All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 21, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
43:26
Episode 700 Scott Adams: Beto’s Nazi Training, Kurdish Ethnic Cleansing, Buttigieg Surging
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Hey everybody, come on in here.
Happy Monday, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
And you're in luck, because you came to the right place.
It's another wonderful day.
And the only thing that could make it better is a simultaneous sip.
I think you know that. And all you need to participate is a cup or a mug or a glass or a snifter, a stein, chalice, tanker, thermos, flask, canteen, grail, goblet, vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee! And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
The simultaneous sip.
Go! I feel all of my pleasure circuits firing up.
So let's talk about some stuff.
Let's talk about Tulsi versus Hillary Clinton, their war awards.
This is working out really well for both of them, wouldn't you say?
So Tulsi Gabbard gets a whole bunch of attention because Hillary Clinton says she's a Russian asset.
So suddenly Tulsi gets tons of attention.
She gets to go hard against Clinton.
That's always popular, at least with some of the public.
And I think it works really well for Tulsi.
But it's also working really well for Clinton.
Because Hillary is just trying to stay in the headlines, sell some books, keep her speaking fees up.
Stay relevant. And I think the funniest thing about this story is that Clinton used Trump's style of hyperbole against him, in this case against Tulsi, but I guess indirectly it might be against Trump somehow.
And I thought to myself, well, you know, there are a few things, you know, I'm never the one who's completely negative about Hillary Clinton.
Because she has some strong characteristics.
She has a lot of game.
And I don't think you can diminish that.
And she's doing it again here.
Because, you know, when you watch the clips of her talking about, you know, any of this, anybody being a Russian asset, to me it's obvious that she doesn't believe that in a literal sense.
She's saying it because she knows saying that will get her all kinds of attention.
And it's sort of very Trump-like hyperbole.
I think what she means is that there are some candidates that Russia prefers, and maybe they'll send out some trolls to support them, which is very different from being a Russian puppet or Russian asset.
It might just mean that Russia prefers some candidates over others, and even that's unconfirmed.
So good play, Hillary Clinton, for getting people all worked up about something that clearly you don't mean seriously.
But she stayed in the headlines, so that worked.
There's a fun little story about, apparently, Mitt Romney has a...
A fake Twitter account in which he goes by the name Pierre Delecto.
Which is apparently Spanish for Delicious Peter.
Make of that what you will.
Delicious Peter.
Okay. Now there's no real story there because I think celebrities certainly are It's understandable they would have secret accounts so they can monitor social media without being spotted and turning into something else.
So I'm fully in favor of Mayor Romney having a private account.
He's apparently admitted it.
I think it's very clever that somebody tracked it down and found it.
It was very clever.
Let's talk about Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Schiller.
Now, he's a behavioral economist.
In other words, he studies not just economics, but how people's psychology drives economics.
So he was famous for making some great predictions in the past.
And so it's notable when he says he believes a recession may be years away due to a bullish Trump effect in the market.
Now here's the interesting part.
You can't really go on TV and say good things about Trump, right?
But on the other hand, you also can't make bad economic predictions and expect to stay credible as an economist.
So you have this famous economist who doesn't want to make a bad prediction, but also doesn't want to directly say something positive about Trump.
What do you do? Here's what he did.
He attributes his prediction that the economy might stay strong for several years to the fact that people see Trump consuming a lot as a billionaire.
They see his type of consumption and they try to emulate it by buying things.
Does that sound even a little bit credible?
That's the most ridiculous thing.
But it's somewhat transparently ridiculous to the point where it almost seems honest because to me it seems so obvious that what he's really saying is that Trump is good for the psychology of the market.
But again, if you're a famous economist, you want to sell books, you want to be invited places, you want to stay credible, you can't say directly, folks, I'm a Nobel Prize winning behavioral economist, and I'm also famous for good predictions,
and this is exactly my expertise, and I gotta tell you, That President Trump is really, really good at the psychology of economies.
And his very, very good performance at managing our collective psychology causes people to feel good about the economy and act that way.
So he can't say that, right?
But he has to say something.
So he says people might be copying Trump and trying to consume a lot, and that's driving the economy.
Yeah. I mean, isn't that a little bit funny?
That the best he could come up with is that?
Because that doesn't even pass the most basic sniff test.
But still, it's something.
It's at least a little bit of a speculative explanation about why the economy will likely stay strong.
Now, this is a perfect example of what I talk about in my book, I have a chapter in here about how to learn at least some of the easy stuff that an economist knows.
And I just gave you an example.
Economists know that economies run on psychology.
How many people in the general public...
Understand that the economy is driven almost entirely by psychology, unless there's some kind of a shock, like a war or a shortage of something important, but we don't have any of that going on right now.
So under those conditions, when there are no shortages and we have perfect communication worldwide, it's really a psychology engine.
How many people knew that?
Well, if you read Loser Think, you would know that.
And you would know a few other similarly basic, easy ideas about economics that somebody like Robert Shiller already knows.
So why is it that Robert Shiller can see clearly that the economy is likely to stay strong, but other people can't see that?
It's because he has an extra vision.
He has access to another industry, another domain of knowledge, economics, and behavioral economics, meaning the psychological element of it, specifically.
Now, I have the same training.
I'm sort of the bad version of the Nobel Prize winning economist, meaning that I majored in economics, I've worked in a lot of businesses, etc., so I have a lot of experience But I have the same training.
So when I looked at President Trump as a candidate, I said to myself, very much like any behavioral economist would, what would President Trump's approach to things do to our collective psychology and our belief about the economy?
And to me it was obvious.
It was obvious that he had the salesmanship, the cheerleader effect, and that he understood, Trump understood, that these are active ingredients.
They're not just some fluff.
It's not just the frosting on the cake.
It's the cake.
Right? The psychology of the economy isn't the frosting, it's not the candles.
It's the cake. Trump understood that.
He said it plainly and clearly a number of times.
He demonstrated it in everything he does when he's cheerleading the economy.
Schiller could see this a mile away, and so could I, because I have access to the same training.
So LoserThink can train you to be able to see around corners without having to be an economist.
You'll just get some of the tricks in different fields, not just economics, but that's just one example.
All right. And I hope you buy that book and pre-order it now because that would be good for me if you pre-ordered it.
There is a story...
Did you see the Beto interview on MSNBC in which he goes full Hitler?
Hilariously. Now, Beno is talking about Trump, and he's talking about the idea of the big lie, and he's comparing this to Joseph Goebbels, which I believe was referred to in the interview as Joseph Gurgels, so that was funny.
Beto goes on to explain that a small lie might not be believed, but if you tell a big lie, and you tell it often enough, you can convince people of basically anything.
And he demonstrated that by then telling some of the biggest lies in the public domain.
So he tried to press specifically the fine people hoax.
Now, if you think that the president...
Called the racist at Charlottesville fine people.
Well, then you've been hoaxed.
I would recommend that you Google hashtag fine people hoax and then follow some links to my blog and you'll see why it's a hoax.
Even though, if you're listening to this and you're saying to yourself, my God, Scott, what are you saying?
There's no way that's a hoax.
I heard it with my own ears.
I saw it with my own eyes.
I saw the president say that.
No, you didn't. You didn't.
If you're watching this and it's the first time you've heard this, you're really going crazy right now.
You're saying, Scott, you apologist, you crazy Trump supporter.
I heard it with my own ears.
I saw the president say it.
No, you didn't. Go look at the transcript.
Go look at the full video.
What you saw and what you heard is an edited version, which does make it look like he's saying that.
But if you see the full version, it's crystal clear that he's specifically excluding the Nazis from the fine people.
He says that in direct language.
So you don't have to wonder about it.
Anyway, so Benno is pushing the fine people hoax.
At the same time, That he's saying that you shouldn't believe the big lie.
And then he gives the big lie.
And people believe it.
Because they're watching MSNBC and they don't know any better.
Because they're in a bubble.
Can the people in MSNBC get out of their bubble?
Yes they can. If they read this book.
It's not likely they will.
So you might have to read it and help them out of their bubble.
I tried to watch...
I tried to watch a...
A movie or a little bit of it last night called X-Men.
Now it's the latest one.
X-Men has had a number of movies.
But it's the latest one in which Of course, the heroes in the latest X-Men are all women, so the women are the strongest superheroes.
Now, if you're watching any sci-fi or superhero stuff lately, you know that that's the trend for the last several years.
The strongest character, the most badass, best fighter, strongest mentally, is always a woman.
And that's sort of a reaction to the fact that there have been X decades of male heroes in these genres.
And so I'm fully on board with adding diversity, making sure that women are well represented, making sure that your movies look a little bit more like the world.
So I'm okay with that.
Those are good things.
But I think they overshot the mark a little bit.
I find that I can't even watch this content anymore.
It's so over the top in trying to be politically correct that it's just sort of insulting to men at this point.
Now, maybe women felt the same way when they were all male-dominated roles.
They may have felt exactly the same way.
And that's not good.
But X-Men is unwatchable because they just added this political element of women are better than men.
And I just can't watch a lot of it.
I just can't watch a lot of it.
I'm fully okay having some movies with female stars and throw in any kind of ethnicity you want.
That's great. But But they don't all have to be that, do they?
They don't all have to be women are awesome and men are idiots, do they?
I mean, we have enough car commercials for that.
Try watching a car insurance commercial.
You'll poke your eyes out.
All right. That's enough of that.
Let's talk about Pete Buttigieg.
Pete Buttigieg is outperforming and impressing the country, but he's impressing me, and I want to call out a few things that he's doing right.
Number one, my big complaint with him early on is that he looked too young.
He has such a youthful, you know, just look.
He just looks like a young guy.
I thought that was working against him, because when you're picking a president, you need a little bit of seasoning.
But I think the campaign process is aging him.
Because the last time I saw him, you know, at the debate...
I did not have the feelings that I had the first number of times I saw him, which is, ah, he looks a little too young, needs some seasoning.
Somehow, and I don't know exactly how, it could be just the pressure of campaigning, it could be just because he's smart and he's changing his demeanor a little bit.
I don't know exactly what it is, but he's not registering as too young anymore.
Is anybody else having that feeling?
That he went from, oh, clearly too young and inexperienced, to somehow he's moving that dial, and I didn't think he could, because my just subjective opinion is maybe I'm just getting used to him, but he doesn't look too young anymore.
Is anybody seeing that besides me?
That something's different?
I don't know. Somebody's saying here that it's makeup.
Maybe, but I don't know how that would work.
Here are the other things I love about Pete Buttigieg.
He's a gay guy running for president without saying, vote for me because I'm gay.
That was also what President Obama did so brilliantly.
President Obama never said, vote for me because I'm black.
And people love that.
People said, oh, okay, I'm black.
I actually will vote for you, at least partly because I'd like to even up things in the country.
And maybe I will.
Maybe I will value the fact that you're black.
I'll make that a variable.
But Obama allowed people to think they were doing that on their own.
In other words, he didn't ask you to elect the first black president.
Had he asked people to elect the first black president, I think people would have said, eh, I'm not about that.
No thank you. Run on your qualities and just be black, and then I'll vote for you.
So Obama did the smartest thing you can do.
He ran on his qualifications, on his proposals, on his optimism, hope and change, and he let other people decide That they also liked him because he was black, and I'm including myself in this category.
I also liked him because he was black, because I thought that was something the country needed to get past, and what a great opportunity to do it, because he seemed qualified.
So Buttigieg is making the same play.
So easily he could have made the Hillary Clinton mistake.
He could have said, vote for me because I'm a woman.
That's what Hillary did.
And he's not making that mistake.
And sometimes you don't notice how well somebody's performing until you ask yourself, wait a minute, other people are making this mistake.
How is he avoiding it?
Well, he's smarter. He's playing it better.
Is Elizabeth Warren avoiding that mistake?
No, she's not.
Elizabeth Warren is very much making her gender part of the decision.
What do you think every man in America says about that?
Every man in America, privately and to themselves, says some version like this.
I like the idea of electing a woman for president eventually.
Someday, I would like to see a woman president.
I think most men are saying that.
You know, not 100% for anything.
But I think most men are saying to themselves, absolutely.
Let's get past that.
Let's have a female president, Republican or Democrat, someday.
We're ready. Everybody's ready.
Whether it's this time or next time, we're all ready.
But what we don't want to be told is to vote for her for her gender.
If you're male and you hear that, and that's essentially what Warren is saying, it's essentially what some of the others are saying, and it's essentially what Clinton said, as soon as you hear that, you can't really vote for her anymore.
It takes it off the table.
This is just my opinion.
I think others would agree with it.
As soon as you're pushing that as part of your qualification, you're not qualified.
So Buttigieg is doing right by not making his gain as part of his qualifications, not asking anybody to vote for him because of it.
That's the right way to play it.
It makes me say, oh yeah, I'd love to have a gay president.
I've said this before.
I would literally love having a gay president, whether it's him or somebody else, whether it's now or later, just in general.
It'd be a nice thing to push through.
But here's the other thing I love about Buttigieg.
I don't know if you saw this, but he's having a money-raising event in which you can, if you donate money, your name gets put in a hat to maybe go to a Broadway play of Hamilton with Pete Buttigieg's husband.
Is it Chastain or Chastain?
I don't know how to pronounce his name.
Chastain? I think that's it.
Now, here's what I love about that.
Everything. I love everything about that.
Now, some of you are going to say, I would not want to do that.
But I gotta say, as soon as I saw that, I almost donated money to Buttigieg.
I'm not even kidding.
I almost donated money because I thought to myself, I would love to go see Hamilton With Christina and Pete Buttigieg's husband.
I can't think of a more fun thing to do.
That would be totally a great night.
And I literally paused and said, I could give a little bit of money to Buttigieg.
It wouldn't change the result.
But maybe I could get to go see Hamilton with Chastain.
And Chastain or Chastain, I don't know.
Now, if you've seen Buttigieg's husband, Chastain or Chastain, somebody needs to tell me how to pronounce that, you know that he's an interesting character and I kind of like him.
I mean, I just kind of like his act because both Buttigieg and his husband are not trying to be anything except who they are.
They seem so completely genuine That it's hard not to like genuine.
And I think that Obama and Buttigieg are finding the secret.
And I would say, I'm going to throw in Tulsi, too.
Have you noticed that Tulsi is popular among Republicans, which seems unusual?
I think that all three of them, Register as honest.
And I think that that goes a long way with conservatives and Republicans.
Republicans can take a lot if you're completely honest.
Am I right?
Republicans will put up with a lot of different opinions, a lot of different lifestyles, a lot of different everything, as long as you're completely honest about it.
At which point, conservatives go, all right, well, it's not my choice, but I gotta respect that.
Always respect honesty.
So, I think Buttigieg is doing that right.
All right, let's talk about something else.
Let's talk about Lindsey Graham seems to be coming around on this whole Situation with the Kurds.
And he actually said this.
This is Lindsey Graham on Maria Baderamo's show.
He said, quote, I am increasingly optimistic that we can have some historic solutions in Syria that have eluded us for years if we play our cards right.
So Lindsey Graham went from, my God, this was the biggest mistake in the world, I oppose this with all of my might, to, you know, I'm starting to feel like this might be one of the best things ever.
Now, you can't really trust anybody in the political domain in a political season, but I think you have to admit that Lindsey Graham has demonstrated he is willing to go against the president, and really hard.
When he feels that that's the right thing to do, for whatever reason.
And so this turnaround is more credible than it would be had it been someone else, right?
Because Graham has, I think he's earned some credibility in the sense that he's willing to be on which side of the issue he thinks is right, independent of party allegiance.
But you can't be completely sure this isn't just a political change.
It's hard to know. But here's the thing that...
Here's how CNN... Here's how CNN characterized Lindsey Graham's recent interview.
I think they're talking about the same one, the one that was on Maria Buonaroma...
Here's what they said.
CNN says, and I quote in the headline, Lindsey Graham does not rule out the possibility of Trump impeachment if new evidence emerges.
Is that the funniest headline you've ever seen?
Lindsey Graham does not rule out the possibility of Trump impeachment if new evidence emerges.
Do you know who else has that opinion?
Everyone? Is there anybody in the world who thinks that you could rule out impeachment if you had new information you didn't know about?
That suggests we should impeach?
There's nobody who has a different opinion than that.
Turning this into a headline is so cleverly, diabolically biased that I had to laugh.
Here's some other things I don't rule out.
I do not rule out the possibility that Elizabeth Warren She keeps the bodies of a dead salesman in her basement.
I'm not saying she does, but I'm not ruling it out.
I'm not going to rule out that if Bernie Sanders shoots somebody on Fifth Avenue, that I think he should go to jail for that.
I can't rule it out.
So, CNN does this a lot.
They do the what-if and the hypotheticals.
Hypothetically, is it possible that Joe Biden is, I don't know, a murderer or a rapist or whatever?
Well, hypothetically, hypothetically, if I found new evidence that Joe Biden had committed serious crimes, I would change my opinion of him, hypothetically.
Let's see, so what else we have here?
Hillary Clinton tried to be funny by tweeting around a letter, apparently that was created by the Jimmy Kimmel Show, There was a humorous parody showing, allegedly, a letter between JFK and Gorbachev talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis but using sort of Trump-like language to show how funny it would be.
And then Hillary tweeted that around, and it was actually a very funny letter, I have to say.
You know, funny is funny, and that was, in my opinion, quite funny.
But she got in trouble for not specifying the source.
I'm sorry, it was Khrushchev, not Gorbachev.
I get my Russian leaders confused.
Yeah, so it was allegedly a parody letter from Kennedy to Khrushchev.
Clinton can't do anything right, can she?
She does one thing right, which is forward around something that's actually quite funny, and then she doesn't give proper attribution, so she gets in trouble.
Ben Shapiro is saying that the democratic field is so weak that now is the time for Hillary Clinton to jump in and take advantage of the weak and fractured field.
I don't take any of the somebody's gonna jump in the race stuff seriously.
I don't think Hillary's gonna do it.
I don't think she's even thinking about it a little bit.
I don't think Michelle Obama's gonna do it.
And I don't think Mike Bloomberg is gonna do it.
I don't think any of them are gonna do it.
Because the trouble is, if you don't have traction already, the odds of getting it at this point are not that good.
So, and I also disagree that Hillary Clinton could get the nomination.
I think if Clinton jumped in, she would just be absolutely eviscerated by the Democrats.
Forget about the Republicans.
The Republicans would be all for it.
Let's talk some more about the Kurds.
There's a Kurdish military leader Who says that there's ethnic cleansing going on, that the Turks are involved in ethnic cleansing.
To which I say, is that his first day in the Middle East?
Is there anything happening in the Middle East that's not ethnic cleansing?
If you were a Jewish person, can you go live in Saudi Arabia?
If you belong to ISIS, are you allowed to become a resident of Israel?
Isn't the entire region just one big exercise in ethnic cleansing?
Now, the ethnic cleansing in this context doesn't mean killing.
It means relocating and not allowing certain people in certain places.
Well, that's exactly what's happening.
The entire point of a safe zone The entire point of everything that's going on over there is ethnic cleansing.
And indeed, I don't think there's anybody over there who thinks all the ethnicities should stay together because it's just going to be war.
The whole point of a safe zone is that all the smart people in the area said, all right, we give up.
It just turns out we can't all live together.
We're going to have to do some ethnic cleansing.
I think people would ethnically cleanse themselves over there.
It's like, oh yeah, I don't want to be in that group.
I might get killed. So I think I'll ethnically cleanse myself and go hang out with my own people.
So the claim of ethnic cleansing is both 100% true and 100% irrelevant because there's nothing but ethnic cleansing happening anywhere in the Middle East.
That's all they do. They don't do anything but ethnic cleansing.
If you see people walking around, they're probably doing some ethnic cleansing.
You see them wake up in the morning, they probably say to themselves, huh, what can I do today to ethnically cleanse my town a little bit?
So, that has to be seen in context.
Now, the military leader, his name is Muslim, I believe.
He says that there are more than 500 civilian casualties so far.
All right, so it's the head of the Kurds, military, says there are more than 500 civilian casualties, so he makes them civilians.
What do you make of that estimate?
Number one, he's the head of the military for the Kurds.
So whatever number he gives for how many people have been killed on his side, You've got to assume it's high, right?
Because he's not going to be a very good military leader if he lowballs the estimate of people who are being ethnically cleansed and killed and wounded.
So of course he's going to round it up a little bit.
But he also says casualties.
So a casualty includes wounded plus killed.
How many do you think of the 500 were killed?
Generally speaking, if you saw that 500 people were casualties, what ratio would you back that up to, to the number of people who were killed, the fatalities?
If you took that as a true number, 500 people got at least wounded, what does that imply about the number killed?
10? Yeah, I'm seeing in the comments 10?
12? 12? Something like that.
Now, here's the question.
Apparently, the ceasefire is sort of holding most of the time, meaning that there are some flare-ups, but the flare-ups don't seem to be turning into bigger things.
They're flaring and then disappearing.
If the ceasefire holds in the sense that apparently 400,000 Kurds have been displaced, But that was the whole point.
They're trying to create a zone that's safe, and the Kurds were not safe from the perspective of the Turks.
The Kurds were not safe to have on their border from the perspective of the Turks.
So here's the question I'd ask you.
If you knew that the safe zone was going to work, Let's say you could look into the future and say, wow, you know, there were a lot of missteps, a lot of, you know, there were people who got killed who shouldn't have been killed.
It was very imperfect, but it's a few years in the future, and you look at it and you say, yeah, it kind of worked.
I mean, it prevented a bigger war, Turkey...
Turkey doesn't need to kill any more people.
They're happy that they have some safety on their border.
The Kurds found some situation that's politically stable.
Working with Syria, maybe it's not perfect, but at least it's stable.
If that were to be the future, what would you say about, let's say, 12 deaths that bought that future?
Would you say that if 10 or 12 people got killed in the service of creating this safe zone which kept everybody safe for a longer period, if that happened, would it be worth 10 or 12 deaths?
Now, of course, every death is a tragedy, and the families of those people are never the same.
So I'm certainly not going to say that for anybody personally involved that it was worth it, because for them it's not.
So let's be clear on that.
The people who are victims are just victims.
But in the bigger picture of war and peace, people do die.
It's always a tragedy, but they do die.
Would you say...
That it worked out maybe as well as it could have.
If 10 or 12 people die and we get these safe zones that create some stability, I think you would.
I think you would say that that was worth a few deaths.
Now, Do you believe that we could have gotten to whatever Lindsey Graham thinks could be this potentially historic good situation?
Could we have gotten there without the president saying, I'm done talking.
Screw it. I just made a decision.
Work it out. Probably not.
Because if you don't say, screw it, I'm out.
Work it out yourselves.
If you don't say that and then actually move your people out and say, look, we're out.
Work it out. If you want to kill each other, knock yourselves out.
I don't think we could have gotten here.
And I think historians are going to say the same thing, and it feels like Lindsey Graham is coming around to that point of view, that sometimes you just got to grab the box and just shake it.
Because otherwise people are just entrenched in their positions and they're never going to change.
He changed their positions.
It might be one of the greatest things that we've ever seen from a president.
Way too early to say that, right?
So if you're jumping on me, if you're pouncing on me, if you're saying, Scott, way too early, these things never work out, you're not wrong.
Because this is the sort of thing that you don't really expect is going to work out too well, because just the players involved in the dynamics there.
But if it did... And it's certainly sort of edging in the right direction.
If it did, it could be one of the great things the president ever did.
That possibility still exists with the facts that we have right now.
All right. That's all I got.
Not much going on today.
I feel as if the president didn't create enough news this week.
I'm just looking at your comments here for a minute.
Okay.
Canadian elections today.
Oh, yeah. All right.
So there's something that I've been wanting to say about the Justin Trudeau situation that I kept telling myself, don't say it, Scott.
Don't say it, because you're going to be misinterpreted.
Somebody's going to take this out of context.
I'm gonna say it anyway.
So, we've all watched the Justin Trudeau blackface thing.
We all saw that he apparently dressed in that costume several times at different times.
The funniest comment came from Conan O'Brien, who noted that the election was happening before Halloween, and he said that was a good move by Trudeau because, hey, why tempt yourself?
And have the election after Halloween.
It was one of the greatest jokes ever.
But here's what I would like to add to the discussion.
Somewhere in the world, there's an African-American man who needs to go to a Halloween costume event as Justin Trudeau.
Can I please have that?
I don't ask for a lot.
I just want one African-American man to wear a, what is it, a genie costume from, what was the movie?
And nothing else.
Just put on the Aladdin costume that we saw the famous pictures of Trudeau.
Just don't do anything.
You're an African-American man.
Just put on the Aladdin costume and go as Justin Trudeau.
Please. Please.
Just one person has to do it and produce a picture and put the picture on social media so we can all just laugh this thing away.
Can we all agree?
If there's one thing that we can all agree on, be you white, be you black, be you brown, a person of color of any type, be you LGBTQ, Be you not.
Be you American.
Be you any other ethnicity.
There is one thing we can all agree on.
That if an African American goes to a Halloween costume, goes to a Halloween event in an Aladdin costume, but goes as Justin Trudeau, it has to happen.
Please, dear God.
Just somebody do it.
And send us the photo.
Now, If there's an African-American man who wants to take it to the next level of putting on a suit like Justin Trudeau and maybe somehow the haircut, I guess you need a wig or something, and uses whiteface to go as Justin Trudeau, also funny.
That would also be funny.
I'd give you a lot of credit for that.
But that one might be perceived wrong.
Just because the act of putting something on your face to change your ethnicity just rub people wrong.
So that one would be funny and I promise if I saw somebody do that I would laugh and take it good-naturedly.
But it's a little bit better.
Just to actually be black, put on an Aladdin costume, and go as Justin Trudeau.
Please, somebody do it.
Somebody do it. That's all I ask.
I ask for one thing this year.
Just one thing. All right.
Yeah, somebody's agreeing.
Don't do it with a white face.
That just, that doesn't feel right.
Yeah, that feels like that ruins the joke.
Takes it a little too far, right?
You need a little bit of subtlety to pull this off.
▲
Export Selection