will, in retrospect, look like one of the great decisions.
That's my opinion. Now, I know there are people here who are saying, Scott, you apologist, you will apologize for anything.
But I put a prediction out there.
And so we'll be able to check that in the future.
All right. So I guess a bunch of Republicans joined with a bunch of Democrats to...
Do some kind of a resolution in Congress against the President's decisions.
Does that mean anything?
Does it mean anything that even Republicans are complaining about pulling troops out?
Here's the thing.
Do you remember the prank phone call between...
There was some prankster who got through to Lindsey Graham and got him on the phone and pretended to be somebody from Turkey.
And what did Lindsey Graham...
Start talking about almost instantly.
Lindsey Graham steered that conversation almost instantly to buying weapons systems from the United States.
Do you think that's because he thought that would be good for the regional security?
Or do you think Lindsey Graham always recommends what's good for the military-industrial complex?
Because I like me some Lindsey Graham on a lot of different topics.
So there are a lot of things where I say, yeah, good job.
And I think Lindsey Graham actually is benefiting from President Trump's, let's say, model.
He's adopted some of the effective parts of his persuasion.
So I think Lindsey Graham is a good, productive patriot.
But all evidence suggests that anything he can support that would sell a weapon system, he's in favor of it.
Now, I realize that's, you know, that's a big accusation.
What I'm saying is that the pattern I observe is that whenever Lindsey Graham is involved, he's trying to sell some weapons to somebody.
Is that an accident?
I mean, can you take that guy seriously?
Secondly, how many Republicans are there in Congress who also have some kind of connection to the weapons industry?
A lot of them, right?
The thing that you should look for is, how can the Republicans ever be wrong by telling the President he didn't leave in the right way?
Because remember, they get to have it both ways.
The people who are not the decision makers, the peanut gallery who is criticizing the president, be they Democrats or be they Republicans, they get the advantage of they can criticize the way he left and still be okay with the fact that he left.
They get it both ways.
So, oh yeah, we also agree that we should get out of there.
But I'm going to criticize the way you did it, because that makes me look awesome to people.
So I think you have to see the Congress's vote as really just peacocking.
People showing off for the public, hey, I would have made a better decision, or I would have talked to my allies before I did that.
So that's really all about them.
It has nothing to do with the president.
Meanwhile, Moody's, and I think there was one other entity that did the same, used their forecasting powers to say that Trump will win in a landslide.
And I think what they look at is mostly economic stuff.
So if the economy on several variables is going strong, that's very predictive.
And Moody's has him winning in literally a landslide.
And I think there was one other entity that made a similar kind of prediction.
So, now let me ask you this.
Let's say you are a Democrat.
Let's say that you have been rolled up in the hypnosis coup.
Now the hypnosis coup is the brainwashing that's going on.
It's telling people that the president is committing atrocious legal crimes and betrayal and he's selling his office and he's in it for himself and he's impulsive and crazy.
So that version of the world.
How do they reconcile that version of the world with...
Legitimate third party saying he's going to win re-election in a landslide.
How do they reconcile that?
Now, the way I reconcile it is, oh, it's obvious.
Part of the country is brainwashed into thinking something's happening when I can observe nothing's happening.
That the phone call was a big nothing, the Ukraine phone call was a big nothing, and all the rest is a big nothing.
Even if every part of the facts...
Are true the way we see them.
It still doesn't add up to anything.
So I see a bunch of nothing.
The people who have been brainwashed into a version of reality that's scary and evil are seeing a lot.
So my worldview is completely consistent with everything.
I can explain why they see things falsely, and I can explain why the president is predicted to win in the landslide.
Because the facts are pretty much in his favor.
The persuasion, not so much.
So, the President tweeted, so, the President tried to beat Pelosi to the meltdown word.
So, Pelosi is accusing the President of having a meltdown over that meeting that Pelosi and Schumer walked in and the President quickly tweeted that she's having a meltdown.
So, they're trying to be first to frame it as a meltdown by the other.
Now, do you think that either of them had a meltdown?
No. Is two sides claiming the other had a meltdown?
Nobody had any meltdowns.
Pelosi and Schumer went in there.
They took a cheap political excuse to walk out and sell out the Kurds.
Because really, let's face it, Schumer and Pelosi sold out the Kurds by leaving a meeting over a minor insult in the context of Pelosi and Trump insulting each other every day.
These two leaders have insulted each other every day for years.
Not quite every day, but you know what I mean.
So the fact that she chose this one time to walk out because cameras were outside and she could make a stand and get a little attention and get her little points in, she sold out the Kurds for a moment in front of a camera.
What's worse than that?
I don't know. It's hard to think of anything that would be worse than that.
All right. Let's see.
What else we got here?
Would you like to hear a kill shot for Elizabeth Warren's campaign?
I know you do.
All right. Let me tell you how to guarantee that Elizabeth Warren cannot be president.
This assumes she gets the nomination, which, by the way, I do not predict.
I predict she will not get the nomination.
But here's how easily Trump could take her out.
You ready? The economy is doing great.
Do you want to do something that is super risky?
Done. The economy is doing great.
Everybody hears that and says, yeah, that's mostly true.
Do you want to do something that's super risky?
Nope. Do you know who votes?
Older people. Do you know what older people don't want?
Risk. Do you know when they do want risk?
When things are going terrible.
If things are going really poorly, people will take on some risk to change the situation.
Because it's like, well, we can't let this keep going poorly.
We're going to have to take on some risk.
What do people do when you've got a 3.5% unemployment rate?
And almost every major economic indicator, except I guess that, is looking good.
Do you walk out and vote that guy in the office?
Never. Never!
Never. If Trump tries to argue that socialism is good or bad, well, people are kind of locked in, right?
Democrats say, well, we think socialism is good.
Or a little bit of it.
You know, whether the socialism is just in terms of, let's say, education and healthcare.
You can't say socialism is bad and win the argument.
Because there are other people who say, it's working in Europe.
It's working in Canada.
So don't tell me it's bad, because I'm watching it work.
These are examples.
You can go look for yourself.
You don't have to wonder if it works.
Just look at it. It's working in Denmark.
So you can't win the, my system is better than your system.
But here's how you can win every time.
To change our system that much, everybody would agree, is risky.
That's, risk is not something that people will argue with, because even the people who think they want to radically transform our economy, and that's the way they are talking.
Between the Green New Deal and the democratic socialist policies, they are expressly saying, let's make a big change.
Any big change is risky.
There's no exception to that.
If you're talking about a big change to the biggest economy on the planet, that's actually the biggest risk you could ever imagine.
I doubt there would be a bigger risk than any kind of a large transformation of an economy our size.
So, that's the kill shot.
The kill shot is not capitalism beats socialism, even though it does.
The kill shot is Capitalism has given us a great economy.
If you want to change that great economy a lot, you can't guarantee you know where that ends.
I can pretty much guarantee I know where socialism goes, because we've got lots of experience and we're watching it.
So that's the kill shot.
Warren can never get elected with that matchup.
All right. Let's talk about...
All right. So Elijah Cummings died at age 68, a very respected member of Congress.
And then the weird, tragic, racist part of it is that there's another member of Congress named John Lewis, who apparently people on social media and maybe in the press are confusing.
Now, I saw the picture of the two of them side by side.
And, of course, I could tell them apart easily.
But I know some of you could not.
So, don't confuse your John Lewis's with your Elijah Cummings.
We're trying to respect Elijah Cummings today.
Let's not bring John Lewis into the conversation.
Now, I don't want to say any more about that because it's too easy to get misinterpreted.
So let's just respect the fact that he was a dedicated public servant and a lot of people have a lot of respect for him and today is the day not to say bad things about anybody, at least under those situations.
All right. That's all I got.
That's all I got today.
I'm using all of my trolls.
This is my new thing I'm doing.
When I get trolled on Twitter and the troll is using some form of loser think, you know, a bad thinking technique, I'm using the trolls to advertise my book.
So, you're going to see a lot of this.
When the trolls come after me with their personal insults and their lack of context, you will often see me recommending that they read my book, because it turns out that it's the perfect response.
All right. It's a funny day.
Let's get to it. And let's see if we can all survive the crisis.
I think I can make it.
▲
Export Selection