All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
26:34
Episode 717 Scott Adams: #Loserthink in Impeachment, China Fentanyl Crackdown, Whistleblowers
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey you few people who are awake now coming to you at my non-standard time because I'm traveling doing my book tour for Hey Peter!
doing my book tour for LoserThink which is available in hardcover and Kindle And audiobook.
I'm hearing a lot of people enjoying the audiobook on long drives, people reporting in.
I have to tell you, well, let's get to that in a minute.
We have to enjoy, first, the simultaneous SIP. Now, the great thing about the simultaneous SIP is you can do it later on replay.
It's still simultaneous.
In a weird way. But if you've got a copper mug or a glass, a stein, a chalice, a canteen, a shot glass, a 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 think my testosterone level just dropped about three points using this dainty little hotel coffee vessel.
But, like I say, a vessel of any kind.
As long as it's not leaking, it's working.
So, I've got another full day of media interviews.
I wonder how many I have lined up today.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of Maybe 25 interviews today?
Do you pity me yet?
Most of them are going to be radio hits.
So I'm going to be sitting in a room for much of today, taking calls from radio stations, or placing calls to them, and doing these quick little hits on radio all over the country.
I believe I'm going to be on Dana Perino's show either today or tomorrow.
I think it's tomorrow.
So look for that.
And the Greg Gotfeld show.
I'll be taping that.
That will be fun. So lots of stuff coming up.
If you don't have LoserThink, you should get it.
Now the thing I was going to say is, I've never seen this kind of response for a book.
Certainly I've never seen it for my own book, but I've never seen it for any book.
People are posting package opening videos.
They're posting pictures of them reading the book.
People are reporting in where they are.
People are recommending the book after reading a third of it.
So I've just never had that experience before.
It seems to be the best received thing I've done so far.
So we'll see. Let's talk about the news.
I guess everybody's heard the name of the alleged whistleblower by now.
So given that everybody's probably heard it already, it's this guy Eric Charmella, I guess.
The interesting thing about this is Is that Mike Cernovich was writing about this guy back in 2017, Farrelly or Charamello, somebody's saying.
He was writing about this Charamello guy back in 2017, but he wasn't getting much traction.
He was sort of, the mainstream media was just sort of overlooking it.
So that's why I tell you you should follow him.
There are things that I sometimes hear way in advance if you're following the right people.
You just have to wait for the mainstream news to catch up.
One of my favorite headlines from CNN, the anti-Trump network, is this headline.
So this is written by...
One of their frequent contributors who is the most anti-Trump person.
I forget his name. But here's the headline that was given for his article.
The Giuliani factor that might condemn Trump to impeachment.
Does it seem to you they've moved on?
Does it seem to you that the whole phone call thing didn't work out?
And now they're like, well, all right, it wasn't the phone call.
But what about Giuliani?
Giuliani? We need to move on to another thing.
So here's a little persuasion slash psychology tip that I think the Democrats are starting to understand.
And it goes like this.
People, you know, most voters, are not going to really follow the details of a complicated story.
You could probably, as a rule of thumb, say that the average public will take away maybe 10% in terms of understanding the complicated story.
So you have to really ask yourself, uh-oh, what part will people get about the Ukrainian phone call?
What will they understand versus what will they not understand?
Because the complicated stuff.
Because the only stuff that's going to matter is that little part they think they understand, even if they're wrong.
And it seems to me that given that as far as I can tell, even the Democrats are not really making a strong case that there's any kind of crime involved.
I think what people are going to remember is that the president made a phone call And there was no crime involved.
How would you like to defend impeaching a president because he made a phone call in which everybody agrees no crimes were committed?
That's a tough one.
What would happen Hypothetically.
I don't think there's any chance it could happen because the Republicans in the Senate will stop it.
But what would happen if you actually had an impeachment and the only thing that the public could remember is that they didn't like the way he worded a phone call.
It had no effect on anything.
It didn't cost us money.
It didn't affect the economy.
It didn't change our security.
It didn't change our international relations.
It didn't have any effect.
It had no effect on anybody.
How would the public feel about removing a president because he worded something on a phone call in a way that people didn't like, but there were no other consequences?
That's the very definition of illegitimate.
Now, I get that the anti-Trumpers can piece it together with words and make it sound like it's bad, and they might even be right.
I won't even debate the substance of it.
But what the public is going to remember is that they tried to impeach a president for the way he worded a phone call.
That's all they're going to remember.
They don't care who Bill Taylor is, whose name I just bothered to learn today.
I've been watching this story because, you know, of course I do these periscopes and talk about it all the time, but even I, as much as I'm interested in this stuff, and I'm probably in the top, I don't know, 2% of people who care, Even I wasn't even learning the names of the players.
I'd be like, yeah, there's a guy, that guy, diplomat, said some stuff, didn't matter.
And then there was the other guy who talked to the guy or heard the guy.
Doesn't matter. Just doesn't matter.
So I asked this provocative question on Twitter.
And of course, if you've followed me for a while, you know that the way you frame something It ends up being the answer.
So if you frame something right, you require people to think inside your frame if they're dumb enough to accept it.
And then they're trapped in your frame and they're going to come to the conclusion you want them to because they move their brain over to your way of thinking, at least the framework.
So here's a framework that I put on Twitter yesterday just for fun.
I ask people, what percentage risk of an economic collapse would they be willing to endure to remove Trump from office?
Now think about it.
Think about it.
Do you think there's no risk to the Republic, or at least to the economy, do you think there's no risk of removing a president for the way he worded a phone call?
That's a pretty big risk.
You could impeach a president for an actual crime, and the side that didn't like it would still live with it.
They would still live with it, because at least it followed the rules.
If there's one thing I can tell you about conservatives and Republicans having sort of lived among them for so long, they like rules.
If you break the rules...
There's going to be a consequence.
If you break something that's not a law, such as the way you worded a phone call, no law broken.
Conservatives are going to be very reluctant to punish you for not breaking a rule.
But man, could you imagine what would happen to the country if Republicans felt that a president was removed Without proper respect to the Constitution.
Now, if you think that's zero risk to the Republic or to the economy, that's hard to support.
Now, it might be a 1% risk.
It could be a 10%.
It could be a 50%.
But it's a risk.
And so, this is an example that...
I talk about in my book, Loser Think.
The specific example of Loser Think here is that there's no consideration of the cost.
So the people who want impeachment are thinking of the benefit, at least as they see it, the benefit as they remove President Trump.
And they're really focused on the benefit.
But there's either a cost or a risk of a cost, which can be treated the same.
By the way, if you were trying to calculate what this looks like, you would do a calculation in which you would multiply the risk of something happened Times the probable cost if it happens.
So if there's a 1% chance that you would lose a trillion dollars, you would treat that as an expense of 1% of a trillion, whatever that is.
What's 1% of a trillion?
Is that a billion? I can't do math in the morning.
So, let's say you thought the risk to the republic was 2%.
Would you still want to remove the president?
Turns out, at least online, people will say yes.
And there are even people who said that they would take a brief recession because, hey, it'll recover.
And other people say, well, President Pence isn't so bad in terms of it's not going to destroy the economy if you go to President Pence.
But that's not really the question.
The question is not whether Pence...
Could manage the economy.
I'm sure he could. I'm sure he wouldn't break anything.
The problem would be that, hypothetically, an American president was removed Econ 101 is wrong.
Learn about real options and read Taleb.
I blocked Taleb for, well, you don't need to know.
But I don't consider him a legitimate voice on a lot of stuff.
That's a longer story.
We don't need to get into it.
I just no longer respect his opinion.
So, I shouldn't have said that in public.
Actually, if I could take that back, I probably would.
So, there's a risk if the president is removed.
I don't think people are considering that risk.
It's not zero. I don't know what it is, but it's definitely not zero.
Here's another fun story. CVS, the pharmacy chain CVS, has delivered their first prescription by drone.
Now, what the story doesn't mention is obviously it's a three-drone operation.
One of the drones from CVS delivers the actual medicines and the prescription.
But then there are these two other drones that follow it at approximately a quarter-mile distance from each other.
And one has each end of the CVS receipt.
And then they fly over the home, and then the first drone delivers the package.
And then the other two that are holding the receipt about a quarter of a mile apart, one will drop it, and then the other one will fly up and be directly above the chimney and then drop it.
And then the CVS receipt, which is a quarter of a mile long, will slowly snake itself down the chimney and burn up in the fireplace because who needs a piece of paper anyway?
It's a digital world. So CVS has that.
It's sort of a three-drone operation.
Damn it. All right.
So here's a funny poll.
Likely Iowa Democratic caucus goers.
And by the way, today I learned that caucus goer as one word.
I guess that's the thing now.
There's such a thing as a caucus goer.
There was a poll and they said, and here's their priority for the candidates.
So people who are voting for Democrats have these priorities in Iowa.
33% say their top priority is one who can win.
Okay. That's good.
They want somebody who can win. But only 25% have their top priority, one who is honest.
Keep in mind, the primary reason they want to remove the president is they think he's not honest.
But only 25% care if the person who replaces him is honest.
Are you following this?
100% of Democrats or something like that would like to remove the president for not being honest, but only 25% of them rank as their highest priority that who replaces him is honest.
But it gets better.
The next priority below honest is one who cares about people, I don't know what that means.
Have we ever had a president who didn't care about people?
Do you think Trump or anybody else doesn't care about people?
It's just a stupid question.
Everybody cares about people.
And it's a top priority.
That shouldn't even be in the poll.
And then the fourth priority that got only 15% votes is one who has good leadership.
So they're prioritizing ability like fourth place in their own candidate.
Their own candidate, they're not looking for capability.
That's what the poll says.
The poll says that they don't put a priority on capability.
It's like fourth.
Well, you know, as long as he wins...
It doesn't have to be that honest.
I mean, I'm not obsessive about it.
It doesn't have to be completely honest.
And caring about people?
That would be nice. That would be nice.
How about leadership and capability?
Eh. Eh.
Not so important.
What we really need is to get rid of that Trump monster.
So that was pretty funny.
The simulation is so entertaining.
Because there are days when I wake up and I have this thought in my head and then I laugh about it and I move on with my day.
But today I'm going to tell you what it is, which is how would you like to be a Democrat who is also in the LGBTQ community?
Because you're kind of conflicted, aren't you?
Because if President Trump is removed, hello, President Pence.
Is the LGBTQ community waking up every day and fighting hard to make Mike Pence their new president?
Because it feels like that.
It feels like that.
And I think to myself, what kind of mental process is happening that would allow you to I don't know, consider that as your worldview, that waking up every day and fighting hard to make Mike Pence your president is a good thing for the LGBTQ community.
Now, to be fair, I'm fairly pro-Mike Pence.
I think he's been a terrific vice president.
One of the best vice presidents, I would say.
He's doing a solid job.
And I think that his views on the LGBTQ stuff...
Probably are going to evolve.
I have some optimism that he doesn't have any bad feelings about anybody and that his religious beliefs and modern society may come and they may line up a little bit better in the future.
But it's just weird that the outcome of a successful impeachment would be President Mike Pence.
There's a very funny compilation video going around.
I just tweeted it before I came on Periscope.
Of showing the Democrats pretending to be sad about impeachment.
And they're all such bad actors.
So it's funny because it's a compilation clip so you can see them one after another saying the same thing.
This is a solemn day.
I take no joy.
We cannot be happy.
About an impeachment vote.
It's very solemn.
A sad day for the country.
And you look at it, and you think to yourself, you're such bad actors.
You know, I realize that all politics is a show, but, like, do you practice that in front of a mirror?
Do the Democrats actually stand in their bathroom before they go in camera and think, oh, crap.
How am I going to sell this as a bad thing?
It's very sad.
It's a very solemn day.
And then of course, because they're all using the same words, both the media and the politicians, it's obvious that they're all working together.
So, that's pretty funny.
Anyway, let's see what we got here.
Oh, of course, the whistleblower's attorney.
I swear, Twitter has caused more problems for people than just about anything in the history of civilization.
People who have made tweets that they wish they hadn't made.
So, Mark Zaid...
The attorney for the whistleblower said back in, what was it, 2017 or something?
He said, hashtag coup has started.
First of many steps, hashtag rebellion, hashtag impeachment will follow ultimately.
This was 2017.
So the lawyer is admitting that the impeachment started Before the evidence.
Before the Ukraine phone call.
It was an impeachment in search of a reason.
And then they grabbed on this little phone call thing.
And they're going to ride that.
Let's see how well that goes.
So there's a story today about China cracking down on fentanyl.
Now, you know that this is very personal to me.
In fact, so personal, I said that if the United States signed a trade deal with China prior to China cracking down on their fentanyl, I would withdraw my support from the president.
Grudgingly and reluctantly, but that would just be personal.
Sometimes things are personal.
And honestly, I wasn't expecting anything.
I was not expecting that China would do anything.
But apparently, working with US authorities, they seem to have followed up on the leads and seem to have jailed at least one guy.
One guy, I think, got sentenced to death, but it looks like it'll be turned into a life sentence, probably.
And some others got some lesser jail sentences.
But here's the thing.
Is China just sort of going through the steps so they can get the trade deal?
It's obviously tied to the trade deal.
Is this real?
What I can't tell is, you know, where there may be...
Because there's this one guy in China who's known to be the top fentanyl king, and I don't believe he was part of this.
So if you remove the lesser dealer who's selling fentanyl, but you leave in place the top fentanyl dealer in China, does not the top dealer's business improve because the competitor is gone?
So could it be that China knows this will have no impact whatsoever on the amount of fentanyl that comes from China?
And gets into Mexico and then shipped to the United States, and they're just doing it for a show.
So I can't remember his name.
I've tweeted it in the past.
And the United States Department of Justice has named him very specifically.
We know who he is.
We have a picture. China knows where he lives.
And I don't know that this makes any difference.
It looks like it could be all they did is do a favor to the top fentanyl dealer in China because now he doesn't have competition.
If that guy goes down and is executed especially, I'm going to say, huh, this looks real now.
But if the top fentanyl dealer is still in business simply because the United States has not made it, you know, put together the case against them, I suppose that's possible.
If that guy stays free, I don't know if you could take it seriously.
So I'm cautiously optimistic that China knows they need to cut this out, and maybe they've started to do something.
But I would say the evidence we have so far is a little bit ambiguous.
I don't quite trust it, is what I'm saying.
I think that's about all I wanted to talk about because I've got to go do 25 interviews today.
Does anybody have a question on my book?
Have I mentioned it?
Loser think. I'll be happy to answer a couple of quick questions.
Uh-oh, let me see what time it is.
I think I might have to run pretty soon.
Yeah, I think I need to get going.
So... Why are you up so early?
Oh, I'm in New York. Different time zone.
I'm in New York City doing interviews today for Loser Think.
Somebody says, is it hard to manufacture fentanyl?
Well, I believe that you need professional pharmaceutical-making equipment, and of course the odds of killing yourself just by sniffing it is pretty high.
So I think if it were easy, we wouldn't be importing it for China.
I think if it were easy, it would be like meth labs in the United States.
So I would have to say that meth is probably a lot easier, because people are doing it in trailers all over the place.
But I'm not aware of any major fentanyl lab in the United States, because I think we control access to the equipment a little bit better.
Will I be doing any book signings?
I might do some more digital ones, but not in person.
Do I cab or Uber?
Usually Uber. You can submit ideas every now and then.
I will do a tweet, ask them for suggestions, and you should submit them in a comment.
No, no public events in New York City.
All right, that's all for now.
I've got to run. I'll talk to you all.
▲
Export Selection