Nov. 19, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
49:41
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Hey everybody get in here Are you watching the Shampeachment interviews going on right now? | |
| They're quite exciting. | |
| Wake me up! | |
| It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, where we'll be talking about that and much more! | |
| Much more. Oh my god, so much more. | |
| But first, we must enjoy the celebration that brings us all together. | |
| It's called the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass. | |
| Snifter, stye, and chalice, tanker, thermos, flask, canteen, grail, goblet, vessel of any kind. | |
| Fill it with your favorite liquid. | |
| And get ready for the dopamine hit that gets everything going. | |
| It makes your whole day better. | |
| Go! So good. | |
| So good. | |
| Alright, well, so if you've been watching Vindman's testimony today, here's what he said. | |
| Now remember, Vindman is sort of one of the most key witnesses. | |
| And he had reported that the Ukrainian phone call was, quote, inappropriate. | |
| Inappropriate. And why was it inappropriate? | |
| Well, he explained that today. | |
| He said that having any kind of a partisan investigation by Ukraine, in other words, it would look partisan if they were looking into Trump's opponent in the election, He said that that would put them at risk for not being supported by Congress. | |
| And if Congress doesn't support Ukraine, and Ukraine is a bulwark against Russia, that can be bad. | |
| So which part of that is impeachable? | |
| None of it. None of it. | |
| He's sort of their key witness, and it just turns out that inappropriate is a difference between On policy. | |
| And a difference on priority. | |
| Now let me ask you this. | |
| If your job is to make sure that Ukraine policy gets done right, if your job is to make sure that Ukraine stays a good bulwark against Russia, and by the way, if you were born in Ukraine, I believe he was born in Ukraine. | |
| So it was during the Soviet Union and his father left the Soviet Union with Vindman. | |
| So he's got a real dog in the fight here. | |
| He's sort of anti-Russia. | |
| So here's the thing. | |
| How often, in your experience, has a subordinate said that the boss doesn't have his priorities right Because the boss's priorities are not the same as the employee's priorities. | |
| How often does that happen? | |
| Probably if any of you are at work, it's happening within ten feet of you. | |
| Probably every one of you has complained about your boss having his priorities wrong. | |
| And the nature of those complaints, they're always along the lines of, you know, I think the boss should put more priority on my project. | |
| Because if the boss puts more priority on somebody else's project, well, that's inappropriate because mine is the good one. | |
| Now, the thing that Vindman... | |
| Well, and let me say that all of this suggests that Vindman is good at his job. | |
| All right? So if it sounds like I'm throwing Vindman under the bus, I'm doing exactly the opposite. | |
| Vindman's the guy you want on your staff. | |
| He's fighting for his project. | |
| He's saying, you know, let's make my project a priority. | |
| You know, I know you got some questions about Ukraine, but let's keep my project a priority because it's the important one. | |
| Good employee. I would keep that guy. | |
| Wouldn't you? I remember, I'm going to tell you a story, a true story. | |
| One day in my corporate career, My boss's boss, who was like a vice president, I guess, needed to go to a budget meeting in which all the different departments were arguing about who should get how much budget. | |
| And of course the nature of the budget conversation was that you were each fighting to get as much of the budget as you could, because it was a limited pool. | |
| You just wanted to get your chunk. | |
| So the boss's boss couldn't make it, so he sent me. | |
| So he sent me to argue on his behalf for the importance of the budget for his department. | |
| And I got in the meeting, and whoever was running the meeting said, well, you've asked for this amount of money. | |
| How important is this? | |
| And I'm sitting there, and somebody asked me about this big budget item that I'm supposed to be defending. | |
| And they say, how important is this compared to these other things we're doing? | |
| And I sat there and I thought, it's not. | |
| It's just not. Sorry, I'm here to defend it, but when you compare it to these other things, they look more important to me. | |
| How happy was my boss's boss when I left that meeting? | |
| And he learned that I had given away his money because the thing he was asking for was less important, objectively speaking, than what the other departments said they needed the money for. | |
| Well, let's just say it wasn't the happiest day of my career. | |
| So here's the thing. | |
| Vindman's job is to fight for the priorities that he believes are true and they're about his project. | |
| And he did. I think Vindman's an A-plus employee. | |
| Vindman never said the president should be impeached. | |
| Vindman never said the president didn't do his job. | |
| Never said that. | |
| He basically complained about the priorities and the policy. | |
| Now the president, apologism 101, that's a block word, so I block people who use that. | |
| Because it's just such a low level of comment. | |
| You're an apologist. You're an apologist. | |
| So here's the thing. | |
| So the president thinks or thought that Ukraine's involvement in the election, 2016, and maybe future involvement, and Biden's connection over there were worth looking into. | |
| Now that's a different priority than Vindman's. | |
| Vindman was thinking he had a few moves. | |
| Who was right? Who was right? | |
| Was Vindman right that it was a risk we shouldn't take because it could affect bipartisanship, bipartisan support in this country for Ukraine? | |
| Was he right? Or was the president right that we should put, it's okay to put a little bit of risk on that bipartisan stuff, a little bit, because we need to find out what's going on over there with the corruption, with the election, with Biden, etc. | |
| Who's right? Doesn't matter. | |
| Does not matter. | |
| Number one, it already happened. | |
| So arguing about what was right after the fact doesn't make much difference. | |
| Now, was Vindman right? | |
| Because the President asked Ukraine to look into this. | |
| I think Ukraine kind of said they might. | |
| Has Ukraine lost bipartisan support? | |
| I don't think so, right? | |
| Was Vindman right? | |
| That Ukraine would lose bipartisan support because the president asked Ukraine to look into it. | |
| Now, they didn't really look into it, as far as I know, and they didn't announce it. | |
| But was Vindman right? | |
| Well, he was not right about how it turned out, because there seems to be no difference in support. | |
| But he didn't say it's definitely going to go wrong. | |
| He talked about it in terms of risk. | |
| So was Vindman right? | |
| That it introduced some risk. | |
| Well, I would say so. | |
| I think that's fair. | |
| And I always advise people, you know, don't think in terms of you're definitely right or you're definitely wrong. | |
| With a lot of this stuff, it's all about risk and risk management. | |
| Vindman's risk management said protect your project, protect your priorities, protect your job, protect the country. | |
| You know, Vindman legitimately was talking about a priority that is important to the country. | |
| So again, I'm pro-Vindman so far. | |
| It looks like just a guy who was protecting his turf, doing his job, and legitimately thought that Ukraine was an important priority for the country. | |
| All good. No problem with that at all. | |
| But it kind of comes down to who gets to decide where the country puts its risk and its priorities for international stuff. | |
| And as it turns out, it's the president. | |
| So it doesn't really matter that Vindman had a different opinion about which way to play this in terms of risk management. | |
| Probably lots of people disagree with their boss on risk management decisions. | |
| So I would say that Vindman has basically ended the conversation. | |
| Because if the conversation from the main, sort of the main guy who said it was inappropriate, if the main guy says it was sort of a policy difference, a risk management decision, the president gets to make that decision. | |
| And so he did. And we don't know how it would have gone if it had gone the other way, etc. | |
| All right, so, there's that. | |
| Now, here's the question I've been struggling with. | |
| And maybe some of you can fill in some blanks. | |
| I tell you in my book, Loser Think, which I don't have with me, that you should decide what is true in the political realm by looking at the reporting on both sides. | |
| So if the reporting on the left says something's true and the reporting on the right says something's true, it's probably true. | |
| But if only one of them says something's true, it doesn't matter which one. | |
| And the other one says, no, there's nothing here. | |
| Probably nothing there. Just a good general rule of thumb. | |
| Doesn't mean it's right every time, but a good general rule of thumb. | |
| That brings us to Ukraine's involvement in 2016. | |
| It seems that reporting on the right, let's say Fox News, etc., has concentrated on the work of John Solomon. | |
| And I'll tell you my impressions. | |
| I would watch John Solomon giving his exclusive reports on stuff, and I always had the same thought, which is, why is he the only one getting these scoops? | |
| What secret sauce does John Solomon have that he keeps getting all this good stuff and other people are not? | |
| And so I said to myself, I'm going to put a little asterisk next to this and tell myself to make sure the reporting is the same on the other side. | |
| Is it? It's not. | |
| If you go to CNN, they report on John Solomon's reporting as nothing but conspiracy theories that got him fired from the Hill. | |
| Is that true? | |
| I don't know. But that's a pretty big difference. | |
| Fox News says these are scoops and maybe there's something there. | |
| Or at least they have said that in the past. | |
| And... And then apparently the Hill... | |
| Agreed to let him go or he moved on. | |
| But apparently there's some indication that the Hill was not happy because they moved his reporting from reporting to opinion. | |
| They started labeling his reports on Ukraine as opinion. | |
| That was his own publication. | |
| Now, so I'm seeing in the comments, just so you know that I've seen them, I'm seeing that you're saying that there are other people reporting stuff. | |
| Sarah Carter, Strand, and I think you mentioned somebody else. | |
| I've not seen any of it. | |
| So I watch, I continuously watch the news, and I'm not aware of one credible-sounding thing about Ukraine. | |
| Why is that? Why is it that I can watch the news all day long and I'm not personally aware of any credible story about Ukraine doing anything? | |
| Why is that? Well, it's not being reported on the left as even being credible. | |
| So, here's a good test for you. | |
| George Webb, somebody saying Stossel, and Somebody says, has Fox ever lied to you? | |
| Well, here's the rule. | |
| If you see the stuff reported by the news people on Fox, you should treat it differently than if you see it reported on the opinion shows. | |
| So, you know, is Brad Bear reporting on the Ukraine stuff as true? | |
| Or is it only being, is it only on Hannity? | |
| Those are the questions you must ask yourself. | |
| So, I'm going to give you my tentative opinion that this is reported as true on the opinion side of one side, it looks like. | |
| Now, I'm open to that being revised, by the way. | |
| Somebody's saying Tim Pool, the Blaze. | |
| Okay, why don't I know what those things are? | |
| Let me ask you this. You're all aware of some kind of reporting, which obviously some of you believe is credible. | |
| In the comments, tell me, because I think you have enough room in the comments, tell me a true fact about Ukraine that you believe is an important fact that That's been reported by multiple sources that somehow matters. | |
| Go. In the comments, tell me the fact. | |
| Give me any fact about Ukraine in 2016. | |
| Because I can't even tell you what the rumor is. | |
| Somebody says you're relying on MSM. Nope, I'm not. | |
| And I'm going to block you for that. | |
| Because I just said the opposite of that. | |
| I literally said the opposite of that. | |
| I said that I don't rely on either side. | |
| I look for when they agree to say that's true, and when they don't agree, I reserve judgment. | |
| So whoever just came in here and said, you're relying on the mainstream? | |
| No. You get blocked from that. | |
| Because that's literally the opposite of what I just said. | |
| Somebody says, you've always lived in your bubble and resisted other news sources. | |
| You get a block. Because I just said the opposite of that. | |
| I just said I wrote a book telling you to do the opposite of that. | |
| So when you say I'm living in my bubble, I just asked you to tell me what I'm missing. | |
| It's the opposite of that. | |
| Ukraine helped Clinton. | |
| No detail. Zalinski reported no crime. | |
| Chalupa helped the DNC get money. | |
| Corruption. Nobody has... | |
| You don't have anything, do you? | |
| Chalupa tried to get dirt. | |
| So wasn't there... | |
| Chalupa lied to Solomon about something? | |
| That's the story, right? | |
| Source from the dossier? | |
| No. Um... | |
| So look at the comments. | |
| How many of you are convinced? | |
| DNC employee, Alexander Chalupas, DNC, worked with the Ukraine government for dirt on Trump. | |
| And what? | |
| Found nothing? Conviction for meddling. | |
| I don't think any of you know anything. | |
| Well, I shouldn't say that. | |
| I'm only looking at your comments. | |
| I don't know what you know. | |
| I can only read the comments. | |
| All right. | |
| The Hunter Biden stuff we already know about. | |
| That's not what Trump was asking about with CrowdStrike, etc. | |
| All right, so... Can we agree? | |
| So everybody's saying it's Chalupa, it's Chalupa. | |
| That's it? So there was one guy who made up some stuff. | |
| That's the Ukraine involvement. | |
| Have you watched the Glenn Beck whiteboard? | |
| I did. I watched a little bit of it. | |
| I would worry about something that's so complicated it can't be explained. | |
| But I want you to watch what just happened. | |
| So there were many people following this who said, oh yeah, there's verified lots of reporting on this Ukraine situation. | |
| And I ask you what it is. | |
| Just a simple statement. | |
| What is the Ukraine thing? | |
| And it was just word salad in the comments. | |
| There's not one of you. | |
| Who has anything except some guy named Chalupa talk to somebody? | |
| That's it? Somebody named Chalupa talk to somebody? | |
| That's the Ukraine stuff? | |
| Somebody says that's how the dossier got going? | |
| There's no reporting on that. | |
| Politico wrote an article, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. | |
| And what are the facts? | |
| Nobody has a fact. | |
| Did somebody actually do something? | |
| Alright, so let me leave it here. | |
| There are enough of you who are saying there's something there and referring to articles that I'm going to guess there's more to this than what I know. | |
| Alright, you happy? Are you happy if I admit that I need to find out more about it? | |
| So you don't have to yell at me because I'm admitting I need to find out more about it. | |
| But... The fact that you're all pretty sure something's there, and yet you can't state it in a simple sentence, kind of is a really, really strong tell that there's nothing there. | |
| Doesn't mean there's nothing there, but when you see this many people sure of something that they can't explain in a sentence, Somebody says, you cannot reduce this to one sentence. | |
| You can if it's true. | |
| Here's how you can reduce it to one sentence. | |
| Somebody bribed somebody. | |
| Somebody planted a story in the press. | |
| Somebody put some money someplace that wasn't supposed to go. | |
| It's easy. If there's something real there, it can be explained in one sentence. | |
| The fact that you need Glenn Beck's whiteboard to explain it might mean that there's something swampy there and everybody's connected, but... | |
| But, I don't know. | |
| If you can't make the point briefly, it's probably not real. | |
| That's a good lesson, too. | |
| Now, let me say with complete clarity, I'm open to learning that there's something really there. | |
| I'm open to that. Why haven't I heard it yet? | |
| You've got to ask yourself, how much news do I have to watch before I can hear anything? | |
| I've not heard one thing on it. | |
| All right. That's enough on that. | |
| I know what you want to talk about, Representative Eric Swalwell. | |
| If you're not familiar with the story, Eric Swalwell appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and there was a loud noise that most observers said was, Eric Swalwell emitting, shall we say, gas. | |
| Now, I've listened to it, and my first reaction was, that's not real. | |
| That's not really... | |
| It sounds exactly like it, and it looks exactly like it. | |
| But my first take was, no, that's not real. | |
| Now the official explanation is that Chris Matthews back in the studio dragged his hardball mug across the desk and it made a sound like that was poorly timed with Eric Swalwell's comments and so it just looked like it or sounded like it. | |
| But I think that's another case of hashtag gaslighting us. | |
| Yeah, I said that. Gaslighting. | |
| I also noted that Eric Swalwell has more experience with gas than Hunter Biden. | |
| Yeah, I said that. | |
| Somebody else said that this is a case of jumping the chart. | |
| I thought that was clever. | |
| I didn't say that one. And then I also tweeted that you know your interview on Hardball went badly when scientists have to revise their climate models afterwards. | |
| Yeah, I said that. I said that. | |
| So it's not the biggest story of the day but it's the funniest. | |
| So let me say again, I don't think that was an actual fart on national television. | |
| I think it was just a weird coincidence that sounded like it. | |
| All right. There is questions about Trump's health, because apparently he went to some medical facility, which was unplanned. | |
| And apparently his schedule has been light recently. | |
| And so I said to myself, well, if there's something wrong with President Trump, and first of all, if it's something minor, let's say he has the flu or something like that, I would understand why he wouldn't want to share it, you know, just sort of lay low until he feels better. | |
| So I wouldn't be surprised if it's just some ordinary thing, he just doesn't Doesn't need the public to know about. | |
| That would be my guess. But I went over to his Twitter feed with the following question. | |
| I wanted to see if he's been tweeting in his own voice lately. | |
| You can kind of tell the tweets that have gone through staff. | |
| Because they tend to be, you know, just retweets of things with maybe one sentence, kind of playing it straight. | |
| The really edgy, provocative stuff, the stuff with misspellings especially, you can tell is directly from Trump. | |
| So I went over to his Twitter feed to see if there's any direct stuff, or does it all look like staff? | |
| And it kind of all looks like staff tweets to me. | |
| So, David Pakman, quite fairly, asked the following question. | |
| He said, where were all the people getting on Hillary Clinton for her health? | |
| Where are they now? | |
| You know, talking about President Trump. | |
| Well, nobody talked about Hillary's health more than I did. | |
| And here I am. | |
| So, David Pakman, And for all of those who say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, why are you so partisan? | |
| Here you go. I think there's probably a health issue with the president. | |
| I think his lack of tweeting suggests it. | |
| His lack of appearance suggests it. | |
| I have no reason to think it's a serious problem, and certainly we didn't see any signs of it in his public appearances, in my opinion. | |
| But it's a question. | |
| It's a fair question, and I hope we get an answer to it. | |
| And I hope he's fine, of course. | |
| But it's more likely something minor than something major. | |
| We would have seen signs of it, or we would have heard something. | |
| All right. In messages from the other movie, here are some things on the CNN website. | |
| I love reading their commentary, especially the opinion pieces, because they're just so different. | |
| Than what you see on the right. | |
| It just feels like you've entered a new world. | |
| It's almost like going to another country or something. | |
| So here are the sort of things... | |
| It doesn't even matter who said it. | |
| All of their opinion people are the same person. | |
| At least in how they sound. | |
| And they were talking about the president's visit to the doctor, I guess. | |
| And this opinion person says, any human being would suffer seriously under such stress and become subject to all kinds of symptoms. | |
| Panic attacks, stomach woes, headaches, anxiety. | |
| Does that sound like Trump? | |
| I told you when I met with him in person in the Oval Office last year, one of my takeaways was he was the most relaxed person I've ever seen in any job. | |
| He didn't look like he had a problem in the world. | |
| I've never seen anybody less stressed than Trump in the Oval Office. | |
| It just seemed like he was taking everything in stride. | |
| And he said before he kind of likes the fight. | |
| So while I don't disagree that he probably yells and stuff behind closed doors, I think he kind of likes the job. | |
| I just don't think he's worrying himself to death about any of this. | |
| But then the CNN opinion priest goes on and said, last week was one of the worst of his presidency. | |
| And they're talking about the impeachment stuff. | |
| And I thought to myself, really? | |
| I thought last week nothing happened. | |
| The worst of his presidency? | |
| He couldn't possibly be worried that this impeachment thing is ever going to reach any kind of completion and actually remove him from office. | |
| He couldn't possibly be worried about that, could he? | |
| I suppose if it's you, you'd be worried about it, right? | |
| If you were the president... | |
| It's hard to be objective if you're in the job. | |
| But was it really one of the worst weeks of his presidency last week? | |
| I don't think it was even close. | |
| I don't think anything happened last week. | |
| Let's talk about... | |
| I saw Newt Gingrich talk about the impeachment as the theater. | |
| And, you know, I've been saying that for a long time. | |
| It really is theater. | |
| And if you see it that way, it's kind of fun. | |
| If you see it as some kind of a serious political something-something, well, then it's alarming. | |
| If you took any of it seriously, it would be alarming. | |
| But I don't. | |
| I don't take any of it seriously. | |
| Um... Let's talk about China. | |
| I just tweeted something that is mind-blowing. | |
| Have you ever heard of the Epoch Times? | |
| Let me just... | |
| I want to go back to my homepage here and look at it. | |
| Yeah, so the Epoch Times, they're a publication in the United States and in Hong Kong as well, and they publish lots of stuff that China doesn't like. | |
| So I don't want to say it's an anti-China publication, but those are its roots. | |
| So its roots are in sort of anti-Chinese leadership, just the leadership they're against. | |
| And they actually have video camera of the Chinese, obviously Chinese military or police, coming in in masks into their facility in Hong Kong while the employees are there and setting it on fire. | |
| Let me say that again. | |
| It's pictures of masked, obviously Chinese government people, Coming into the actual printing facility of the Epoch Times in North Korea while the employees are there, throwing flammable stuff on the floor and lighting it on fire and setting the whole place ablaze. | |
| And let me say again, while the employees are there, they're all in the video. | |
| The employees are like, what's going on? | |
| Vroom! The whole place goes up in flames and the masked people run out the door. | |
| Now, apparently, the employees must be the bravest employees in the world because they put the fire out. | |
| It was a big fire. | |
| I mean, it was a serious fire. | |
| And somehow they got it out, and it looks like they might be able to get back in business. | |
| But that's freedom of the press Chinese style. | |
| I saw an interview just yesterday with Ash Carter, former U.S. Defense Secretary. | |
| He was talking about decoupling, essentially, and how China's internet will probably just be another internet and that they, in the end, we won't be able to connect to China for any technological reason whatsoever because we can't trust them. | |
| Think about that. We can't connect to China in any technological way because they'll steal our stuff. | |
| What kind of country is that, where you can't even connect to them on the internet? | |
| Seriously. That's bad. | |
| So I've been saying that China is doing a triple holocaust. | |
| And it's happening right now. | |
| Holocaust One, the Flungang folks, who are apparently being harvested for organs. | |
| There are 10 to 70 million of them. | |
| There's lots of people. So that's going to be a big number. | |
| Next, there's the Uyghurs, who have been rounded up and put in prison camps. | |
| That's your second Holocaust. | |
| It's happening right now. | |
| This is not historical. | |
| Two Holocausts in progress right now. | |
| And then the third one is the fentanyl that they're shipping to this country. | |
| I listened to the Joe Rogan interview with, I forget his name, the reporter who actually went to China and visited a fentanyl lab, tried to undercover, etc. | |
| And one of the things I heard that I didn't know about Is that China actually has tax incentives for fentanyl precursor drugs. | |
| So in other words, the government is paying the drug dealers, in effect, with a tax rebate, for making and exporting fentanyl precursors, the chemicals that you easily turn into fentanyl. | |
| And that about the same time, according to what I saw in the Joe Rogan podcast, at about the same time that the President was getting President Xi to agree to crack down fentanyl, at the same time, China improved their tax rebate. | |
| They made it more attractive to ship the fentanyl stuff. | |
| So, if you have any question... | |
| About whether China is serious about stopping their fentanyl trade? | |
| They are not. | |
| They are not serious. | |
| And that is Holocaust III. Three holocausts by China. | |
| And I'm not even counting Hong Kong. | |
| They're burning buildings with people in it. | |
| They literally just did that with the Epoch Times. | |
| They're working on their fourth holocaust. | |
| Right now. And we're talking about doing a trade deal with them? | |
| Not a chance in the fucking world. | |
| We're not going to do a trade deal with China. | |
| If you need to... | |
| I'm sorry, yes, it was Ben Westhoff was the reporter who was on Joe Rogan talking about fentanyl. | |
| Thank you for that. So they're at three and a half holocausts right now, and we're actually negotiating with them. | |
| Are you freaking kidding me? | |
| You don't negotiate with somebody who's got three and a half holocausts going on right now, and you happen to be the victim of one of them. | |
| We're the victim of one of those holocausts. | |
| There's no chance we're going to have a comprehensive deal with China. | |
| There's no chance. We might have some smaller tariff-y things, but there's no chance that we'll ever have a comprehensive trade deal. | |
| Decoupling is going to happen. | |
| All right. That's enough of that. | |
| I'm repeating myself too much. | |
| In the last 10 minutes, has anything happened in the Champagement Theater? | |
| Somebody says, Americans choose to use fentanyl. | |
| Well, that's one of the things I point out in LoserThink. | |
| So whoever just made that comment, I'm going to make an example of you. | |
| Sorry. One of the worst forms of LoserThink is to pair the problem with the solution. | |
| So with the fentanyl situation, people say, hey, the problem is that people will take it. | |
| That's the problem. If they would stop taking it, we wouldn't have a problem. | |
| Well, that's true. | |
| If people stopped taking fentanyl, it wouldn't matter what China does. | |
| But it's loser think because addicts don't stop taking drugs. | |
| I mean, some do, but it's not realistic. | |
| It's not practical. | |
| One should not expect that the users will just stop taking fentanyl, stop taking drugs. | |
| It's ridiculous to even make the comment that the problem is the individuals. | |
| Yeah, it's true. It's true that the problem is the people taking the drugs, but that's not where the solution is. | |
| The solution is going to be maybe something with treatment, something with legalization, something with Cutting down on the demand. | |
| Now, personally, the reason that I want to crack down on China and their dealers is not because it will stop fentanyl in this country. | |
| I don't think it will. It's because they're mass murderers. | |
| If you thought that bin Laden wasn't going to kill anybody else, would you say, well, he's not going to kill anybody else? | |
| Let's just let it go. | |
| Let's let him live. | |
| I think he's done killing. | |
| He's sort of done with that. | |
| We'll just let that go. | |
| Of course not. If somebody's a mass murderer, and the fentanyl dealers have killed tens of thousands in this country and continue to kill tens of thousands every year, you don't say... | |
| Well, oh, I guess they're done now because China decided that they're not going to do that anymore. | |
| No, you kill them anyway. | |
| You've still got to kill them because they're mass murderers. | |
| I'm very, let's say, I'm very, what's the right word? | |
| Very interested in The idea of complete drug legalization in this country. | |
| If we legalize drugs, we would get rid of the Chinese fentanyl problem and the cartel problem solved at the same time. | |
| Now you say to yourself, wait, wait, Scott. | |
| Legalizing marijuana is one thing. | |
| Well, legalizing everything from meth to heroin to fentanyl, well, that's just plain crazy scots. | |
| But that's why you can test things. | |
| People are mentioning Portugal apparently has success with that. | |
| But I always warn you that what works in another country doesn't mean it will work here because there are enough variables that are different. | |
| You still need to test it. | |
| How hard would it be to get one state or even one city to test it? | |
| Can we not find one city or state that wants to test complete legalization combined with medical treatment, etc.? | |
| Not one. There's nobody in the United States who's stepping up and saying, Dear federal government, if you let us, if you let us, we'll test this for you. | |
| Nobody? Nobody? Seriously? | |
| One of the biggest problems in the country is fentanyls killing more people than guns. | |
| And there's no state that's willing to say, oh, we'll test it for you. | |
| We'll just do a limited test. | |
| We'll see if that works. | |
| If you're not testing it, you're not doing shit. | |
| You're not working on it. | |
| You don't care. You're doing nothing to it. | |
| People ask me, hey, Scott, stop being such an apologist for the Trump administration, etc. | |
| Well, let me crush you here for a moment and say, the Trump administration is not offering in any way, they're not proposing, to have a drug legalization test, a little trial. If they're not doing that, they're not doing the minimum thing to demonstrate competence in that area. | |
| Is that clear enough? | |
| The minimum requirement to demonstrate competence, not even being great, but just minimum competence. | |
| Would be to be floating the idea of let's be able to test somewhere to see if this legalization thing makes any difference. | |
| See what it does. | |
| If you're not even looking at a test, I'm sorry, that is incompetent. | |
| There's no other way to, there's no good spin you can put on that. | |
| That's just, that is absolutely incompetent. | |
| Likewise, you're seeing the Democrats coming out and saying, hey, let's legalize marijuana. | |
| The Trump administration is just sort of quiet on that. | |
| That, too, is incompetence. | |
| There's no other way to spin that. | |
| The Trump administration just has to say, let the states deal with it. | |
| We're going to take that off the federal docket. | |
| It's not going to be illegal federally. | |
| We'll just get out of that business. | |
| Leave it to the states. Easy. | |
| Politically? Socially, criminally, in every way, that would be the smart thing to do. | |
| And 100% of the people watching know it's the smart thing to do. | |
| You wouldn't even get... | |
| I don't think anybody would complain. | |
| And yet, you don't see the Trump administration doing it. | |
| Incompetent. So I would say in the domains of health and drug policy, the administration is incompetent. | |
| And I'm starting to think that on the question of nuclear energy, even though the Department of Energy is doing great stuff. | |
| So at the non-presidential level, I would say that the Trump administration is really doing well, promoting Generation 3 and 4 nuclear stuff. | |
| But it's not coming out of the president's mouth. | |
| And that's a big difference. | |
| So I would say that on energy... | |
| And on climate change, whether you think it's real or not, nuclear energy is still the solution you'd want to pursue. | |
| So I'd say that the president is not competent on that topic. | |
| Because competence would be for him to say on a regular basis, let's push all of our energy sources, because it doesn't matter what you think of the Paris Accords, it doesn't matter what you think of climate change, we need a lot of energy and we need the clean kind, and the only way we're going to get enough is if we push all of our sources. | |
| Nuclear is a big part of that. | |
| If you see the president say that, then I say, oh, okay, that's a good job. | |
| But short of that, that's not competence. | |
| All right. Have I lost all of my audience yet? | |
| I think the audience went down by a third because I criticized the president. | |
| All right. | |
| Let him do what he said he would. | |
| Yeah, I'm just looking at your comments here. | |
| There's an upcoming Richard Jewell movie. | |
| That would be interesting. | |
| When has Trump changed his position on something politically? | |
| yeah Well, he changed his position on punishing women who get illegal abortions. | |
| In 24 hours, he changed that opinion pretty quickly. | |
| He changed his opinion on deporting 14 or however many million immigrants who are not documented. | |
| So I would say you have a number of examples of that. | |
| He needs coal voters in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. | |
| If we started today building nuclear power plants like crazy, it would still take so long for us to have enough of them that most people would just finish out their career as coal miners and retire before there was enough nuclear energy to make any difference to any of them. | |
| This criticism is good, somebody says it. | |
| Vaping. Yeah, you know, I have not commented on the vaping thing, and it's because I'm too biased. | |
| I'm too biased. | |
| And I'll tell you why. | |
| I watched my stepson go through his problems with every drug you can imagine, and he vaped like crazy. | |
| And he would argue with us that the vaping was keeping him from smoking regular cigarettes. | |
| Except he was also smoking regular cigarettes. | |
| So basically the vaping was just so he could do it inside as well. | |
| I think that people, and I don't know this, so somebody who, you know, maybe Dr. | |
| Drew or somebody who knows a lot more than I do about addiction can answer this, but it seems to me that vaping is a drug and it makes people who are trying to get off drugs maybe that much harder. | |
| I don't know. But it seems to me that Being a smoker and trying to get off drugs would be confusing because it is a drug. | |
| Now, I'm not an expert on that, and I've heard plenty of addicts say that they're glad they have cigarettes because at least they have that, and it helps them stay off the other stuff. | |
| Maybe. I'm no expert. | |
| It could work both ways. | |
| It could be for some people having a little bit of a vice, even though they might get lung cancer, is better than being an addict. | |
| Might be that for other people, if you have a little bit of anything, you know, it's just a slippery slope. | |
| But here's my opinion. | |
| I hate vaping. | |
| I hate it. | |
| Like, deep in my bones, I hate it. | |
| And I have to admit, when people do it around me, I have a reaction that makes me need to leave the room. | |
| It's just personal, emotional hatred. | |
| But it's because of my experience. | |
| It's not because of the vaping. | |
| So I don't have a scientific opinion. | |
| I don't have a legal opinion or a policy opinion on it. | |
| I hate it. | |
| I don't want to be around it. | |
| And if it got... | |
| You know, if it were... | |
| If it became illegal... | |
| I would listen to the griping about it. | |
| I would understand that certainly there's an argument to be made that helps you get off of regular cigarettes. | |
| I think that's a fair argument. | |
| I wouldn't criticize that at all. | |
| But I can't help how I feel. | |
| So I'm trying to separate for you my opinion. | |
| You know, how I feel with what makes sense or what's logical. | |
| Logically, I get the argument freedom is good. | |
| Logically, I get the argument it could help you quit regular cigarettes. | |
| Logically, I get the argument that the problems probably will be isolated and it's the secondary market stuff or the black market stuff. | |
| I get all that. | |
| That doesn't change the fact That I hate it. | |
| So... Just being honest. | |
| Um... Alright. | |
| I believe that's all I got to say. | |
| Uh... Vapors are exhaling nicotine in me. | |
| Is that true? I don't even know if that's true. | |
| Somebody's saying that in the comments. | |
| Somebody says, legalized drugs accept vaping? | |
| Well, remember... | |
| Um... Yeah, if vaping were illegal, I suppose we'd be getting it from the cartels. | |
| So, yeah, there's no point in making it illegal. | |
| Is that loser think? | |
| Well, I think if you know that the science or the facts are on one side and yet you feel a different way, as long as you're aware of that difference, I think you're in reasonably good shape. | |
| You can't change how you feel sometimes. | |
| Nicotine is higher in vapors. | |
| I just don't know if you can get any second-hand vaping from it. | |
| Alright, that's all I've got for now. | |
| I'm going to go watch the Champeachment Theater. | |
| See if anybody says anything interesting. | |
| But I kind of doubt it. |
Export Selection