All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 14, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
54:25
Episode 756 Scott Adams: Shampeachment, Artists Versus Economists, Greta, Cod Pieces
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, hey!
How's it going? I was just reading my book upside down.
I know a lot of you, when you read a book, you'll do it this way.
What kind of challenge is that?
If you have to read a book right side up, well, I don't think you've brought the right spirited energy that you need to that book.
Read it upside down, darn it.
Oh, it's time.
Let's bring it. Let's bring it.
You know what I'm talking about.
It's called the simultaneous sip and you are about to be part of it.
Yes, you and you and you.
I see each and every one of you.
I know you can't tell, but I can actually see you running to get your beverages.
Putting them on the table.
Preparing your hand.
Do you have your...
Cup or mug or glass, snifter, stein, chalvis, tank root, thermos, flask, canteen, grail, goblet, vessel of any kind.
Is it filled with your favorite liquid?
Mine is. It's a little thing called coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Uh-huh, uh-huh, just as good as I thought.
Never disappoints.
Kudos to whoever said in the comments that you listened to my audiobook of Loser Think upside down.
I almost spit my coffee, but I was in the middle of the simultaneous sip, and I didn't want to lose my rhythm, if you know what I mean.
All right, so let's talk about things.
I tweeted around a picture of From GQ. GQ has, I think, an article in which they're promoting a new kind of fashion for men that features a codpiece and short shorts.
I don't know if you'll be able to see this, but I'm going to try to blow it up here.
Can you see that?
It's a codpiece that GQ, the magazine, the fashion magazine, would like men to wear with a suit top and then sort of hot pants, short shorts with sort of V-legs, and then a codpiece.
Now, you might not be able to see it clearly on your screen, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do.
I'm going to bring down my Light, and then you're gonna see it in all its glory.
There we go. You can see it better now.
Now, the reason I'm showing it to you up close is that, correct me if I'm wrong, but that codpiece is sort of in the shape of a vagina.
If you could tell how the material is Let's say there's a seam.
There's a identifiable seam that's only at the bottom of the codpiece.
Now, if you needed any more evidence that the testosterone level of men in the United States has been dropping for decades, I give you Exhibit A. Not judging.
I also like to imagine that when my Twitter trolls come after me, you know, the badly bearded ones, I always imagine they're wearing that when they're typing to me, Scott, you stupid cartoonist, why are we listening to the creator of Garfield?
Haha, did you see what I did there?
I called you Garfield. I always imagine that they're wearing that codpiece.
All right, Kimberly Strassel.
Strassel? Kimberly tweeted provocatively in response to a Hillary Clinton tweet in which Hillary Clinton was telling everybody to make sure that their friends and family read the IG reports.
Kimberly replies in her own tweet, make sure family and friends see the IG report.
Clinton didn't just invite foreign influence in 2016.
She paid for it.
Her team funneled Russian dossier lies to the FBI for her political gain.
Americans deserve free and fair elections if only press would hold her accountable.
So Kimberly's wording is a play on Clinton's own tweet.
So the actual sentence structure is she's just mirroring Clinton's tweet.
And there's something head-shakingly amazing about this whole situation from a psychological standpoint.
And here it is.
You've got two narratives.
Trump, blah, blah, blah, with foreign countries, whether it's the Ukraine, whether it's the Russia collusion hoax, whatever it is, and then you've got Hillary Clinton paid for the dossier, and Great Britain's Christopher Steele got it from Russians, blah, blah, blah. Why is it that we treat one of them so differently?
Why is one of them so different?
And it's an interesting question.
Now, of course, they're different in a number of ways.
Certainly a sitting president asking a foreign leader to do something is different than a candidate hiring somebody to do what you'd call, what do you call, opposition research.
But it is nonetheless true, it's just a factual statement, That Hillary Clinton's campaign paid foreign entities for information that they then fed to the FBI, etc., and probably they knew it wasn't true.
So that's probably not too different than opposition research in general, but how is it that we got duped, we, the entire public, how did we get duped into thinking that wasn't important?
Because people will read this tweet and they'll read things they already knew.
So what Kimberly Strassel is saying is not anything that we don't already know, but for reasons that are hard to understand, except the way our weird brains work and the psychology of it all and how we've all been brainwashed, we've been led to believe that one of these things is bad and one of them isn't.
It's just a weird thing, and I'm not going to say anything other than completely irrationally we believe that even though everything about this is true, Clinton paid for this research from other countries.
It was fake. Gave it to the FBI. Worked there.
Worked the press. One of the worst things that's ever happened in the history of the United States.
Yeah, let me say that with more Confidence, because I'm thinking about it as I'm saying it at the same time.
I would say that what Hillary Clinton's team did with the dossier, and if you count working the press to get them on her side and to create the story in a certain way, and then to corrupt the FBI in the process, Isn't that the worst thing you've ever seen in the political United States?
It would be hard to think of what was worse.
Because other things were, I would say, mistakes.
For example, the weapons of mass destruction.
That was a gigantic mistake, and it was worse because people died.
But I think we believe that was just a mistake, right?
When the United States did the Gulf of Tonkin BS to get us into the war with Vietnam, I don't think that anybody had bad intentions.
It was a bad thing.
But I don't know that we were trying to do something bad for the United States.
I think it was a convenience to do what the leaders believed at the time was good for the United States.
It wasn't good politically, it was just good for the United States.
So, well, the JFK assassination, yeah, that was pretty bad.
Good point. But you don't really think of an assassination as a political event in the same way that you think of these other things.
But, point taken. Assassinating the president would be worse.
Except that assassinating the president actually brought the country together.
If you think about it, as bad as an assassination is, when Kennedy was assassinated, my sketchy memory of the event, maybe the historians can fact-check me on this, did it not bring the country together?
So I would argue that while that was clearly bad for the Kennedys, in the worst possible way, That for the country's health, I don't know, might have brought us together.
Because we do tend to clump together with that sort of risk.
So, my only point is that we are psychologically have been biased to think that what Clinton did wasn't the worst thing we've ever seen in all of American politics.
But I think it was.
If you were to make a list, let's say that if you were a historian, you were going to make a list of all the worst things that somebody did intentionally.
Now I'm going to put the word intentionally, meaning that they were not intending to pursue the greater good.
Now when a candidate is trying to get elected, Well, in some way, they might think that their election might be the greater good, but that's not really why you do it.
You do it to get elected.
You do it for power.
So what Clinton did was for power.
Seems like the worst thing I've ever seen, by far, because it caused the entire Russia collusion thing, which was deeply destabilizing for the country, divided us greatly.
Whereas, President Trump's phone call that said you should look into Burisma is something that even Democrats agree needed to be looked into.
They're making great hay out of the way it was done, but even his enemies say, well, okay, it had to be done, but we don't like the way you did it.
I mean, that's not really the biggest problem in the world.
Here's the idiot of the day.
In my book, Loser Think, I teach how different people think in different disciplines.
I'm going to give you some stark examples of how if you do not have exposure to different disciplines, whether it's psychology, history, economics, math, whatever, that you might have a blind spot In your thinking, that is not obvious to you, but it would be obvious to someone who was in that field.
I'm going to give you an example.
Senator Chris Murphy, I assume he's a Democrat based on the context here, he tweeted this.
He goes, here's some back-of-the-napkin math on the China deal.
So he's going to criticize the president, who announced that he has the first part of a China deal.
I'm skeptical about that.
We'll talk about that in a minute. But Chris Murphy wants to take the steam out of that, you know, take the political positive out of it, because he's on the other team.
So he says, here's some back-of-the-napkin math on the China deal.
All right, so now Senator Murphy is going to educate us with his math.
All right, so this is math from a senator.
I don't know the senator's background, and I'm hoping somebody can Wikipedia that and let me know.
Tell me his college major and maybe his background.
All right, so it's Chris Murphy, senator.
Just put it in the comments so we can see.
And I'll tell you why this is important in a bit.
So here's his math.
He says China agrees to buy $50 billion worth of agricultural products next year, and that's an increase of $29 billion.
So he's pointing out in his math that our benefit is the $29 billion we'll get extra in terms of agricultural products.
And then he goes on to say why that's not such a great deal that we gained $29 billion.
Because he said the tariffs cost the US farmers $11 billion.
Which is, you know, less than we got the $29 billion.
But taxpayers put up an extra $28 billion in emergency ag payoffs.
So the farmers were compensated.
Now, he adds together the $11 billion and the $28 billion and says that together they're $39 billion.
So it cost us $39 billion, but we only gained $29 billion.
This idiot is a senator of the greatest country on earth.
Let me tell you a few things that are wrong with this.
I'm just going to come right off the top.
If the farmers lost $11 billion, But taxpayers put up $28 billion to compensate them.
You don't add those numbers together.
If somebody paid $11 billion, but then the taxpayers compensated them with twice as much, You don't add the numbers together.
You subtract.
You subtract the 11 billion from the 28 billion.
Now the real problem is that the people getting money and losing money are not all the same people, so you're not exactly compensating them.
But my point is, you don't add those numbers, you subtract one from the other.
Now again, remember this is back of the napkin, so it's neither correct to add them, because it's not really giving you a clear picture.
So it's not correct to add them or subtract them.
It's not that simple.
But if you're going to do a back of the napkin, you've got to get at least the addition or subtraction part right.
That's sort of minimum. If you add something that should be subtracted, you're moving in the wrong direction.
But it gets worse.
He does his calculation based on one year.
So if you look at one year, it costs us, according to his napkin, $39 billion.
And for the $39 billion that it costs us this first year, all we're getting back is $29 billion per year for ever.
You don't compare the first year and walk away.
Do you know how many investments would look good if you only looked at the first year?
None of them. None of them.
None. Zero. There's no investment that looks good in the first year.
That's what investments are.
You pay a bunch of money in the first year so that every year after that, you'll make more money.
Oh my God!
This man makes decisions on behalf of the United States.
He's one of the top 50, you know, senators.
That didn't make sense.
He's a senator. Oh my God!
Oh my God! I don't even know if I can stop saying oh my God all morning.
Oh my God! Oh my God!
Oh my God! All right.
Now, Has anybody looked up his background yet?
Because I'll tell you what it's not.
Alright? I don't know what his background is.
I'm going to look it up right now. Because I didn't see your answer in the comments yet.
Maybe it's there. Alright, he's Chris Murphy.
Senator. Chris Murphy.
What do you think his background is?
We'll check Wikipedia.
And he's a politician, obviously.
He was a representative before that.
He was a politician before that and a politician before that.
Let's go all the way back to his education.
Lawyer. Lawyer.
There you go. So, I don't think when he was doing his law degree, he studied much economics.
Or, he's just lying to you and hoping that you're dumb enough to think that $39 billion spent once, which isn't even $39 billion, is not worth it to get $29 billion a year.
None of these numbers are real, by the way.
The back of the napkin is too complimentary to this.
There's just so much more going on here that none of these numbers are really useful.
But what a ballsy thing to tweet.
Amazing. How many people in the United States, let me ask you this, How many people in the United States do you think could read Chris Murphy's tweet and know what was wrong with it?
What percentage of the public could do what I just did?
Just look at this tweet and say, oh my god, you added when you should subtract and you forgot about future years?
What percentage? 20 at tops?
Probably 80% of the people reading this say, hey, Trump just made a bad trade deal because trade deals don't work.
And by the way, do you remember when all the smart people said trade deals don't work?
Think back to, let's say, what, two years ago, whatever?
What did 100% of the smart people say about starting trade wars?
Not trade deals, but trade wars.
What did all of the smart people say about trade wars?
They all said they're a bad idea.
They don't work. Am I right?
Use your memory. Think back.
Did not 100% of all the smart people tell you that a trade war is always a bad idea every time, right?
What did I tell you from day one?
That's not true.
That a trade war is exactly the right idea under certain conditions, which actually were our current conditions.
One of those conditions is that our economy was just great.
If your economy is amazing, and you're negotiating with somebody whose economy is a little bit wobbly, and the imbalance between you is grotesque, in those cases, in this very specific case, talking about China primarily, in that case, a trade war is the best idea ever.
It's exactly when you want to do a trade war.
It's the safest time.
It's the smartest time.
And I would go so far as to say that not doing a trade war would have been a malfeasance in office because there never was a better time to do it.
Explain to me why Trump alone could see that and others couldn't.
Why is it that he could see that so clearly And I can see it so clearly, and many of you could, but why were the experts 100% wrong about this?
I don't know if it's 100%, but it felt like that.
Why were so many of them wrong?
Well, Trump derangement syndrome would be one, but the other is...
History repeats.
Have you ever heard people say?
History repeats.
Trade wars of the past were bad.
History repeats. End of story.
Period. I've got a chapter in the best book you've ever read.
The best gift item, the thing that all your relatives will love you for if you give it to them for Christmas.
I've got a chapter in here talking about that fallacy that when you imagine that history repeats, it's the worst take ever because history can't repeat.
It doesn't have the option, because all the variables have changed, and if nothing else has changed, at least you know about the last history, so you know how to avoid it.
It's like, oh, last time it went this way, we better watch out for that.
So history doesn't repeat.
You have to look at these specific situations by itself, as if it were, you know, one-off, because they are one-off.
And now it's becoming clear with the USMCA. I think we've got deals, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we have better trade deals with South Korea.
We have better deal with NATO in the sense that the other countries are paying more.
I believe Japan's giving us, gave us a better deal.
And there's suggestion that the phase one of the Chinese deal will be a better deal for the United States.
Now, But let me put some skepticism on the China deal, okay?
The China deal, there's so many variables there that it might be that we can carve out, you know, a little part of it and say, okay, at least this stuff we agree on while we're still working on the other stuff.
Now, I think that as long as we don't have a comprehensive trade deal with China, that we should decouple.
And we should do it at the same time.
Now when I say decouple, I don't necessarily mean that the American companies who are already over there need to pack up.
I'm saying that they'll make their own decisions about reputation, profitability, etc.
And I would say, let's leave that to the individual corporations.
But be aware that if you made a decision today, if you were an American company, and you said, hey, where should we move our manufacturing or our business?
If today you decided that China was your best choice as a vendor or a best place to move your operation, that would be one of the biggest mistakes a CEO could ever make.
It would be hard to imagine a bigger mistake because it would be very analogous to moving your operation to Nazi Germany in 1938 or pick a year.
I don't see how it's that different.
Because once you know that the Chinese have literally concentration camps for the Uyghur minority, where they're beaten and tortured, and their wives who remain home are assigned rapists, you're going to move your operation there?
Do you care what the trade deal is?
No. You don't move your operation to the place that's got a Holocaust going on right now.
It's not like it's in their past.
It's happening right now. You don't move your operation to a place where you depend on them to honor their contracts if you're watching the Hong Kong situation play out where they're not honoring their contract.
You don't move to the country that right in front of you rips up its agreements.
Nobody moves there if they're smart.
Secondly, thirdly, The flu and gong people are being used for spare parts, literally being murdered on demand when some rich foreigner needs a kidney transplant.
They'll go kill a Uyghur, literally.
Apparently, all the experts have looked into it and have concluded that's exactly what's going on.
How do you move your operation there if you're a CEO of an American company?
Well, at great peril, I would have to say that there are very few things that are unambiguously stupid.
You know, if you're a CEO, you're dealing with lots of uncertainty.
You know, the job of a CEO is to peer into this vast, you know, multi-variable situation and sort of use your judgment about the best path and the best strategy.
And sometimes it's sort of guessing.
There's a lot of risk management involved, but if you're deciding to move your operation, let's say you're manufacturing, to China, that's not a gray area anymore.
There was a time it was, and it wasn't very long ago.
A few years ago, you could have said, well, I don't know exactly what's going on over there.
I don't know what's going on, but it doesn't bother me.
That's China's business.
I'm just going to move my plant over there.
I'm not into politics. There was a time you could have said that.
Will Ivanka give her China trademarks back?
All right, we have an idiot with lots of smiley, happy faces here.
So, Kylohan, who says, will Ivanka give back her China trademarks, Scott?
Will Ivanka give back her trademarks?
Because I made a comment in public and I don't know what a trademark is.
I don't even know what it is.
I don't know what that is.
Is that like a patent?
Is it like a copyright?
I don't even know what it is.
But I'm going to put extra happy pieces on my comment so that it'll look like I've really made a point.
I've got it now. I've got Ivanka.
See? That was you, Kyle Han, however I'm pronouncing your name.
Trademarks are literally, somebody had a piece of paper and said, oh, so you say you would like to use this trademark in our country, like all the other countries?
Check. No problem.
All it means when you get a trademark in China is that somebody else isn't already using the same trademark.
That's it. If you get a trademark in China, it means nothing else but that they've validated that nobody else is already using that and that you're a real business.
That's it. That's it. So, mister, how many laughy, mocking faces did you give me on your dumbass comment that makes you look like a fucking idiot in public?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17, 18, 19, 20, I think 40.
I think there are 40 little emoticon laughing mocking faces to make your excellent point.
Will Ivanka have to give back her China trademarks?
Well, enough on that.
So, no, Ivanka doesn't need to give back her trademarks because if she gave them back, Or cancel them.
Do you know what that would mean?
That would mean that a Chinese company could just make Ivanka products with her trademark on it and sell them and compete with actual Ivanka.
Learn a little bit about business before you make a comment like that.
Before you make a comment in the international business realm, And I know whoever made that comment is working in the arts.
You just know it, right?
That was the trademark comment.
Even a lawyer would know the difference, that that's not an important point.
But an artist, if you were an artist, maybe you wouldn't know the difference.
If you're not following Molly Hemingway on Twitter, you are missing one of the best tweeters of all time on the political realm.
So Molly Hemingway, if you're not watching her, you're just missing great, great content all the time.
Both the articles in The Federalist and her tweets.
So she tweeted this.
Have you seen any belligerent mocking recently?
The amount of belligerent mocking our media did over the past three years on this issue, meaning the whole IG report talking about Russia collusion and the investigations of the president.
So all the belligerent mocking from the media for three years, instead of honest journalism, looks even worse now, because now we know they were wrong.
That they face no negative consequences and plenty of positive consequences is how we know the level of corruption.
So corruption is sort of a broad term, but when you look at the fact that the American media apparently intentionally lied and colluded with a foreign country to corrupt our election, That's pretty bad, and there's not going to be any consequence.
And the reason, again, is the psychology of it.
The psychology of it is that we've been forced by the media to focus on President Trump, good or bad, President Trump, good or bad.
And we're so distracted by that that there's a magic trick that happens.
So magic tricks depend on making your focus go to the wrong place so you're not seeing what the other hand is doing.
And the Democrats have, mostly with the help of the media, have played this multi-year magic trick on the United States in which they've caused us to look in the wrong direction while the media is lying and colluding with foreign entities to overthrow the legal electoral process in this country in favor of their candidates and power.
Amazing. All right.
As Molly Hemingway points out.
I'm going to give you another example.
There's a game I play that you just saw an example of it.
It's called Artist or Economist.
Okay? This is a game that you can play on Twitter.
And I'm quite serious that I play this every day.
Now, it's a game you just play in your head.
But it goes like this.
You see a tweet on politics, and you say to yourself, huh, that's a pretty good tweet.
I might not agree with it.
I might agree with it.
But that's not the point.
It just looks like good thinking.
Somebody put some good thought into this.
And then you click on the profile and see what kind of occupation they have.
Now, I'm using economist as just a stand-in for the, let's say, the critical thinking process.
Parts of education.
So economist, engineer, scientist, you know, STEM. Somebody whose entire background and training isn't knowing how to compare things right.
How to analyze and how to compare essentially critical thinking, but practical critical thinking.
Yeah, there are other occupations that have similar skills.
Now, artist, I'm using as a stand-in for any kind of writer, poet, visual artist, musician.
So I'm going to read you a tweet, and now you have to guess, was this written by somebody who was more like an economist, critical thinker, or more like an artist, Not so much.
All right, here it is. This is from Ree Newsome Bass.
And she tweets this morning, I think, I'm going to keep saying this to y'all.
Trump is being impeached.
However... When the Senate refuses to remove him, we will effectively be a dictator.
He will effectively be a dictator.
We then have an entire year of Trump dictatorship and a slim chance of having a free and fair election.
All right, artists or economists?
Click on the profile.
Artists. Artists.
Now, here's the thing.
I used to read stuff like this and say, man, that person is really stupid.
That is some stupid stupidity there.
That's like extra stupid.
We're talking turbo, turbo crazy stupid.
I don't exactly think that way anymore.
Here's the way I think. And that's why I wrote this book, LoserThink.
I think that she's, in all likelihood, she's probably, you know, a successful artist.
I think she was a blue check, I can't remember, but somebody who's accomplished a lot.
Probably very smart within her field.
But if she has not had access to the other fields, just hasn't spent much time in the other fields that teach you how to think more productively, would she know that her point doesn't make sense?
No, because I don't think you would tweet this if you knew that it was just bad shit, crazy, bad thinking.
You wouldn't do that in public so blatantly and shamelessly.
So I would say she's unlikely to be just stupid.
I don't think that's the case.
Probably she's very smart within her field, but hasn't had much experience in other fields.
So here's what she should have thought.
If the president doesn't get impeached, then the system worked just the way it was designed to work.
That's it. That should have been the beginning and the end of the conversation.
If he doesn't get removed from office, he will get impeached probably.
But if he doesn't get removed from office, the system worked exactly the way it was drawn up.
That's it. That's the whole story.
All right. You will notice in the coming month especially that the enemy press, the fake news, will be flailing around for a new attack line on President Trump because their old attack lines have fallen apart.
So they're desperately going to be A-B testing a bunch of different stuff.
One of the things that I think you might see more of is going after Stephen Miller We're good to go.
But she's reformed, and she believes that he has not.
So if you see an article that says a top aide at the White House is a white supremacist, you know that article is going to deliver, right?
So you know that if you see the headline, that when you read the article, there's going to be some reasons.
Solid, solid reasons.
And once you see those solid reasons, you're going to be just as alarmed as the headline wants you to be.
It's like, my God, there must be all these solid, solid reasons in the article.
There were none.
Nothing. There was no evidence given.
The closest thing she came to an anecdote Was that he once answered a question by sending a publication that had bad reputation.
But she didn't say that the thing he sent her was wrong, because I think it was some factual stuff.
But it came from a publication with some racist reputation.
Do you know what else has a racist reputation?
Breitbart. Is that true?
No, it's not true.
So I don't know what the other publication was, but it doesn't matter.
So here's the thing.
Stephen Miller is Jewish.
So CNN's best line of attack is that a Jewish man is secretly a white supremacist who hates Jewish men.
That's it. And the examples that this Breitbart ex-editor, I think she got fired from some jobs after that, after Breitbart.
So let's say employers don't love her.
We can conclude that getting a new job is going to be tough for her.
So anyway, you can expect to see more attacks like that.
But if there's such a thing as a Jewish white supremacist That's the best you got?
A Jewish white supremacist?
I mean, really?
At least your attacks should make some coherent sense.
So calling Stephen Miller a white supremacist is a lot like saying, well, we've got some dry water here.
We've got a bucket of water, but all the water is dry, so we need to get some different water because our water is all dry.
I just don't know how you can do that.
Now, we do all know that Stephen Miller is the most aggressive anti-immigration person we know, but that's really different.
There are a lot of people who want to control the immigration that are not racist.
Apparently the Supreme Court is going to decide on Trump's taxes.
You know how this is going to go, right?
If they took the case, if the Supreme Court decided to even hear it, it means that at least four of them thought it was worth hearing.
If four of them think it was worth hearing, and it's sort of a Trump court at this point, which way do you think this is going to go?
Okay. I think it's going to go Trump's way, because I can't see the Supreme Court taking him out, especially a year before an election.
I just can't see it happen. So I would expect the Supreme Court to back Trump without even any consideration to the merits of the argument.
You know, how often does the court rule in a way that is politically opposite from what you expect?
In fact, that's the question.
I'm not a historian. I don't really study the Supreme Court.
Can somebody tell me when was the last time the Supreme Court ruled on, let's say something big.
Forget about little stuff, because nobody cares about the little stuff.
But let's say a headline Supreme Court decision.
When was the last time it went opposite the way you expected?
Somebody said the census, but I don't remember that issue so well.
All right. Well, it doesn't happen a lot.
It does happen. I will allow that it does happen.
Oh, Obamacare, Judge Roberts, good example.
So it does happen, but you can usually bet against it.
All right. CNN's political fact-checkers actually pointed out that two...
Democratic representatives actually misquoted Trump in their attacks.
In other words, they misquoted something he said on the Ukraine phone call by leaving out the word us.
When he said, can you do us a favor, they left out us.
Can you do me a favor, one of them said, and the other one said, can you do a favor?
Do you think it was an accident that the two Democrats, when they were speaking in public, left out the word that was exculpatory?
Probably not.
Probably not an accident.
What is worse than that?
Can you imagine going in public in front of the world, misquoting something that is the most published document in the free world right now is the transcript-ish thing from the Ukrainian phone call.
If... Yeah, I mean, if you could go in public and lie about what the most published document in the United States says, probably more people have read the transcript than have read any book on the bestseller list.
I think. If you were to say, what's the bestselling book right now?
Probably more Americans have read the transcript than the number one bestselling book in the world.
So that's pretty bold, to just change the words and misquote the president in public, in an official setting, when it could mean impeaching him.
Yeah. It's just mind-boggling.
All right, here's the funny story for today.
I may not be able to pronounce his name correctly.
Senk... So he's running for Katie Hill's old seat, California 25, and he had an endorsement from Bernie Sanders.
Pretty good, right? If you're new to politics, you're running for office for the first time and you get a Bernie Sanders endorsement in California.
He's running in California.
But there's just a problem.
Turns out that Senk has some comments in his past.
Which do not pass the Bernie Sanders sniff test.
And he's said bad things about women.
He's used the N-word.
He's been in favor of...
He thinks bestiality should be legal.
And, you know, I disagree that bestiality should be legal unless the animal has consented.
Just kidding. Just kidding.
So the funny thing is the way he handled it when, I guess, Bernie withdrew his support, his endorsement.
And he said this, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the endorsements of Bernie Sanders and two other people I don't care about and local progressive groups that gave me their support.
Their stance took real courage in the face of the corporate media and democratic establishment onslaught.
So now he's running as a Democrat and he's throwing the Democratic establishment under the bus because they tried to ratio him.
Uyghur said Friday, I want to be free of any influence other than the voters.
So Senk is saying that he doesn't want Bernie or other endorsements because he just wants the voters to decide.
Yeah, that's what I say.
When I get caught saying terrible things in public.
All right, here's another example of artists versus economists, okay?
I saw a number of people tweet that, why is it, what would Melania say?
So I'm paraphrasing a number of different people who tweeted similar things.
People said, what does Melania say about President Trump mocking Greta Thunberg on Twitter when Melania just recently went, what's the best word?
She criticized the people who had, or the woman who had mentioned Barron Trump at the testimony.
So, what was her name?
Carlin, Professor Carlin.
She said a joke that the president can name his son baron, but he can't be a baron.
And then Melania clapped back and said, leave 13-year-old kids out of this.
And most people agreed, right?
I think most people said, yeah, let's not put 13-year-old kids into politics.
And then her husband, Melania's husband, President Trump, says...
Hey Greta, chill out and maybe you need some anger management.
So, I'm looking at your comments.
All the people who are closer to economists than artists are saying, these two aren't the same.
One of them climbed in the octagon.
One of them signed up to be an MMA fighter.
The other one is just trying to be a kid.
One of them... One of them entered the fight, willingly.
Greta entered the fight, and not only did she enter the fight, but she has proven that she belongs there.
She might be a kid, but keep in mind that Tiger Woods could beat you at golf when he was 14.
Does it matter that Tiger Woods was 14 and beat you at golf?
Should you treat him as a kid or as a great golfer when he's 14?
Well, you know, if you're playing golf with Tiger Woods when Tiger is 14, you're gonna lose, right?
Greta has completely proven that she belongs on the world stage.
So she has the age of somebody who's a minor, but she has obviously the will and the capability to play in the major leagues.
How in the world does anybody see those as similar?
Those are the least similar things in the world.
So, if you're an artist, you might see these as similar.
Ah, criticizing a child, both the same.
If you're an economist, you're going to say, all right, let's see what's the same about these two situations.
Let's see what's different.
And when you got to, oh, one willingly got into the fight, and one is aggressively trying to stay out of the fight.
Do you treat them the same?
No. No, you don't.
And first of all, the president's tweet was a very gentle clapback.
Let me ask you this. If you got a tweet from the president of the United States, the same one that Greta got, that said you should work on your anger management and maybe chill out, What would your response be?
Would your response be, oh my God, now I have to change my name and my life is ruined?
No. Let me tell you what Greta's likely, I can't read her mind, but I'm saying if I were in this position, if you were in this position, how would you likely feel if you had received that exact tweet from President Trump?
Compliment. Exactly.
Somebody said it in the comments.
Compliment. You would laugh.
You would send it to all of your friends.
You would say, I'm playing at the highest level.
It's a gentle little mockery about my enthusiasm, basically.
I win. Greta came out ahead.
No doubt about it.
Did Greta know she was coming out ahead the moment she saw the tweet?
Yes. Yes, she did.
The moment she saw the tweet, she knew she won.
Now, did the president also win?
I'd say yes. I'd say yes.
I would say that they both came out looking okay.
Now, of course, the critics have to go after the president.
How dare you? How dare you?
Criticize a child who's playing at the very highest level in global politics, not even national politics.
Greta is playing at the highest level in global politics.
And he gently ribs her in a way that's not even really insulting in any serious way.
I would want that.
Let me put it this way.
If you are ever so lucky as to be the target of a presidential tweet which is that gentle, You're going to be having a good day.
Same as Greta. You'll probably put it in your profile, same as she did.
How is that the same as poor Barron Trump just trying to stay out of the spotlight?
It's not even a little bit similar.
All right. Let's see if I've covered everything I wanted to cover.
I think I did. All right.
Somebody says you're seeing Lemon Faces all over the place.
Yeah, I talked about Don Lemon Face.
You'll see Lemon Face.
Now, let me tell you what Lemon Face is.
So Don Lemon is one of the most popular hosts of CNN, and he does a thing, he's not the only one who does it, but he's a good example of it, where they'll talk about things that aren't that bad, But they'll try to make it seem bad by the face.
So if you're just listening to this, this won't be nearly as interesting.
But you could take anything.
You could find a pen on your desk And normally that would have no emotional content.
But CNN tries to add emotional content to things that don't have any, such as this Greta thing.
They were doing that.
I think Brooke Baldwin was doing that with the Greta tweet.
My God. And let me do Don Lemonface with an ordinary pen from my desk.
Here's how normal people treat a pen.
Hey, it's a pen. I think I'll do some drawing.
I'm using my pen.
I'm doing some drawing.
Now, I'm going to apply something called Don Lemon Face, or you could just call it Lemon Face, where I look at the pen and I say, I looked on my desk this morning, and I don't even know how to express this.
Words fail. It's a...
Ladies and gentlemen, we may never see a more important point in our entire republic.
This is the sort of thing that drives societies apart.
It's the sort of thing that made Hitler come to power.
It's mind-boggling in the abuse of power.
It's a patent.
It's a pen. This pen is full of...
I swear, I get a little emotional when I think about it.
I don't know how to express this, but this pen has ink in it.
And it comes out under certain conditions.
If you press it on a piece of paper, for example, it'll come right out the end.
Is that the world you want your children to grow up in?
Where there are pens full of ink and the ink comes out the end?
I don't think so. I don't think that's the world we can live in.
And go ahead and, you know, tonight look yourself in the mirror.
Look at yourself in the mirror.
Look at your kids. Look at your kids and say, there was a day I found a pen on my desk.
And what did I do about it?
Someday when you look back, you'll have to explain to your grandchildren why you used the pen to write with instead of disavowing it and having it removed from this earth as it should be.
What will you say to your grandchildren?
I just...
I just... Give me a moment.
Give me a moment. That's all.
That's all. That's all I have.
Next topic. And scene.
That is called Lemon Face.
So Lemon Face can make anything seem bad.
You can make anything seem bad with Lemon Face.
▲
Export Selection