All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
56:57
Episode 744 Scott Adams: Troll Attacks, Loserthink in the News, Bottom Circle People, Lisa Page
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Come on in here. I hope you're sleeping off your holiday weekend, got enough rest, and you are ready to hit it this week.
Hit it hard! And the best way to start that is with coffee.
Or a beverage of your choice.
It doesn't take much.
All it takes is a cup or a mug or a glass, a snifter, stein, chelvis, tanker, thermos, flask, canteen, grill, goblet, vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Ready? Ready?
Ready? Ready?
Go. Savor it.
Hold. Savor it.
Good. Okay.
Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but the trolls on the left have new marching orders.
And man, it's frightening.
So I spent the last day or so slapping trolls on Twitter.
Now, sometimes I just, you know, block them and walk away.
But when the trolls get new marching orders and they all come in with the same kind of message...
It's a little more interesting, and I tend to engage.
Now, one of the questions that people ask me is because there's an article from Wired.
Wired did a big interview with me when I was doing my book tour recently, and the Wired interview just dropped.
Now, I haven't read it because I'm in so many articles this month, I don't read them all, but I tweeted it.
And when I tweeted the article, the article focuses on, and really there's no reason to focus on this except there was one interesting part from my book, LoserThink.
And one of the things I focused on was I talked about how to have some new rules for civility on the internet.
And I talked about my 48-hour rules for apologizing and my 20-year rule for just letting things go.
If somebody did something more than 20 years ago and it wasn't murder or something permanent like that, then you just let it go because they're different people.
But anyway, the point is, The trolls came after me, and they were noting that I was insulting my trolls just for fun on the internet.
I do it for fun and entertainment.
And people said, Scott, Scott, Scott, you hypocrite.
You hypocrite.
How can you say you're in favor of civility on the internet at the very same time you are insulting trolls?
Insulting trolls is the opposite of civility, to which I say, I'm also opposed to murder, but if you break into my house at night, I will kill you.
Is that inconsistent?
I'm opposed to murder, but if you break into my house in the middle of the night, I will kill you.
Are those inconsistent?
I don't think so.
I don't think so at all.
If a troll comes after you on Twitter, you have a free punch.
You can be as awful as you want.
There's no rule of civility that says you need to be nice to rude people.
Is there any form of manners that suggests you need to be nice to an asshole?
There's no rule like that.
I don't suggest that anybody do it.
Now, you might want to know why they're being the way they're being.
If there's something wrong with them, it's like a mental problem, well then maybe you want to walk away.
But if a troll is coming in for political purposes, or just to be a sociopath, and just to hurt a stranger, those people are just a free punch.
Why would you not take a free punch on somebody who completely deserves it?
So I do it for fun and entertainment and fuel.
So the newest batch, I'm trying to figure out where they're getting their marching orders because if you noticed in the last 24 hours or so, maybe a little bit sooner than that, they're coming with the same approach and there are lots of them.
And they're all trolls, you can tell by their accounts.
Now, they may not be paid trolls, but they're obviously organized because they're coming with the same messages.
So the messages against me always take the same form.
There's always the sincere guy.
I like the sincere troll.
The sincere troll is, I used to love your comic, but now, because I know you're a terrible person, I can never enjoy it again.
So I call those the sincere trolls.
They try to hurt me with sincerity.
Now, I don't believe they were reading Dilbert yesterday.
I'm sure none of it's true.
So that's one flavor.
The other flavor are the people who are asking me if I support Kids in Cages and or Stephen Miller in the White House.
So apparently there's some kind of general instruction That trolls will go after whoever they think is a Trump supporter, and they're going to ask them those questions.
Do you favor kids in cages or Stephen Miller?
And it's sort of a do you still beat your wife kind of thing, because they want to concentrate the entire Trump presidency into one personnel question that I don't know much about.
I mean, I couldn't tell you everything that Stephen Miller does or thinks.
Same with all the rest of his advisors.
I don't know much about it. I know people say bad things.
What are the odds that bad things said about people on the internet are true?
Low, you know.
I mean, could be true, could be not true.
So I don't have an opinion about something I'm uninformed about.
And really don't have a way to become informed.
But that seems to be the neutral attack is going after Trump supporters directly.
One of the people who is supporting this idea of going after Trump supporters...
So, you remember in 2016, one of the worst mistakes that Hillary Clinton made was the deplorables comment.
But even Hillary Clinton...
Limited the deplorables to a subset of Republicans.
So even Hillary was saying, well, you got your Republicans that we just disagree with, in essence, I'm paraphrasing, you know, the ones we just disagree with politically, but then there are the deplorables, you know, a percentage of them that are irredeemable, horrible people. Now, that didn't work out for her because people, correctly or incorrectly, took deplorables to mean she was really talking about all Trump supporters.
She wasn't.
She wasn't. But it was easy to twist it into that as a political attack.
So, calling some percentage of Trump supporters deplorable turned out to be one of the worst political moves of all time.
So they've decided to double down.
Instead of saying that some portion of Trump supporters are deplorable, the newest attack is that anybody who voted for him or says good things about Trump is supporting kids in cages and white supremacy.
So, they've doubled down on the thing that didn't work.
That's so typical.
Now, there's a fellow who works senior correspondent for Vox.
Now, if I introduce the topic by saying that it came from a senior correspondent for Vox, what's your first thought?
Well, here's some hot mess of thinking right here.
So whatever I say next, you know, is just going to be so batshit crazy that I almost don't even have to say it.
I could just say. And then a senior correspondent for Vox said some things that are batshit crazy.
The details probably don't even matter, but I'm going to give them to you anyway.
So he says...
He says, seems to be my notes are out of order, and as soon as I find it...
Well, all right, I will give it to you in rough form.
He said that we should go after...
Oh, damn it.
The most important thing I wanted to...
Copy and paste. Sorry, I'm making you wait, but this is totally worth it.
Well, I guess that didn't print for some reason.
All right. So the point is, this Vox correspondent said basically...
He was in favor of going after people as voters.
So he said that the days of not going after people for having bad opinions should be over, and that you should shun people socially, and you should go after them socially and otherwise for having bad opinions.
And I responded...
And I said, remind me who gets to decide which beliefs are abhorrent.
So the word that he used was abhorrent.
And he said that you should shun people with abhorrent opinions.
And you should be able to ostracize them and be bad to them.
And so I said, who gets to decide which beliefs are abhorrent?
For example, I don't know this to be true, but I'm guessing that a senior correspondent for Vox is in favor of abortion.
Now, I stay out of the abortion question because I would rather recuse myself as a man, let women work it out, and then I'll support whatever they come up with.
So I don't have a dog in the fight, per se, at least in terms of arguing about it.
But it is nonetheless an objective statement that half of the country believes that someone who supports abortion has an abhorrent belief.
So if we were to use his standard...
Half of the country should, by his own standard, shun him and try to drive him out of the country somehow, I guess.
So it's probably the most bankrupt, ridiculous, stupid opinion you'll ever see in your life.
Because if you don't have a standard for what abhorrent behavior looks like, you can't really measure to it.
You can't really manage to it.
So, this is part of a larger thing.
So, the other trolls are the laundry list trolls, and a whole bunch of them came out at the same time.
And their laundry list looks like this.
This one from Glenn Craven on Twitter.
Or maybe Scott Adams could have decided not to support a, now watch the list, a moronic, racist, narcissist kind man with no real leadership acumen, clearly bowled into Russia and enamored of dictators.
And a stooge.
Rob Reiner comes also with the same kind of thing.
Rob Reiner said yesterday, every elected Republican knows that this president is guilty of countless impeachable offenses.
I would list them, but then I would have to show that there are no impeachable offenses.
But they're countless. So many impeachable defenses, I couldn't possibly list them all on Twitter.
But they, meaning the Republicans, along with many white evangelicals and white supremacists, have made a pact with Putin.
Have they? Have the white evangelicals and white supremacists made a pact with Putin?
But unlike a pact with the devil, this one can be unsigned.
In other words, the Republicans can change their mind.
It's not too late. So when I read this, I say to myself, is this a political opinion?
Or is it a cry for help?
In other words, is Rob Reiner signaling a strong political opinion?
Or is it a strong signal that he's got a mental health problem?
That's an actual serious question.
I'm being completely serious.
That's not a political statement.
Is this a sign of mental illness?
Let me read it again.
Just listen to it.
Now imagine that this is a prominent person who knows he'll be noticed.
He'll be noticed by lots of other prominent people who can affect his life and his career.
And so he's saying this in public.
And I would say he believes it because he's so consistent.
I can't read his mind, but he's been so consistent, I assume he believes it.
So he thinks that every elected Republican knows that Trump is guilty of countless impeachable offenses.
Does that sound like a sane opinion?
That every Republican knows the President is guilty of countless impeachable offenses?
There's no evidence of that.
No. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, but there's certainly no evidence of that.
Even on the left there's no evidence that Republicans think he's done a lot of impeachable things.
But they, along with many white evangelicals and white supremacists, have made a pact with Putin.
Really? Is that a sane, mentally stable statement?
That white supremacists have made a pact with Putin?
What does that even mean?
What does that even mean?
So, I think it's just a mental health problem that's disguising as a political opinion.
Is that too strong?
Because I'm not trying to exaggerate.
You know my basic philosophy of life is that people come up with their opinions first, and then they back into the rationalization.
Well, here's my opinion, because of my feelings, and now I'm going to, in a tortured way, make it sound like there was some reasoning that went into it.
This is the cleanest example of that, because his opinion appears to be just a mental health problem.
And again, I don't mean that as hyperbole.
Now, I'm not a mental health professional, so I'm not saying that he has a mental health problem.
I'm making a nuanced distinction.
I'm saying that I, as an untrained professional, simply observing him, that he registers with me as having a pretty severe mental problem.
That doesn't mean it's true, and I'm certainly not saying I'm qualified to diagnose it.
I'm just telling you the way it's received by me, my impression as a non-professional, non-qualified person is that it's a mental disorder of some type that he's backed into some kind of a reason.
And you can tell because the reasons don't make any freaking sense at all.
I mean, who could possibly think that every elected Republican knows, not just suspects, not just has a few problems with the president, but every elected Republican knows that this president is guilty of careless impeachable offenses.
You actually couldn't even count them.
There's so many. There's just no way that that's a serious opinion from a person with a stable working intellect.
It just doesn't feel like it to me.
Now, I can be wrong, and I'm not qualified to diagnose mental illness, but if I were, I'd be looking here to find some.
All right. So look for that.
I wonder if they're A-B testing it, but it looks like the new approach is to go after Trump supporters and say, do you like Stephen Miller?
Do you like Kinson Cages?
And... Try to make all Trump supporters feel like they're garbage people.
In fact, that's the most common thing.
The thing I see is that I'm a garbage person because I write and talk about Trump.
I'm a garbage person.
Now, let me show you a picture I came up with.
It looks like this.
Let's see if you can see this.
So, it's a little dark.
Sorry about that. I don't think I can lighten it up.
Let's see if I can put on a backlight.
Hold on. Okay, that doesn't help at all.
Alright, just ignore that.
Just ignore that bright spot in there.
So this is how I see the world.
I see politics as sort of a circle.
So up at the top of the circle, you see people who are exactly in the middle of the left and right.
And I put Biden up there just as one example.
He's sort of close to the middle, but he's left of it.
Trump is farther from the middle, so I put him right in the middle.
On the far right, and then I put Elizabeth Warren as sort of the opposite of that.
But down at the bottom, which would be both the far left and the far right, it's where they meet, that's basically a hate-based philosophy.
Now, they hate different things, or different people, but they all start with hate, and then they rationalize it backwards.
So I see them as the same.
I don't see any difference between Nazis and Antifa.
You could argue that Nazis have a bigger death count, but that's not the relevant part.
The relevant part is that they're all starting with hate and then they're reasoning backwards from that.
It's like, well, I hate this group of people, so what's that mean about my political opinions?
So that's how I see the world.
And The trolls and Antifa and the neo-Nazis and the white supremacists, all the same.
All the same category.
I don't make any distinction.
And I think that's helpful.
All right, let's talk about a few other things.
Canada is going more nuclear.
So a group of premiers, three premiers from three different regions in Canada, Got together and decided that they would start supporting the design and building of small, modular nuclear power stuff.
Now, it's going to take five to ten years before any of these actually get built.
But it's important.
It's important that there were three of them, and it's important that they came up with a long-range plan.
Now, on Twitter, a gentleman...
He said that Zach Cantor, so he's a user on Twitter, Zach Cantor, and he saw that article and he said, one huge drawback of nuclear power is that it doesn't dismantle systems of oppression.
It only produces clean energy.
This makes it unsuitable for solving the climate crisis, which isn't just about the environment.
And then he showed a picture which is saying that one benefit of climate change, let's say, policy, would be to dismantle the entire patriarchy system, basically the entire system of government.
So I said to myself, huh, what kind of background would you have to have To have such a bad opinion.
What kind of training experience would you have to have to hold this point of view?
Because one thing I can tell you for sure, it's not economics, and it's not politics, probably not history.
So I said to myself, what kind of background does he have?
So I looked at his LinkedIn profile.
He has a BA in science and marketing.
Pretty good. And he's involved in some start-ups.
So he's technical, and he also has some marketing.
Pretty good. Smart guy.
So I'm going to say if, you know, if he were to take an IQ test, probably do really well, because he's got advanced degrees.
But what would science and marketing tell you about changing the economic and political system in this country?
Not much. So he's got this giant blank spot.
If you study economics, you're certainly not...
Well, if you're honest about it, you're not trying to turn the country into a completely different socialist experiment.
But here's the thing that most smart economists would know.
If your country is doing better than it has ever done in the history of humankind...
Your economy is the strongest it's ever been, and on pretty much every metric we're improving.
Under those conditions, do you make a large, risky change to your system?
Is the right time to make a large, risky change to your entire system, you know, dismantling it, rebuilding it, when things are going better than they've ever gone before?
No. No, it's not.
100% of economists would tell you the same thing.
You know, unless they're also in politics, in which case, you know, that can change things.
But I don't think there's anybody who has business experience or economics experience who would tell you that a good time to change everything, like a big, risky, major change from the ground up and your society and your economics and everything, Is when everything's better than it's ever been.
That's exactly the time you don't do that.
So, this is a perfect example of what I call loserthink, which is that the person involved, Zach Cantor, from all indications, is a very high IQ person.
So there's nothing about what I'm saying which should be construed as saying anything about his general intelligence.
Because it looks pretty high.
But he's got clearly a blind spot for something really important.
Somebody says he's trolling, meaning that you can't tell the difference between parody and reality, right?
Because I tweeted that this morning.
This is one of those opinions where you look at it and you go, I don't know, is he just a really good troll?
Or does he actually believe this?
And then I look at his background and I go, oh, he could believe this.
He's got a blind spot for economics.
All right. One of the weird effects of the Democrats' voter-shaming project, so that's what's happening now, the Democrats are trying to shame Trump supporters into not voting for him.
What is the unintended consequence of that?
Well, there are probably a few that we can't predict.
But one of the unintended consequences is that all of your political polls will be shitty from now on.
Would you trust a political poll in an environment where people are being shamed for supporting one of the candidates?
No, you would not.
So the voter shaming should have the effect of making all future political polls complete bullshit because Republicans are just going to stop answering honestly.
Now, let me make a recommendation.
If you're a Trump supporter, you should answer the poll.
You know, if somebody calls you and says, let me poll you, then you should lie.
You should lie to the pollsters because it'd be really funny.
Now, I know some people are already doing it.
It's obvious. To me, it's obvious that some Republicans are just lying.
Could be because they don't want to be overheard by their own spouse.
That's a real thing. But I would recommend to all Trump supporters, if you get a chance to be part of a poll, because it's funny, You should lie.
Somebody says we already did and are.
And I've got a feeling I didn't need to tell you that.
I think I didn't need to tell you that.
I think it's just sort of spontaneously happening.
One of the reasons is Republicans like a good practical joke.
Am I right? Conservatives enjoy a good practical joke.
And I'm not sure the people left have the same type of sense of humor on average.
You know, obviously individuals are all over the place, but on average.
I think the left doesn't like a good practical joke as much as people on the right.
So play a good practical joke.
Somebody says, I lied four years ago.
Yeah. Somebody says, yes, it's a reflex.
Yeah, look at all the people saying that they already lied to pollsters.
Well, I think that's going to go to overdrive.
Imagine how much fun you will have on election day if all the polls were wrong again and Trump gets re-elected in a landslide.
Can you imagine how much fun you're going to have if he gets re-elected in a landslide and all the polls were wrong right up to election day?
Come on, that would be funny.
You know it would. All right, let's see what else we got going on.
All right, a few more topics here.
Mexico just had this gigantic gun battle between the military and police and the cartels.
21 people dead, and that's not even counting wounded.
So this just happened, I think yesterday.
21 people dead in a gun battle between police and the cartels.
Could you imagine that kind of news happening in this country?
And apparently what started it all was the cartel rolled into some town in Mexico near the border and actually tried to take over the town like ISIS. The cartel actually came in with a military-sized contingent to actually just take over a town.
And they succeeded.
They took over a town.
They held territory. And the Mexican military came in and killed them.
And several cops or policemen were killed at the same time, unfortunately.
Now, apparently the murder rate in Mexico is 100 a day on average.
A hundred a day.
So, let's make no mistake.
The cartels are now essentially a Chinese proxy force.
Too strong?
Is it too strong to say that the cartels are a Chinese proxy military?
I think they are.
I mean, that's not how they see themselves, of course, but in effect, because they're handling Chinese fentanyl, which is shipped into this country and kills tens of thousands, and that's supported by China.
It's supported by their leadership because they have the ability to stop it.
They choose not to. So, I think war is guaranteed.
Between the United States and the cartels.
And I'm going to make a further prediction.
It will not necessarily, I'll put it necessarily to hedge it a little bit, it won't necessarily be with the cooperation of the government of Mexico.
Do you think there's any chance that the government of Mexico is not owned by the cartels?
There's no chance of that.
The cartels have clearly controlled the government of Mexico.
So, getting the Mexican government to agree to U.S. military action against the cartels could never happen.
Because the cartels own the military.
And if somebody in the government of Mexico said, yeah, go ahead, come on in and help us get rid of these cartel people, well, that politician would be dead by the afternoon.
So we can't get Mexico's government's approval, and we can't let a Chinese military proxy force on our border.
So I think we have to attack China by wiping out the cartels.
Now, if the cartels decided to change their business from not being, you know, to something that's not a Chinese proxy military force, Well, I might change my idea of what we need to do about it.
But given that it is an active attack on the United States by a Chinese proxy force, the cartels, I think we have every right to go in militarily without anybody's permission.
And in fact, there's no practical way to get anybody's permission.
You could ask, but there's nobody really to ask, because it's just cartels and people controlled by cartels.
Alright. I was wondering if there's something that might be called a Trump effect that has changed the psychology of the Hong Kong protesters as well as the Iranian public.
Apparently the Iranian public is Getting pretty serious about protesting and rioting and trying to take down their government or at least influence their government.
So there's a lot going on in Iran.
We don't have a lot of reporting from it, but it's getting pretty hot down there.
And Hong Kong as well.
And the thing that you would say about both those situations is, what are the odds that Hong Kong could ever prevail over China?
Like, just on the surface of it, you'd say, well, zero, right?
I mean, if you had to bet, if you had to make a long-term bet, all right, 20 years from now, does China have full control of Hong Kong, or did Hong Kong somehow win their autonomy?
Which way would you bet?
Well, you'd put all of your money on China, eventually having full control of Hong Kong.
Just geographically, there's just no way that's not going to happen, right?
And yet the Hong Kong protesters are fighting as if they feel they can win.
Because if you didn't feel you could win, you wouldn't put up this kind of fight.
You'd move or you'd put up with it or something.
So there's something about the psychology of the Hong Kong protesters that makes them think they can prevail in what looks like an impossible situation.
Likewise, the Iranian protesters apparently feel they can make some kind of a difference or they wouldn't be doing what they're doing.
And yet, what are the odds That the street protests can overthrow the regime, given the control that the regime has.
Very low, wouldn't you say?
Not impossible.
Nothing's impossible.
But what are the odds that the Iranian protesters will succeed?
On the surface of things, looks pretty low.
But they don't think so, apparently, because they're working pretty hard at doing it.
So that's what I'm calling the Trump effect.
I think there are people fighting for freedom who maybe before didn't think it was within reach.
There's something about Trump that makes you think anything's possible.
I mean, partly because he got elected.
And then he keeps doing things that are supposed to be impossible.
But he's doing them fairly routinely.
How about starting a trade war with China?
Impossible! Well, okay, he's doing that.
How about wiping out ISIS's territorial holdings?
Okay, he did that.
And you can think of other examples, right?
How about moving our embassy to Jerusalem?
He can't do that.
Okay, he just did that.
How about recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel?
He can't. Okay, he just did that.
I feel as though there's something about the psychology of the world, and you see the Hong Kong protesters in particular waving American flags and thanking the president for signing that Hong Kong legislation that puts some pressure on China.
So, I feel as though Trump has changed the psychology of struggling people in oppressive places.
He just might have convinced them that they've got a shot.
Now, I think, I hope they're not depending on the United States to step in, because they might be.
And I hope that's not the only thing they're relying on, because I don't know how much we could possibly step in in either of these situations without making them far worse.
Because if the United States gets involved directly, you know, in some obvious way, then, you know, the regimes in both cases can get tougher, because then it's like they're fighting the United States.
So it's a tough place to be, but I think the world is being affected by the Trump example in some way.
Here's some...
I don't want to talk about that.
Got a couple of other topics.
And that is...
Oh, let's talk about Lisa Page.
You know I like to update you on my predictions, both good and bad.
For example, on the bad side, I predicted a year ago that Kamala Harris would get the nomination for the Democrats.
If you had to guess today, you'd probably say, Scott, that might be your worst prediction.
But I'm sticking with it because the reason for it didn't change.
I found out new information, which is she's the worst campaigner in the history of campaigners.
But it's also fixable.
She has the only problem that could be fixed.
Get rid of your sister as your campaign manager.
Fairly easy. Now, I don't know that she'll fix it, because firing your sister is pretty tough.
But let me say this as clearly as possible.
If you can't fire your sister, you can't be our president.
Kamala Harris, I'm talking to you.
If you can't fire your sister, you don't have what it takes to be president.
Fire your sister.
Show us you got at least a little spunk.
Show us that you're in charge and not your sister.
Because based on the reporting, it's pretty obvious that the sister is the problem.
So that would be an example of what will probably be a wrong prediction, but I'm sticking with it.
Because I think it wouldn't be fair to revise my prediction on that, you know, just because there's some new information.
But there was one prediction I made a long time ago that as far as I know, I am the only person in the world who made it.
So fact check me on this.
This is a prediction I made that I believe, I believe, I'm literally the only person who ever made this prediction.
It had to do with the texts and emails between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok in which they mentioned the quote, insurance policy.
And you know that everybody on the right said, uh-oh, the insurance policy clearly and unambiguously refers to the fact that we need to get rid of Trump with our clever legal manipulations as an insurance policy in case he gets elected.
Right. And I said it was nothing.
I said that once you heard the context of it, You would not think that the meaning was we have to get rid of Trump this way in case he gets elected.
So now she's testified and she said that what the insurance policy referred to is the following.
That they had this investigation in which there wasn't much in the way of evidence that there might be some suspicion of Trump campaign colluding with Russia.
If we elected Trump and he had that connection to Russia, that'd be a big problem.
But since they expressly believed it was very unlikely he would get elected, they were kind of slow walking the investigation because they thought it would probably not matter.
You know, it just wouldn't matter.
He just wouldn't get elected. It doesn't matter.
The insurance policy was in case he got elected, in which case you really do need to know if there's a Russian connection.
But it wasn't so much about removing him from office.
It was simply in the context of doing her job.
If your sitting president has a Russia entanglement, then you better make sure you've looked into it.
So the insurance policy was just looking into it.
That's it. In case there was a Russian entanglement.
Somebody says, do you believe her?
Alright, so that's a fair question.
So the fair question is, do you believe her version of it?
Or do you believe that she...
Well, let's diagram that out.
In order to believe...
Stay with me here.
In order to believe that what she meant was we need to remove the president in sort of a coup if he gets elected, in order to believe the coup version of the insurance policy, you would have to believe that Lisa Page thought it would be a good idea...
To have a discoverable digital record of her coup attempt.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that a lawyer involved in the FBI, who was with an FBI guy, her boyfriend, do you believe that she would have written in a discoverable digital text her intention to be part of a coup attempt to overthrow the government?
Do you think that? Because you would have to believe that in order to accept your interpretation that she was talking about a coup and she just put it right there in a text message.
Maybe. You know, that falls into the category of anything's possible, right?
Now compare that to the interpretation that she was just a government person doing her job because her interpretation fits all of the evidence and And it is perfectly within her job description.
It is perfectly consistent with how you'd want an employee to act.
Would you want her to treat the investigation as her highest priority, given that there was, in her opinion, a 91% chance it would never matter?
She did exactly what you would want your employee to do.
She slow walked it a little bit, but made sure that they had, you know, they were looking into it enough, just in case there was something to worry about.
Now I know that some of you are hating this because it's triggering you into cognitive dissonance.
If you just spent the last couple of years thinking there was a smoking gun and it was Lisa Page talking about the insurance policy, you have to compare that interpretation.
Yeah, I think I'll put my coup attempt in a discoverable digital form.
She's a lawyer working with the FBI. Nobody who's a lawyer working for the FBI puts a coup attempt in a discoverable electronic form.
Nobody. It'll never happen.
I did say anything's possible, but there's nothing less likely than that.
Now, what are the odds that she did her job the way you should do a job, which is she set her priorities, she said what her priorities were, and then she told you how she was working toward her priorities.
What are the odds that that happened?
Most normal thing in the world.
So one interpretation is the most normal thing in the world, that you prioritize your work, and she said, well, this probably won't matter.
But as an insurance policy, let's make sure we're chipping away at it.
Most normal thing in the world.
Versus the most unusual thing in the world, that a lawyer working with the FBI would put her coup attempt in a discoverable text message.
Seriously? Seriously?
I mean, sure, anything's possible.
But that's pretty unlikely.
So, I believe I am the only person who said that there would emerge an ordinary explanation.
Can anybody fact check me on this?
From the very beginning, did I not say, and am I not the only person who said this?
Find me one other person who ever said this.
I said that there would emerge an ordinary explanation for the insurance policy.
And there it is. Now, you can disbelieve it, but aren't you...
Arrogance.
Let me talk to Jack Lew1, who is saying with a question mark, arrogance?
If you can't handle...
This periscope, in which I clearly started with an example where I was very wrong, and then I gave an example in which I'm right, so I could balance it out, and your comment is, arrogance?
You need to step up your game there, Jack.
On this periscope, you are allowed to say when you do good things, and you are allowed to say when you do bad things.
If that looks like arrogance to you, you need to check yourself.
I mean, that's something about you that's making you interpret it that way.
People can be right about things, and people can be wrong.
If I only talked about the things I was right about, well, you'd have a point there, but you don't.
I think you're missing some big pieces of the story like McCabe's secret meeting.
Well, the secret meeting, I don't know if they used the word secret, but by far the most likely explanation are ordinary things.
So I'm going to stick with that.
So Representative Jerry Nadler's panel is drawing up articles of impeachment.
And are you not completely over this impeachment stuff?
I feel as if the Democrats just put a tourniquet around their own necks and they're twisting it.
It's like, ah, you know, we'll get them.
A couple more twists and we'll get them.
I'm just going to twist this tourniquet on my own neck a few more times and that Trump will be out of office.
I mean, that's what it looks like.
Um... He means Lisa's arrogance.
Oh, if the arrogance comment was about the lawyer, you think that arrogance would explain why a lawyer for the FBI would put treason in a discoverable text message?
I don't think arrogance doesn't quite fit that situation.
I didn't block him, no.
Ukrainian President Zelensky continued once again to deny he spoke with President Trump, quote, from the position of a quid pro quo.
So he gave this interview to some big publications, and he was asked about that, and he said, look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo, Zelensky said.
And they said, that's not my thing.
I don't want us to look like beggars.
Now, you ask yourself, how did this comedian become president?
And then you see this sentence.
Look at this sentence. That's not my thing.
I don't want us to look like beggars.
That sentence completely persuaded me.
Because until then, until I read this exact sentence, I thought to myself, yeah, well...
Maybe nobody said quid pro quo, but he had to at least feel that way.
He had to at least feel like there was something going on.
Certainly he must have felt that way.
But look at this perfect wording.
He goes, that's not my thing.
When somebody says, that's not my thing, that's really persuasive.
I use that a lot, by the way.
People will accuse me of, I don't know, whatever.
People will accuse me of horrible things.
And if you've ever tried this, it works really well.
You say, you know, that's not my thing.
Do you feel how persuasive that is?
Because if somebody is really guilty and they're just trying to defend themselves, they use lawyerly arguments like, well, that's not exactly what I said, and maybe you misheard me, and well, I don't think you'll get the full context.
But when somebody is truly and clearly guilty, Nowhere even in the same zip code as the accusation.
Depending on the accusation, sometimes this is just really persuasive.
You just say, you know, that's not my thing.
There's just nothing I would do.
Now, I don't have to defend it in this situation because I don't have to defend it in any situation.
That's in the category of things I don't do.
It's just not my thing.
It's very effective. Think about it.
And then he goes on to say, I don't want us to look like beggars.
And I thought, oh, once again, good command of language.
Because when he says, I don't want us to look like beggars, do you feel, how do you feel when you hear that?
The way you feel is, you believe it.
That is so persuasive.
I don't want us to look like beggars.
The reason you believe that is that you would believe that no matter who said it.
It wouldn't matter who said it.
That's sort of a statement, I don't want us to look like beggars.
Everybody believes that. Nobody wants to look like a beggar, right?
So, that's not my thing.
I don't want us to look like beggars.
This is the first time I've been convinced That it literally never crossed his mind that there was any kind of a quid pro quo hanging over it.
He says, but you have to understand, we're at war.
If you're our strategic partner, talking about the United States, then you can't go blocking anything for us.
So he's saying it's not a quid pro quo.
It's a simple question.
We're at war. You're our allies.
There's stuff you said you'd give us.
I'm not negotiating that.
That's the wrong context.
It's not even a question of negotiating.
It's like, you should just be giving us this because it's already agreed.
Very good framing.
Then he says, I think that's just about fairness.
It's not about a quid pro quo.
And he goes, it just goes without saying, although he said it.
Now, fairness, of course, is a persuasion term.
There's nothing fair in the real world.
But in this context, it works really well.
So, interesting.
Now, I don't think that matters because impeachment will go on no matter if there's a victim or not a victim or whether the victim knows he's a victim.
None of that's going to matter.
All right. I'm pretty sure I had at least one other thing to talk about here.
Let's see if I do. Yeah, that's about it.
So, I think you're going to see a lot of race grifters coming after you in the coming months between now and the election.
They'll all disappear right after the election.
But the Biden video of his finger biting...
So, Biden Biden, Joe Biden, there's a photo of him biting his wife's finger.
Now, if you see it out of context, well, I'll talk about the hairy leg thing, too.
If you see that out of context, it looks really bad.
If you see it in context, it only looks a little bit bad, but it's weird.
So his wife was speaking and gesturing, and she didn't know that he was standing to her side, and when she was gesturing with her hand, her hand was sort of going in front of his face, and he was reacting in a funny way to the crowd by going, you know, like trying to avoid her hand in a humorous way, and then to sell the gag, you know, when her hand was still out there, he just went...
And bitter hand. So he was just being funny.
But if you see it out of context, you just see him biting a hand, and the first thing you think is, what?
What? So it works perfectly.
Somebody says, what's a race grifter?
A race grifter is all the people who are coming after Trump supporters to say that if you support kids in cages and Stephen Miller, that you're a bad person.
So they're using race to get a result.
So they're race grifters.
They don't really care about the kids in cages.
They really don't. They care about using it as an issue.
So they're just grifters because they don't care about the issue.
They care about the power.
The other video of Joe Biden has to be seen to be believed, and listened to to be believed.
It's the one about, he talks about being in a swimming pool, and the funniest part is, you see him, he's surrounded by African American children, and he wanted to say, you could tell he wanted to say this, and if you didn't catch this, replay the video and watch it, because you'll find out why he went off the rails.
He started to say, That he had hairs on his legs, because he said he had very hairy legs, and that the hairs were...
And then he paused.
Did he see that? And then he goes, the hairs are...
He looks around, and it's all African-American kids around him, and he wanted to say white.
He wanted to say, the hairs on my leg were white.
But he looks around and he realizes that it's somehow the wrong word, if you're standing in a group of African-American children.
And he goes, the hairs on my leg, which are blonde, Do people have blonde hair leg?
I guess they do. But he goes, blonde.
And from that point, he was just off the rails.
He talks about people in the pool reaching and smoothing his blonde leg hairs just so they could watch them come up again.
And I'm watching this video and I'm just thinking, what?
What? What am I seeing?
So that video alone, that video alone is certainly enough to take him out of the race.
So if you think there's any chance of Joe Biden winning the election, just watch that video.
A lot of the other videos, like the compilation videos of his gaffes, are really, in an exaggerated way, To look at something that's not as bad as it probably looks.
But this video, this is the real deal.
This is a guy who's not quite up to the task.
All right. All right.
I think that's all I have for now.
▲
Export Selection