All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:41
Episode 706 Scott Adams: Al-Bagh-Deady and More
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Well, I don't know how many of you are going to join me today versus still watching the coverage of the president announcing the successful operation against al-Baghdadi who I call al-Baghdadi.
Because he's kind of dead.
We'll talk about that. But first, we're going to have the simultaneous sip.
Yeah, the simultaneous sip is always good.
It's the best part of your day, in fact.
But today, a little extra.
Because we're going to be lifting our vessels, our containers...
To a successful operation, to the U.S. military who carried this out.
It's an excellent day.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Your house is about to burn down in Healdsburg.
Well, that's a mood killer.
Very sorry about that.
We're going to talk about that in a minute.
But first, let us capture whatever pleasure we can today.
Uh, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a snifter, a stein, chalice, tanker, thermos, flask, canteen, grail, goblet, a vessel of any kind, solo with your favorite liquid.
I prefer coffee.
And join me now for the simultaneous sip.
The dopamine of the day, the thing that will make everything better.
Unless you live in California, apparently.
Here it goes. Oh...
Well, you probably all are aware of the big news.
Our forces just took out al-Baghdadi and we watched the president talk about it.
Here's my favorite part.
The president described in visual and audio detail al-Baghdadi whimpering and crying and cowardly taking his three children to their death at the end of a tunnel.
There's a serious wind event going on right here.
I'm going to take you outside in a minute to show you what's going on in California and why we're in trouble.
But let me finish this point.
I mean, it's actually so noisy out there with the wind, it looks like there's a hurricane going on out there.
So here's my observation about that.
Number one, how in the world does anyone, including the President, know what...
What Baghdadi was doing at the end of a tunnel before he blew himself up.
Because we know that no American forces were injured.
Right? So no American service people were injured.
Yet we are aware what Baghdadi did at the end of a tunnel before he blew himself up.
Because the blowing himself up part Would tell you that there couldn't have been any American service people too close.
Yeah, so one possibility is that we had a drone or a robot that followed him down the tunnel.
But there's another...
Yeah, somebody's ahead of me on the comments.
There was a dog that was injured.
The dog probably had a camera.
So I've got a feeling that the President of the United States...
Was watching the dog cam chase al-Baghdadi down a tunnel, and maybe the dog was ordered to pull back or something just before the blast, so it got injured but not killed.
So congratulations to the dog.
Good job, dog.
Here's what I love about this.
We don't know exactly if the president did have good audio and video of the moments before Baghdadi died.
But here's what else we know.
Nobody else did, right?
If the president says Baghdadi was whimpering and crying and killed his own three kids voluntarily, who's going to disagree?
Nobody else saw it.
How perfect is it that the President left ISIS with this little farewell gift?
And the gift that he left them, it's really scary outside right now.
I'm not joking. The wind is dangerous sounding.
But the gift that Trump left ISIS is a visual description, a story, if you will, Of his final moments.
Now, is that story accurate?
We'll never know.
I mean, unless it seems unlikely, but I suppose if someday we saw a video from a dog cam or a robot or something, I mean, maybe.
Maybe we'll find out exactly what happened.
But I don't think it matters.
What matters is that Trump drew a picture for the entire world of the ISIS leader being chased by a dog into a tunnel and willingly blowing up his own three children while whimpering.
That's really good.
That is some good presidenting.
For all the things that you want to say about the president that, you know, you think he did wrong, Can you give me this?
Can we agree on this?
This was kind of perfect.
He kind of nailed this.
Not only was he the president and gave the orders to find al-Baghdadi, and you know, realistically, it's the military who's doing the heavy lifting.
It always strikes me as I don't know, a little illegitimate that Obama took credit for killing al-Qaeda.
It's not much different, Trump taking credit for, at least in a sense, taking credit as being the head of the army.
So let's be honest, it's the military that gets these things done.
It's not the civilian government.
They just say yes. But this is an amazing moment, and I think the President handled it perfectly in terms of just putting the final urination on Baghdadi's grave.
By telling the story the way he did, we don't have a competing story.
We only have one visual in our head, and it's what each of us imagined when he told us the story of him going down this dead-end tunnel with his three kids and the suicide vest.
I mean, he painted a picture for us.
That picture will never leave your head.
And maybe, here's the fun part, maybe it's not even true.
I mean, it might be true.
It might be exactly what happened.
He may have seen the whole thing.
But it doesn't matter. Because whether it was exactly true, or let's say a hyperbolic, persuasive version of what he'd like you to think were the last minutes, I'm not sure that matters because there will be no competing story.
Nobody else was there. So this president nailed the description of what happened That's just as hard as you could nail something.
You could have a hundred nail guns and you couldn't nail anything harder than that.
Now, I'm already hearing some, let's say, cautious criticism of the President's announcement because there was some worry that he may have gone too far in giving out some details that would give some enemy of the country an advantage.
I don't know exactly what.
There were several things he said which I said to myself, I wonder if everybody else knew that.
One of the examples was that we knew a lot about the tunnel structure.
Did we necessarily want anybody to know that we knew the tunnel structure?
Now it seems to me the only way you could know that is that you had people on the ground.
You had human intelligence sources.
But they're either gone now or they died in their aid.
So I'm not sure there was any secret to give up.
It had to be people. And it's not like anybody doesn't know you try to get people on the ground.
So I didn't see anything that I necessarily would say.
The President went too far in describing what we did.
But he was certainly on the edge.
He certainly took it to the edge.
One of the things about Trump is that it's impossible for him to be uninteresting.
Have you noticed that whenever he talks, it doesn't even matter what the topic is, you're watching it and you're entertained, and you're thinking, God, this could go off the rails any minute.
He could say something that would end his presidency any minute, or he could say something that will just change the news any minute.
So anytime the president is talking, he has this unusual ability to make everybody wonder, is something going to happen now?
Is there something really bad or something really good?
Is something going to happen now?
This doesn't feel normal.
Something's going to happen. All right.
As all the experts are saying, ISIS, of course, has more than one leader.
They can replace them. But I always say this.
There was only one guy...
Who had whatever it took to form ISIS and create a caliphate for a while and kill all those people.
There was only one guy who pulled that off.
Now, if that one guy didn't exist, would someone else have done it?
I don't know. I mean, I think you have to say to yourself, if Steve Jobs had not created Apple, was somebody else going to do it?
Don't know. Maybe somebody else would have done something like it.
Maybe. But you always have to wonder how important talent is.
Could it be that once you get rid of the most talented player, that the second most talented person who takes over might not be even the same league?
It could be that the second best ISIS guy It just isn't very good.
We won't know.
But I would say that it's true that if you start killing them from the top and work your way down, The odds of them ending up with an incompetent leader, just by atrophy and the normal course of things, the odds of them ending up with somebody who just can't get the job done of being ISIS is pretty good.
It's pretty good. Now, of course, the big question everybody's asking about the death of Baghdadi is, will Hillary Clinton get in the race to head ISIS? Okay, I couldn't resist that.
There are questions about our allies, who helped and who didn't.
Interestingly, the Kurds are taking credit for being helpful, and I think the president has confirmed that to be the case.
So that's interesting.
Apparently the Kurds and the U.S. work together productively.
And Turkey was either uninvolved, Or just gave us permission to fly over and didn't do much about anything.
But the president had this weird Sort of unscripted moment when he said that Turkey, you know, could have been shooting at us because we crossed their territory, I guess, or we're sort of in their zone of military influence.
He said they could have shot at us, but then it would have been really bad for them.
I'm paraphrasing. I'm thinking, I don't know if you needed to mention that.
I don't think you need to mention that if our NATO ally shot at us, we would wipe them out.
But he did. But he did.
I can't hate that.
It's so honest.
Well, you are our NATO ally.
What if you'd shot in our direction?
We would have wiped you out.
Because it's true.
If Turkey had shot at any military forces, we would have taken him out in a heartbeat.
So, it's just funny to hear him say it in direct language.
Yeah. They're NATO ally, but we would have taken them out.
Because it's true.
All right. Let's talk about some other things here along with this.
So Trump is talking about using military forces to secure the oil fields in Syria.
And the whole time he was saying this, There was a question that was percolating in my head that the news, for some reason, didn't seem to be interested in answering or even asking, which is, for whom?
I mean, that's part of the story.
The US forces are securing the oil wells in a part of Syria.
For who? For Syria?
For Russia?
For the Kurds?
For us?
And then today he gave a little information to this.
The President did. And it was striking that I don't think the press ever asked that question.
At least I never saw a report, did you?
I mean, I can't say I've seen every report ever made on Syria, so maybe I just missed it.
But it feels like sort of a big question.
We're going to send our military...
To control some oil assets in another country.
Is that the natural question?
Why? Did we do it just for the Kurds?
Now, if we did it for the Kurds, that's pretty nice of us.
Because the Kurds were good allies.
We let them down in terms of Turkey taking over the territory, but we also hadn't made any promises about that.
At least in terms of, you know, Turkey and the safe zone.
I don't think we had promised the Kurds a homeland.
But by securing the oil and making, apparently making some of it or all of it or something, some part of it available to the Kurds, that's pretty good.
That's not nothing. Now, the President also said that he might be interested in making it available to an American oil company.
To which I said to myself, What?
How does that work?
Can we just militarily take over a part of someone else's country and then give it to an American oil company?
Is that a thing we can do?
Now, I remember the President talking about that with Iraq.
He said, why don't we just take the oil and pay for the war?
And I remember thinking, ah, you can't do that.
Can you? Maybe you can.
So here he is in Syria, and he's just saying, we're just going to take this oil.
And maybe keep it for ourselves.
Now I ask myself, if we take this oil and decide that we're going to continue guarding it forever, I would suppose, so that Exxon can pump it out, are we going to keep any?
Is the United States government going to use any of that profit to pay for its military in that area?
Could we get to the point where our military presence is self-funding because we own the oil that's fueling our military presence?
If we did, it would be one of the coolest things ever.
All right. Have all of you seen my Photoshop work in which I took a picture of James Clapper and I turned his famous frown upside down just to see what it would look like if he smiled for once?
I think it's got something like 350,000 views since yesterday.
I spent all of a minute and a half on that.
And it's got 350,000 views.
So I must have hit a nerve there.
So go check my Twitter feed From yesterday, you'll see Clapper with an upside-down smile.
So, there's a comic running today, a Dilbert comic.
It's my Sunday comic, and it features...
The boss saying that he made a deal with Elbonia.
Elbonia is a mythical country that I use in the comic strip, so I don't have to refer to real companies.
He made a deal and Dilber points out that they steal all of his company's intellectual property.
And they also ship illegal drugs to our country, the Elbonians do, killing thousands of our countrymen.
But we're still doing them a deal.
Now, that might remind you of some country you know.
So let's see what happens.
Do you think China will complain about the Dilbert comic which doesn't mention China?
It only mentions Elbonia.
It kind of puts them in a spot, doesn't it?
Because if they complain about a comic about Elbonia, they would be forced to admit that that comic explains what they're doing.
Which I think they'd prefer not.
So I think they have to ignore it because complaining about it would draw attention to it.
Right. And because it draws attention to it.
Now, let me tell you that I have some business in China as well.
Indirectly, meaning that the Dilbert comic is syndicated, which means that the syndication company sells it all over the world.
And the last I knew, there was at least one English newspaper in China that bought the strip.
So I have some small amount of business in China that I'm happy to lose.
My syndication company would be less happy to lose it, I'm sure.
But if that happens, it happens.
So it might be an expensive day for me.
We'll see. And I would not expect that I'll ever sell another book in China.
I have sold books, a lot of books in China.
I don't think that's ever going to happen again.
So it's expensive to say what's on your mind, but I like to keep the pressure on fentanyl china, or as I like to call them recently, cheatin' china.
So there's also a story I'm seeing, mostly on Fox News, about Chinese organ harvesting.
That they may or may not be harvesting the organs of still-living prisoners of a small religious sect.
They would call it a cult, probably.
Now, here's the thing.
Do you think that's real?
Do you think that's real?
I'm going to lean toward not real.
Now, I would not be surprised if it had happened at least once.
So if you tell me that some prisoners have been used for organ donation, but perhaps they were going to be executed anyway, I would say, probably.
Why waste a good organ?
I mean, I'm not even sure I have a big problem.
With the idea that China was using the organs from people they were going to execute anyway, so long as those were real crimes.
I mean, if it wasn't a real crime, then of course it's a horror.
But if they were murderers or whatever and they were going to be executed anyway, you know, why waste some organs?
So I would guess, here's just my speculation.
Based on what I know about the world and things we've seen and patterns we've seen before, but just speculation.
That there's probably something to it, meaning that even if the only thing you were doing is using the organs from executed prisoners, that's sort of a bad situation because it would encourage them to maybe execute more people than they would otherwise because it could be profitable.
It might be really profitable to execute people if you can sell their organs.
And who knows what kind of corruption, payback, bribes are involved in the prison system slash medical community, whatever.
So there's probably something real to it.
I just don't know that it's an ongoing, you know, keep them alive while you're taking their organs out of the situation or not.
So, here's a question to you.
Do you remember, it wasn't long ago, That I was talking about the word grifter came into heavy usage with the anti-Trumpers.
They were calling me a grifter just about every day.
They were calling other Trump supporters grifters.
They were calling the president a grifter.
And it's not my imagination, right?
It was all over social media.
Everybody's a grifter. You're a grifter, grifter.
And you may remember that I set it as my goal to make that word go away.
And the way I was going to do it was by just overusing the word against my critics.
And that word just went away.
Have you noticed that it just stopped being on social media?
I mean, you still see it, but when you do now, it's rare.
And it used to be just sort of every day.
Now, here's my question.
Was it because it didn't work so people just stopped using it and moved on to other talking points?
Because I think this was mostly paid trolls.
I don't know how many of these were real people and how many were trolls, but that grifter word was just used all the time, and then it just stopped.
Is it because of me wearing it out?
Is it because of Hunter Biden?
It might be that the Hunter Biden story is what killed the word grifter.
Because, you know, before Hunter Biden, you could say, oh, Trump, Trump, Trump, grifter, grifter, grifter.
But after Hunter Biden, you had to throw him in the story.
He had to be part of the story.
If you were going to call Trump a grifter for whatever, somebody's going to say, have you heard of Joe Biden, the guy who's leading on your side?
So, I don't know if I had anything to do with that.
I don't know if it timed out.
I don't know if the talking points changed.
Maybe they tested it, they meaning the left.
Maybe they tested it. The professionals did and found out it didn't move the needle.
But probably the Hunter-Biden thing might be the biggest part, so I just went away.
Here's another one that was a gigantic issue that...
Let me ask you if this is your impression.
Does it seem to you that the way climate change is being talked about right now is substantially different than even a few months ago?
Have you noticed that? And could it be because there are enough advocates, you know, I'm one of them, you know, Mark Schneider, Michael Schellenberger, Bill Gates, there are a number of people who are sort of prominent in the sense that they make a lot of noise.
I don't want to call myself prominent, but I make a lot of noise.
People saying that nuclear energy is the way to go whether you believe in climate change or not.
And that it's totally practical and that we'll probably get there.
Now, do you think that that calmed down the hysteria?
It feels like the hysteria settled down.
Maybe it's because the 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, she made her tour and then she left, so maybe she was the reason we were getting more attention.
But it feels as though there's some kind of a sudden change where the leading Democrats are still talking about climate change, of course, but it feels like it went from the top priority to, well, just something you mentioned.
So that's just something to watch.
Because the nuclear energy play as a solution to climate change, and even if you don't believe in it, you still want as much of it as possible because you still need clean energy.
Maybe it just made that story less important.
We'll see. So I'd be interested...
Oh, let me...
So yesterday I had a guest on.
So James came on and we were talking about Trump and his views of Trump and my views of Trump.
And I want to ask you your opinion on it, because I'm trying to decide to have more guests to bring James back.
I'm just trying to get a sense...
Of how that went over, because when I was talking with him, I was listening primarily and not watching the comments, so I didn't have a good sense of how the audience was reacting.
Was it useful to you that I was using the techniques in my new book, Loser Think, that's available for pre-order right now?
It'll be out November 5th, so if you order it now, you'll get it in time.
And I hope you do, by the way.
So please buy my book.
It would make me very happy.
Was it useful to you for me to point out, using the techniques in the book, when, as I was talking with James, when he was word-thinking, just trying to label something, you know, he's a con man, but without any backup.
You know, that's the word-thinking part.
And then the mind-reading.
I called out his mind reading a number of times, and you saw that that was fairly effective, wasn't it?
Whenever I called out that he was mind reading, it made him almost necessarily have to scramble to present a better defense.
And I think I also pointed out that he was in a bubble.
Bubble. He was in one of these bubbles because he actually claimed that he was pretty sure, he was so sure that there was no new wall being built on the border with Mexico that he actually challenged me to Google it live while we're here and of course it took me 10 seconds to Google that San Diego has built a bunch of wall.
Since then people have tweeted me a lot of stories showing how many miles of wall have been built.
But Aren't you kind of amazed that there's somebody who is a political advocate, social advocate, a lawyer, Harvard-trained, and very smart guy, obviously.
You don't go to Harvard if you're not.
But were you shocked and amazed that something that's 100% universal knowledge probably to every single person watching this periscope?
I'll bet there wasn't one person on this periscope.
Now there's 2.4 thousand people live.
I'll bet all 2.4 thousand of you were fully aware That there is serious wall being built on the border, primarily, or maybe exclusively, I don't know, but in places where there were already some kind of barrier, but it wasn't a good one, so it wasn't working. Now obviously that's where you want to put your wall first.
Because the reason there was a barrier there before is because it was already identified as an important place that people cross.
So putting a good barrier where there was a bad barrier would make sense as the most important place to do it.
So it's happening, you know, hundreds of miles.
And how could there be somebody who's watching the news who's not aware of that?
And the answer is, if you watch only the news from the left, and it works the other way too, if you're watching only the news from the right, you're in a bubble.
You don't know the news that's not being reported on your side.
So that was interesting.
So here's the question.
Yeah, I got different comments on that.
Would you like to see James come back?
If you saw yesterday, would you like to see him come back for another topic, you know, something similar in the news?
Or other people with the same kind of arguments?
I just want to get some kind of an opinion from you.
Now, I want to...
I want to defend James a little bit from some of your comments.
Number one, how brave is it that he came into unfriendly territory and made his case?
Very brave.
And how many people could have done that?
Could you have done that?
I talk in my book, Loser Think, I talk about the importance of being able to use your ego as a tool and not a description of who you are.
Now, if James thought that his ego was who he is, would he put himself at risk by coming into unfriendly territory where, you know, sort of things were stacked against him?
No, he probably wouldn't have.
You probably would not have. So, you can judge, just based on this one interaction, that James has the ability to put his ego where it belongs, you know, in the toolbox, not as an identity of who he is, and he just uses it as a tool.
He said, today, today I'll set it aside and go into unfriendly territory and mix it up.
Many of you, because you're sort of biased in my favor, because that's why you're here on this periscope.
That's no surprise.
So most of you thought, oh, Scott, you got the best of this conversation.
Don't you think he knew that that was going to be the reaction?
He knew that, right?
I mean, I'm sure he didn't think.
I can't read his mind.
But it's reasonable to assume that when you go into enemy territory, politically enemy territory, That you're going to take some hits.
You're going to take some hits.
Now, what do you think is his reaction?
Because by now he's seen lots of tweets.
He's probably seen the comments.
I don't know if he played it back, but he's probably seen your comments.
And a lot of them were very negative.
What do you think his response is to all the negative comments?
He asked if he could come back on again.
Do it again. Could you do that?
Ask yourself, could you do that?
Could you come on here, get ripped apart by the audience, most of the audience, because it's sort of an unfriendly audience for his point of view.
Could you do that and then come back and say, let's do that again?
Just ask yourself if you could do that.
He did it. So, I'll put that out to you.
You don't have to ask it now. Maybe you could tweet at me.
And I saw that some of you were, you know, not entertained and others were.
But give me a better sense of this and I'll have a better idea whether we should do more of it or not.
Speaking of guests, I have a request for you.
And it's this. I would like to see if I could get Matt Gaetz on Fox News last week.
Hold on. I've got to call up Twitter here while I'm talking because I want to check something as I talk.
I would like to get Matt Gaetz to come on my Periscope, but I don't think I can entice him because obviously he's in great demand.
I mean, he's on TV all the time, probably one of the busiest people in Congress right now, all the stuff he's doing.
And in order to get him on here, and because I don't think he would imagine that this would be worth his time, if I were him, I would be skeptical of it as well.
But here's what I'd like you to do.
I'd like you to follow him on Twitter.
You don't have to tweet at him.
You don't have to say anything.
I just want his numbers so he's at 220,000.4 followers.
I want to be able to say by the end of today, maybe the end of tomorrow, I want to be able to say that his numbers went up 10,000.
Because I asked you to follow him.
And by the way, you should follow him.
You should follow AOC on the left.
And you should follow Matt Gaetz on the right because they're the most persuasive and interesting people on the two sides.
So if you're not following those two, you're missing a great show.
Just a great show.
So Matt's been killing it lately with his persuasive ways, and he's just the perfect person to have on the show for a variety of reasons.
But rather than ask him to be on the show directly, I'm going to do it indirectly.
So I'm asking you to go to Twitter and follow him at...
He's at Matt Gates, and it's spelled M as in Matt, M-A-T-T. Gates is G-A-E-T-Z. So just follow Matt Gates, and I want to see his numbers go up to over 230,000.
And then if that happens...
Then I'll send him a message.
I have a way to get him a message.
And I'll say, hey, we just added 10,000 users.
Could you come talk to us?
I think that would be enough, don't you?
If we could get him 10,000 new followers, I think that would be enough for him to say, hey, I'll give you 10 minutes.
All right. Please do that for me.
It'll be fun to see if we can make that happen.
And then see what else I got here.
I think I had one other topic I wanted to talk about.
So North Korea is making some news, but they got sort of overshadowed by all the Baghdadi stuff.
And I've been wondering to myself, how could we ever make a deal with North Korea when the problem is who goes first?
North Korea, it seems to me that the bottom line is North Korea wants us to go first by withdrawing some troops or something like that.
And of course we want them to go first by giving up their nukes, but they don't want to do that because they're afraid that we'll attack them and kill them.
So I would like to brainstorm a few solutions for the problem that nobody wants to go first.
I think we could go first, but the trick is to go first with something that looks like going first and does have some real value, but still leaves lots on the table.
So in other words, we'll still go first, but we still maintain a lot of leverage.
Let me give you an example.
We could say, how about we go first and we'll declare that the war is over.
We'll just declare that we are not at war with North Korea.
Now, what does that cost you?
Nothing. Nothing.
Doesn't cost you anything.
But it goes first.
Now, if you're North Korea, are you just as afraid of the United States if Congress, let's say Congress does it, declares the end of the war?
Are you just as afraid of Congress the week they declare an end of war?
You're not. It is going first.
So, Somebody has to go first.
Now, that alone would not be enough to make it all happen.
There's a second part here, and I'm going to offer this as a clever persuasion-slash-negotiating technique, but I'm also going to fully disclose it, because it's the sort of persuasion-slash-technique that it's fair to tell the other side, this is exactly what we're doing.
There's no secret...
Trick here. This is exactly what you think it is.
And it looks like this.
Say to North Korea that since they're concerned about their security, their military security, that the United States would be willing to draw down some of its, some, maybe all, of its military assets under the following conditions.
And watch how clever this is.
And the following conditions...
Or that North Korea's military security can be guaranteed by any combination of the US, Russia, China, and South Korea.
Now, the magic of this technique is the any combination part.
So in other words, we would say to North Korea, you know, we don't care if you team with the Chinese military, so long as you get rid of your nukes.
You can invite the Chinese military to set up a shop in your country, have some kind of a joint military support thing with them, As long as you get rid of your nukes.
Because we have a risk with China that's not really going to change if they also have some more control over North Korea.
All we care about is the nukes.
That's it. That's all we care about.
So we'd say to them, here's the deal.
You can make a military agreement with us to protect against China and Russia.
There's some kind of way we can say, look, how about instead of being your enemy, we'll form a military alliance with you, North Korea, to help you in case China or Russia attacks you.
Now, it doesn't have to be sending in troops, but we can say, you know, we'll sell you weapons or whatever.
Now, I'm not suggesting that North Korea would accept any of these deals.
That's not the point.
Remember, this is a persuasion technique.
It does not rely on being factual, and it does not rely on anybody actually liking any of these techniques.
Now, let's say you say to them, here's another choice, North Korea.
You can make a deal where the U.S., Russia, and China The three of us, and let's say South Korea, all agree to protect you militarily from the others.
In other words, if China gets busy with North Korea and tries to take over, the US and Russia and South Korea will help protect them.
If Russia tries to take over North Korea, China, South Korea, and the US will help protect them.
So, the idea here is that we give North Korea a choice Of what their own security situation would look like.
And then we tell them we'll support all of them.
We don't even care which one they pick.
We'll support all of them.
As long as you get rid of your nukes.
Because we are committed to not wanting to attack North Korea.
We have a president who can make that case pretty persuasionally.
So the magic of the persuasion...
Is that you give North Korea several choices that they have complete freedom to pick.
What kind of security situation would you be happy with?
You tell us.
We only want one thing.
Get rid of the nukes.
And by the way, if it'll warn things up for you, we'd like to declare the end of the Korean War.
So I think going first, to break the logjam, we should probably declare an end to the war.
The second thing is to have a serious discussion of all the options, and maybe it's public even, all the options for protecting North Korea's territorial integrity.
Now, the other thing that's interesting is, you know, you heard that Kim Jong-un said he was going to tear down a resort that they built in North Korea and just rebuild it to make it better because it just wasn't good enough.
Somebody's saying, somebody's got a problem with Matt Gaetz.
Do you think I care about who somebody's parents were?
I don't care about that.
That's not a standard that I would care about.
Here are things I don't care about.
I don't care about you're related to somebody, you're associated with somebody, or you did something long ago when you were young and dumb.
Those are all the things I don't care about.
All right. But if he does something, well, that counts.
If he does it as a mature adult, that counts.
All right. That's my idea for North Korea.
We've got to give them something that doesn't mean much, which is the end of the war.
Just so psychologically we would end it.
And then open it up to say, you tell us how to secure your You are territory, and we're open to pretty much every one of those ideas.
We just don't want nukes.
That's it. That's our whole deal right there.
I think we could get there.
I don't know exactly what's holding things up.
Maybe it has nothing to do with any of that, but we'll find out.
All right. That is all I have for today.
The wind actually just died down.
So, I'll give you a...
Well, since you asked.
I'll take you over to the window.
You want to go outside? I know you do.
All right, bear with me.
Oh, Jesus, it's so cold out here.
Holy cow.
Wind is pretty strong.
I don't know if that's smoke or smog in the distance.
It doesn't look too clean.
Anyway, it's not too bad out here.
Earlier it was way windier, but not terribly bad here.
▲
Export Selection