All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 11, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
41:31
Episode 722 Scott Adams: Bad Ukraine Phone Call Defenses, Fast List Persuasion, Dumb Tillerson
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in here.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Another incredible episode that will be so good you'll be saying to yourself later, I don't know, is that the best one ever?
It's a question. Is it the best one ever or is it just the top three?
I don't know. We'll find out.
But one thing I know for sure.
One thing I can tell you with complete confidence is that your day will be better with a little thing called the simultaneous sip.
Yeah, it's quite famous now.
It's sweeping the globe. People all over the world are preparing right now, as I speak, in real time, all over the world.
People are actually filling their, well, could be anything.
You know what they're filling?
They might be filling their cups.
Or their mugs. Or their glasses, snifter, stein, chalice, tanker, thermos, flask, canteen, grail, goblet, vessel of any kind.
I filled mine with coffee.
Join me now for the simultaneous sip.
The dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Go. Yep.
Yep, that's it. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. Oh, yeah.
Best part of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
All right, well, we got lots of things to talk about.
Of course, I'll be putting it in the frame of reference of my new book, LoserThink.
Is there any LoserThink in the news today?
Oh, yeah, there is.
We're going to talk about it.
But let's hit a couple of points in the news in no particular order.
I was amused.
To watch CNN trying to prime its audience.
So CNN is warning its audience, mostly through the website, that the Republicans are getting ready for these impeachment hearings and the Ukraine stuff.
And what they're going to do is they're going to push a narrative And the narrative is, they used Jesse Waters on the Five as an example, Jesse saying that voters wouldn't be able to find Ukraine on a map, it's too complicated and nobody cares.
So Brian Stelter was trying to push back against the thought that American voters can't find Ukraine on a map, it's too complicated and nobody cares.
Well, good luck with that, because let me say this about the Ukraine situation.
American voters can't find it on a map, don't care, and it's too complicated.
You can't change that.
Now, Brian Stelter suggested that if you can't find it on a map, you get a map.
Darn it. If you can't find it, you get a map and you find it.
Because you want to follow along, because it's going to be scintillating TV. And let me do my preview.
This will be the trailer for the investigations on Wednesday.
Did what's-his-name talk to what's-his-name who believed he heard a third person say something about a phone call about something he thought was inappropriate for reasons that are hard to understand, but there might be a legal reason.
Wait, it's not a legal reason.
It's more of an abuse of power.
But is it an abuse of power?
Is it a quid pro quo? We don't know.
And we still can't find it on the map.
So, I would say the anti-Trumpers have kind of an uphill battle here, trying to make this interesting enough that anybody cares.
I'm going to give you some thoughts on this that I haven't quite seen.
One of the thoughts is it's been reported that And I imagine this is true.
It sounds true enough, but, you know, it's like anything else.
You never really know what's true.
But the reporting is that Trump wanted Zelensky to announce he was opening an investigation into Joe Biden.
Now, let me ask you this.
Does that fit your definition of digging for dirt?
This is the most transparent process I've ever seen.
First of all, Trump says he was on a phone call that was basically open to a lot of different people, not to mention it was probably bugged by the Russians.
So he said, after the fact, he said, you know, this was a fairly non-private phone call, even though it wasn't available to the public at that point.
But beyond that, apparently what he was asking for is a public statement that would have, of course, led to an entire transparency that Trump asked Zelensky to do the investigation.
I can't imagine any scenario In which Zelenskyy would announce it.
He didn't, by the way.
But if he had, there's no scenario in which it wouldn't have been quickly obvious that the president asked for it.
So here's a little context that I've seen absolutely nobody offer so far, which is, what was Trump thinking if he wanted the whole thing to be public?
Because he asked for it to be public.
He asked Zelenskyy to announce it.
At which point, everything's public, right?
Because there's no chance that they won't ask the president, did you ask him to do it?
There were plenty of witnesses, so of course he's going to say yes.
Or at least, of course, we would find out, no matter what he said.
So that's not exactly the actions of somebody who thinks they're doing something wrong.
So when the president says in his defense, it was a perfect phone call, I think the evidence supports the notion that that was actually his opinion.
So I'm not saying it was perfect or not perfect.
I'm saying that the fact he wanted it to be a completely public situation by asking for it to be announced certainly shows he wasn't trying to hide anything.
And do you think that he's such a dictator that he could do something, you know, that's, I don't know, inappropriate, abuse of power, Now,
that doesn't mean... It's right or wrong or legal or not legal, but it gets to his state of mind, which is difficult for any of us to know.
We can't read his mind, but in what world does somebody do something wrong and then ask for it to be public?
In no world.
So if it's wrong, I think we can fairly conclude that his internal process was not that it was anything wrong, because he planned to do it in public.
I haven't heard anybody talk about that context.
And I would even say that transparency, the kind that he was clearly asking for, is the opposite of digging for dirt.
When Christopher Steele went around asking for information on the Steele dossier, did he do that publicly?
No. Because when you're digging for dirt, you don't do it publicly.
All right. And what's the difference between...
Rather than make this a hypocrisy statement, let me put this in the...
I'll frame it as persuasion.
So as we know, Nadler and Schiff and the Democrats have been trying to get a hold of Trump's tax returns.
Can somebody remind me what crime is involved that Schiff and Nadler should have the right to see Trump's tax returns?
Because there's no law...
But what exactly allows them to have his tax returns?
Yes, it's something about New York, and New York's asking for him, etc.
So I'm not going to make a legal argument.
So what I'm saying has nothing to do with the law.
This is a persuasion argument.
In a situation in which Nadler and Schiff have been trying to, and it looks like maybe they'll succeed depending on the Supreme Court, It looks like they would get access to his tax stuff.
How could you term that anything but digging for dirt?
Because that's the point, right?
I don't actually know of any other point other than to get the tax returns and find something that looks a little strange, or at least that the public thinks looks strange.
So, I'm not saying that that's right or wrong.
That's not where I'm going here.
So I'm not giving you an opinion that's right, it's wrong to ask for his tax returns.
What I'm saying is, the public is going to see those guys asking for Trump's tax returns, which the public will interpret as digging for dirt.
At the same time, they're criticizing the president of asking for a Biden investigation, which the public might, because they've been prying for this, see it as digging for dirt.
But here's the thing.
Sort of looks like a free pass.
Because if the other side's actively doing it to you, meaning Trump, so if the Democrats are literally digging for dirt to the point that they're going to get a hold of his tax returns, one way or another, they're going to find some legal backdoor that looks like they might have found one.
We don't know yet. But on a sort of a moral fairness, which isn't a real thing, but we still operate like it is, How does it look different to a voter who's not paying attention?
Now, those of you who are really into the details will say, Scott, Scott, Scott, there are a thousand differences.
These are completely different situations.
Getting the tax returns for those reasons versus digging for dirt for Biden and Ukraine, you can't compare those.
Well, here's the thing.
I'm not comparing those.
I'm telling you that to the voters who are not into the details...
It looks like the same damn thing.
To the people who don't know the details, they don't look any different.
So how is Schiff and Nadler going to sort of defend morally, ethically, digging for dirt on Trump's tax returns if Trump can't do exactly the same thing with Biden for what looks like probably the same amount of cause,
which is not much. I'll just throw that out there, that legalities aside, they're going to look pretty similar to the public, except people will see it through their own movie filter, of course.
All right. Here's a little mind-reading example.
So mind-reading is one of those things I talk about in my book, Loser Think.
You see it in the news all the time, where somebody imagines they can read somebody's state of mind and And then they act upon it.
Here's an article from...
I guess it was on CNN. I forget who wrote it.
But here's the actual statement.
Multiple witnesses have now testified that they believe he, meaning Trump, demanded a quid pro quo from Ukraine while holding up 400 million, blah, blah, blah.
So let me read it again and find the mind reading.
Multiple witnesses have now testified that they believe he, Trump, demanded a quid pro quo.
They believe it.
They didn't observe it.
Can you go to jail for something that people believe you did if they didn't observe it?
Are you freaking kidding me?
And the guts of CNN to write that...
As if that's meaningful.
A lot of people believe a lot of things, but we don't go to jail, we don't lose our jobs for stuff that people believe.
You kind of have to observe something wrong.
So that's the first thing.
Now, I'm not saying that there isn't some evidence of this quid pro quo, because in my opinion, there is a quid pro quo.
Because there always is.
The real question is whether it was an appropriate one.
Which it was, in my opinion.
So I'll go through some of the arguments that people are making about this.
So these are arguments by the allies, Trump's allies.
Let's see, Rand Paul is saying that everyone but him, meaning everyone but Rand Paul, is trying to manipulate Ukraine.
That was his argument.
It's like, hey, everybody is blackmailing, manipulating, trying to get something from Ukraine.
Is that a good defense of the president?
It might be a good persuasive We're good to go.
Rand Paul, these are completely different situations.
Interfering in Ukraine to try to reduce their corruption is a little bit different than whatever was happening with Biden.
Although pro-Trumpers will argue that they were, in all cases, trying to reduce corruption in Ukraine, I don't think that was exactly the top thing that the President had in mind.
It was more about Ukraine's influence on the United States.
I'm not sure if you'd call that corruption.
That would just be influence. So I think Rand Paul's case...
We'll fall off the rails for what reason?
What reason? It's an analogy.
He's making an analogy that what the president was doing is analogous to what other people are doing.
How many people have won an argument with an analogy since the beginning of time?
Zero. No people have won an argument with an analogy, as I point out in Loser Think.
So, Rand Paul's approach is sort of classic loser think if you believe it, I suppose, because it's using an analogy to make a case.
It doesn't really work. Here's another one.
Trump says that the phone call was perfect, and he's a little bit miffed.
It's reported, I don't know how true this is, but it's reported that Trump doesn't like it when other Republicans are saying, well, the call was inappropriate, but not impeachable.
And Trump doesn't like that because he wants it to be a perfect call.
Now, how is Trump's persuasion in this situation?
Well, Better than some of the others, but not right there.
He's definitely doing a better job of defending himself than his defenders are.
So I'll say that.
But I think he's still falling short.
And it could be because the best defense is one that I can say.
But it's not one that can come out of Trump's mouth necessarily, and I'll tell you that in a minute.
So he says it's perfect.
Here's what's good about that.
People who are not into the details will hear the president say it's perfect, it's public, it's transparent, there's no crime, nobody's even saying it's a crime, it's perfect.
Now, that, of course, leaves open that it could still be an abuse of power, say the other side, or a quid pro quo, say the other side.
Um... Another argument is that the president has full authority to do anything he wants in foreign policy, and that's what he wanted to do.
So he had his reasons, and that's the end of the story.
He's the guy who sets foreign policy.
This is how he wanted to deal with this foreign country.
It's his job.
It's his call. Is that Mark Levin's defense?
I would hate to...
I don't want to put words into something like Mark Levin because he's so much smarter about this stuff.
I feel like I can miss a nuance and maybe misrepresent it.
But I think that's sort of the argument.
That he gets to determine what is foreign policy, and if asking these questions is what he determined is the foreign policy, it doesn't matter what you think he was thinking.
It doesn't matter what you think his motives were.
It's up to him. It's just his job.
Period. End of story. How's that defense?
Well, as a legal offense, it's quite good.
Assuming that it's coming from smart people, so...
Somebody's helping me on the correct pronunciation.
Mark Lovin. Lovin.
What am I saying?
Lovin? Mark Lovin?
Okay. Doesn't matter.
Apparently, you guys disagree on the proper pronunciation, too.
All right. But you know who I'm talking about.
And I apologize if I'm saying his name wrong, which I am.
All right, so that's a pretty good argument on a legal sense.
In other words, there's really no chance he's going to get impeached because the legal argument is so solid.
But is the legal argument persuasive to the public?
Is it? Probably not.
This is sort of a two-movie situation where the other side is going to say, sure, he can do it.
That's not the question.
We're saying it was wrong for him to do it, not that he has the right to do it.
So he has the right to do it.
We just think it was such a bad idea he should be impeached.
So I don't think it protects from impeachment.
So it's not persuasive to the public.
It would certainly be good enough for the Republicans to make sure he doesn't get removed from office.
Then there was the Nick Mulvaney comment that he had to pull back, where he basically said, get over it.
All calls are quid pro quo.
All calls between leaders are quid pro quo, so just get over it.
That turned out not to be a good defense, because I don't think the President wanted any quid pro quo to even be in the conversation.
So here's my take on it.
My take on it is that the best way to say it, I've said this a few times, but if you haven't heard it, is that the President was asking the questions that the American public Would have asked themselves that basically there were enough people in the United States, voters, both Democrats and Republicans, I would argue, who really, really, really, really wanted to know, is there something going on over there with the Bidens and Ukraine?
Is there any connection, financial ties?
Is there anything that we need to know about?
Now, as long as the president is asking the questions that we, the public, want to know, that's the end of the story.
That's the end of the story.
It doesn't matter that he wants it too.
It doesn't matter that it's good for him politically, because literally everything a president does, everything, every policy everywhere, is also for the benefit of the candidate.
It's also so he can get re-elected.
Everything he does. So I would just ignore that and say, does the public want to know?
Now, if the public wants to know, it does.
We want to know.
He's doing our job.
Would it be okay under those conditions that the public wants to know that he would use some leverage?
Sure. Of course.
Nobody... Nobody on any side thinks it's wrong for a president to use leverage on behalf of the United States.
That is literally his job.
It's what he promised when he took the job.
It's what he promised when he ran.
It's the reason he got elected.
I mean, it's part of it. Of course he would use whatever leverage he had.
Now, was it technically quid pro quo, because we didn't really withhold the money, because Zelensky didn't do what he said, and yet we released the money, and what about the timing, and did they know it was quid pro quo?
I don't care. Let's just ignore all of that stuff.
It's completely irrelevant.
If the public wanted to know, if the United States public wanted to know the answers to these questions, and a lot of us did, and those who didn't really should have, it's a reasonable question, it doesn't matter if he used leverage.
It doesn't matter at all.
Because if he didn't use leverage to get answers to questions we want to know, why didn't he?
Is he doing it wrong?
If he didn't use his leverage, he's doing it wrong.
That, in my opinion, is the best explanation, that he was asking the same questions the American public wanted to know or should have wanted to know.
Because if you make the other side debate that, make the other side debate the question, did the American public want to know, or should they have wanted to know, the same answers that the President was asking.
Somebody says, Scott, you're right, this is boring.
You don't have to listen to it anymore.
Problem solved. Alright, here's another...
So Nikki Haley gives this defense.
I guess she's got a book.
She gave an interview and she just said...
So Nikki Haley said, quote, you're going to impeach a president for asking for a favor that didn't happen and giving money and it wasn't withheld?
I don't know what you would impeach him on.
Now, I kind of like the way she's dismissed it.
But again, I don't think dismissing it works for the other team.
In other words, both sides try to dismiss the other side with clever wording.
But clever wording isn't going to get it done.
And this is clever wording, because she's basically reduced it to asking for a favor you didn't get.
But I would think that trying to commit a crime or trying to abuse your power doesn't look that much better than actually doing it.
Just because you tried and failed, that doesn't make it less of a problem in a lot of people's minds.
So I think Nikki Haley's defense...
It has some holes. It's really just word thinking kind of a defense.
So, and then CNN's Anoushe Hossein in an article says, given everything that has come to light about Trump and Ukraine, and with public hearings set for next week, Haley's comments are ridiculously dismissive.
Ridiculously dismissive.
Where's the reasons? What's the part saying that she's wrong?
So she's met with word thinking.
She has a word thinking kind of explanation.
She's criticized with more word thinking.
There's nothing going on here. And then Anoushe Hussain, writing for CNN, expresses her theory of why Nikki Haley is acting the way she is.
She believes that there's some chance that Nikki Haley is playing 4D chess.
Who invented that?
And that Nikki Haley secretly, in her mind, wants to replace Mike Pence and then become president when Trump is impeached.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Isn't that jaw-dropping?
That somebody could write an article that would get published on CNN In which she's speculating that Nikki Haley's inner strategy is to replace the vice president, who, by the way, has done a terrific job.
I'm not like a big Mike Pence fan, because, you know, my personal political preferences don't really line up with his entirely.
But that said, has Mike Pence been anything but one of the best vice presidents you've ever seen?
That guy's killing it as a vice president.
Do I want him to be president?
No, I don't.
But is Mike Pence a loyal and effective, consistent, hits his marks vice president?
Yeah! He's freaking killing it.
I would say he's a superstar of the administration.
He's so solid, you don't talk about him, which is exactly what you want.
So what are the odds that Trump is going to replace Pence Such a strong player with Nikki Haley.
I just don't see it happening.
So I doubt that's Nikki Haley's play.
But I'm not a mind reader either.
So who knows?
Let's see. So here's another sentence from Anoushe Hossein, and she says, And perhaps what is most disturbing about Haley's interview, and her choosing to reappear in the political arena right now,
it makes me think, it makes me think, mind reading here, it makes me think that the problem with American politics isn't Trump, but people like Nikki Haley, who enable him and his culture of corruption.
So she just throws that in there, that people are enabling Trump's culture of corruption, to which I say, could you give me an example of the corruption?
Because I'm not even aware that he's ever been accused of corruption, are you?
Has anybody ever accused Trump as president of corruption?
No. I don't know that that's even a claim, is it?
Yeah. And she throws it in here like it's something that doesn't need to be defended because we can all see it.
Well, you can all see it.
It's right there. All that culture of corruption.
What the hell corruption was that?
I don't know. So this is an example of, or reminded me of, it's not an example of, what I call fast list persuasion.
It's not my book. But I wish I had put it there.
Let me explain what fast list persuasion is.
Now this is different from laundry list persuasion.
There's going to be a little difference here.
Fast list persuasion goes like this.
You say five things, four of which are true, and one which is just opinion, but you stick it in the list of things that are true.
Watch. Here's an example.
And as homework, see if you can figure out who uses this technique almost every time.
So there's somebody in the public eye who uses fast list persuasion all the time.
It goes like this. Let's say you were talking about Bernie Sanders.
This is what fast list persuasion looks like.
Bernie Sanders. He's a socialist, wants to raise your taxes, open borders, he hates veterans, and he wants to elect liberals to the Supreme Court.
Did you catch it? That's fast list persuasion.
Here it is again. Bernie Sanders, he's a socialist.
He wants to raise your taxes, open borders.
He hates veterans, and he wants to elect liberals to the Supreme Court.
Who says that Bernie hates veterans?
Nobody! But if you stick it in the list...
Yeah, somebody's onto it.
If you stick it in the list...
Your brain just goes, true, true, true, true.
True enough. True, true, true.
So you accept it as true because it's in a list with things that you so agree with.
So watch the news and see.
Yeah, Bernie does not hate veterans.
I'm using an example.
But look out.
I'm going to say it one more time because I want you to just feel how persuasive it is.
So that you can get a sense of how this works brain-wise.
Bernie is a socialist. He wants to raise your taxes.
He wants to open borders. He hates veterans, and he wants to elect liberals to the Supreme Court.
See, it's just like slotted in there.
So anyway, that's your homework.
Figure out who in the news does that almost every day.
And by the way, it's not one person.
It's a fairly common technique.
What do you think is the odds of the China deal getting signed?
So now that they've done their...
Apparently when China decided to convict those nine fentanyl dealers in China, they opened up the hearing to cameras.
It was a public thing.
And apparently this is very unusual for China to open up a political proceeding.
So China actually let the world...
In on the fact that they were prosecuting these fentanyl dealers.
Clearly this was meant for United States consumption.
Clearly this is associated with the whole trade war, because China needed to show that they were doing something.
I just don't think it's real.
I hope it's real.
I mean, I'd love to think it was real.
But I'll say it again, the top fentanyl dealer in China, we know his name, and China knows where he lives.
And he's still walking around.
He wasn't one of the nine.
As long as the top fentanyl dealer is still walking around making fentanyl, they haven't done a freaking thing.
So I do not support...
Any deal with China while that guy's free and alive.
There's just no way that they're serious about stopping the fentanyl.
Just for show.
Alright, so how likely do I think that there will be a trade deal?
I don't think it's that likely, actually.
We might do some small deals on stuff that neither side cares about, meaning that we'll maybe drop some tariffs, say drop some things, whatever.
I don't know. There might be something small happening.
But I believe that China is saying something's going to happen that the United States doesn't think is going to happen, which is us dropping our Dropping our tariffs because they gave us a little bit of something.
I believe that the President's position is that tariffs would drop when we have what we need and fentanyl is right at the top of the list.
If you don't see that top fentanyl dealer's body bouncing off a sidewalk, I don't think there's going to be a trade deal.
That's my opinion. I could be wrong.
Or they could do something that's trivial and technical, but it would be a far cry from a trade deal.
Alright. Did you see the video of the Hong Kong protester getting shot at close range?
And then there's another video that's just horrible of a guy who was against the protesters who they doused him with some kind of gas and set him on fire.
I mean, he was just standing here arguing.
He wasn't armed.
He wasn't even aggressive.
He was just arguing in public with some people and somebody walked up to him, doused him and another person lit him and lit him on fire in public.
For his opinion, he was lit on fire.
He wasn't threatening anybody.
And that was the Hong Kong protesters who did that.
It's pretty bad stuff.
Now, we also saw the video of the, I guess, Chinese, or at least he was a police force there.
I think he was probably, I don't know if he was a Hong Kong policeman or Chinese authority, but they're on the same side at this point.
And the Hong Kong guy, he's got some protesters trying to wrestle to the ground.
But the other protesters are kind of threatening, you know, they're coming too close.
So he has had his gun with the other one.
And the other protester, you know, he points at him, threatens him to get back, and the protester walks toward him, kind of slowly.
And he's threatening him again, and the protester keeps walking toward him.
And then the protester tries to swat the gun out of his hand, but he did it kind of weakly, and the cop just shoots him.
And I'm thinking to myself, If you wanted to avoid being shot, don't do anything that that protester did.
Because he was unarmed and he was just walking toward a gun in a fight situation and acting like he was going to join in the fight.
And then he got shot.
It was the most justified shooting you'll ever see.
A policeman. A police person knew.
A police person.
A police officer. So...
The larger point here is that the Hong Kong-China thing could go forever, but one likely way it'll go is that somebody's going to shake the box, and by that I mean the violence will reach a point where it's nothing but violence.
There's a good chance of that happening.
I don't know what the odds are, but it's getting hot.
And I think that the protesters are not going to want to go forever without results.
But they do want to go forever.
Like, they're not willing to stop, but they're not willing to do it every day without results, I would imagine.
So they're going to have to do something, the protesters, to take up the temperature or change the variables or shake the box.
And I'm afraid that the easy solution is violence.
So you might see a lot more violence here, I'm afraid.
All right. Those are the things I wanted to talk about.
I'm going to jump on a plane in a bit.
Go down to LA. I'll be talking to Dave Rubin first, I think, and then Adam Carolla.
A few other interviews I'll tell you about.
We'll tweet them around. My book is in the top 100.
It's 80-something, last I looked.
And it's making a big impact.
So, if you don't already have one, get one.
Oh yeah, let's talk about Tillerson and Kelly.
So, Nikki Haley was talking about, in her book, I guess, she says that Tillerson and Kelly, when he was Chief of Staff, tried to recruit her to be one of their people who controlled the President.
Controlled the President.
And she said no to that.
How uncomfortable does it make you to know that Tillerson and Kelly were actually plotting to subvert the president's will because they thought they were saving the world or something?
But the problem is, as Nikki Haley properly points out, they weren't elected.
They weren't elected.
So they don't have to like what he's doing, but they can't stop it.
But what if...
What if you were in that job and you actually thought...
The people were going to die and the world was going to be worse.
Well, has not time shown that Trump's style works?
Have not Tillerson and Kelly been shown to be wrong?
Because actually things are going great and whenever the president gets to do things his way, as long as he gets to do things his way, Things have been working out.
So, firing Tillerson was a good fire.
I mean, clearly, that was a good firing.
I wasn't so sure about Kelly.
I wasn't so sure, did Kelly resign?
I think he resigned. I wasn't so sure things would be better or worse without Kelly, because I respected his service, etc.
But, it looks now like things are better without him.
So, Let's say.
Alright, that's all I'm going to say about that.
And... Oh, here's a bonus question.
If Kanye West runs for president, he says he will in 2024, what party would he run in?
Can anybody tell me what party Kanye would run in?
Because he's made a big point of saying that you shouldn't vote Democrat just because you're black.
But he's also pro-Trump.
But not pro-Trump policies, necessarily.
Which party would he run? I say Democrat.
I say Democrat.
Yeah, that's what I think.
I don't know if he'll do it, but he might.
I was also thinking that Kanye might be, I don't know if he'd want this job, but Kanye might be the best vice president we ever had.
I can't imagine he would want to run for the number two spot, but here's where I'm going.
Normally, our vice presidents don't do a lot.
They're just sort of the emergency spare.
Al Gore did more, and he was more like a partner, but still he was doing the boring, make the government work more efficiently.
It was good stuff, and I think he did a great job with the automation and stuff.
But it wasn't very sexy. It wasn't very interesting.
But imagine a Vice President, Kanye, who had the blessing of whoever's the president, it doesn't matter, to be a spiritual leader.
Think about that. Think about Kanye just being sort of a spiritual message that's not exactly whatever the president is saying, whoever that president is, but more as an additive.
You know, so you got the president working on the policies and the boring stuff.
What about somebody working directly on the spirit of the country?
You know, bringing us together, etc.
He wouldn't be like a regular vice president.
Kanye would be as powerful as a president, but he'd be in his own domain.
He wouldn't be the policy guy so much.
You can imagine that. Yeah, Dick Cheney was a powerful vice president.
Good point. Now, I can't imagine that Kanye would ever want a vice president position, but just for a moment, think, if you had somebody who was strong on policy, doing the policy stuff, the president, and somebody who could kind of just inhabit that other part of the world, which is who we are, how we feel, how we deal with each other, how to survive in the modern world, those are all the things that Kanye...
It has a grip on, and I would love to see him in that role because he's just such a powerful, positive force, I think.
▲
Export Selection