All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 23, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
40:20
Episode 765 Scott Adams: Building New City States, Schroedinger's Cat Impeachment, Pope Tie-Breakers
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
The best part of your day.
You know it. I know it.
Let's just admit it.
It's the best part of the day.
I think we can all just say that.
Today I've got a special guest I'll be bringing on in a little bit.
Very special. But before that, you know what comes before that?
Yeah, that's right.
It's the simultaneous sip, and it's the new improved version, and it goes like this.
If you'd like to join in on the simultaneous sip, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
That's right. It's the simultaneous sip.
Go! Yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's the good stuff.
So, so good. Well, we got some stuff to talk about, but before we do that, I would like to bring on my guest.
I believe I saw him signing up.
Let's see if we've got a winner.
Yes, we do.
Coming on quick.
Patrick, can you hear me?
I Can you tell me how to correctly pronounce your name?
Patry. Patry Friedman, right?
Yep. Now, it has to be said right off the bat, and you're probably sick of this, but you have a famous grandfather, don't you?
It's true. Tell us who your grandfather is.
My grandfather was Milton Friedman who won the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Not only did Milton Friedman win the Nobel Prize in Economics, but he is one of my greatest heroes.
And I didn't know, until I was studying up on you before this Periscope, I did not know of that connection.
So, I'm honored to have you on.
I'm a big fan of your grandfather, but what you're doing is even more interesting.
Tell us what you were involved in with Protomos Capital, if I'm saying that right?
Yeah, so Pronomos Capital is the first venture capital fund working to build charter cities, which are cities that have the permission of a government to bring in different laws and establish a region that has different laws and different courts than the rest of the country.
Give me an example of some of the countries you're thinking about for putting your little country within a country.
So the country that has the most advanced program is Honduras, which is kind of random, but the leader has just decided to create this program.
They changed the constitution. But they haven't actually authorized any of these yet.
We're also talking to countries like the Marshall Islands, a number of the small countries in Europe, some other places in the South Pacific.
Now, give us the really high-level picture why anybody even wants to do this.
What's the objective?
What problem do you solve?
So, it's really hard to reform a country by changing the entire legal system at once.
You know, countries that have bad laws or corrupt courts or just want to try out new institutions, there's not really a way to do that.
I mean, I come from Silicon Valley, so I think of the issue as being that there's no way to do government startups.
And so the whole idea of these cities is what if we took empty land, and that empty land is very important, and we set up a city that had different laws to try them out and to let people move in kind of steadily over the years and grow a new city.
And this is, you know, when I started working on this stuff 20 years ago, it was more hypothetical, but we now have the example of China, which is, you know, with Hong Kong, China copied Hong Kong and all of these little special economic zones like Shenzhen.
Eventually they built like 1500 special economic zones and over decades transformed the entire country from communism to something closer than capitalism using these little one at a time changes.
Now, I've often said that for a lot of countries, they need what I called a government in a box.
Now, my idea for it was not as good as your idea, but it was that maybe somebody like a Swiss, you know, consultants in Switzerland would just come in and say, okay, for one year, we'll be your government.
And then when we're done, we'll all leave because we don't have an army.
We couldn't stay if we wanted to.
And they just fixed the government.
I always thought that. But your model seems more sustainable because you'd come in and prove it within the country and you'd make it something that people would want to be part of because it works better, right?
Yeah, I mean, you know, look, you know how consultants are, right?
So consultants can come into a company and they look and whatever they do, that doesn't mean that it's going to stick.
It's got to be the people who are running the country for the long term who learn and you have to be building new institutions and making jobs.
Now, there's a part of the country in a box that I'm a big fan of, which is the idea that if we can set up a successful zone in one country and then a second and then a third and then Ten of them, we can build a set of best practice laws and software for running a city and architectural practices and kind of like have a full stack solution so that it becomes really easy.
So we have a government in a box and any country that we go to says, hey, take these hundred acres and just deploy it.
But we have to succeed at doing this, you know, the first time and the first ten times before we can make it repeatable.
So what I love about talking with you, which is immediately apparent, so you have obviously some background in both economics and technology development, and when you talk, your language just hits me so perfectly, because you've got the two most important things covered.
I'm loving where you're going with this, some specific questions.
One of the reasons that these little cities within a city, or cities kind of country within a country, What would work is that each of them would not need their own military because the larger country presumably would protect them.
But doesn't that give them any, do they get any special, anything that the rest of the population would resent?
Would these little countries within the country require the rest of the country to chip in any taxes or do anything on their behalf?
How does that work? It's more the opposite.
In the Honduran program, the countries are providing jobs, so part of the constitution is that any businesses in these zones have to employ at least 90% Hondurans, but then there's no taxes flowing either direction.
So the zone operator gets, if they charge taxes, they get to keep them.
And I think in no cases would the country be asked to pay for the city.
The whole idea of this is countries that are having trouble getting foreign investment, they want companies to come in and build factories and make jobs.
And in some cases, I think the city would share revenue with the country, but never the other way around.
So there's a lot that's negotiable.
So what would be the set of laws that you would incorporate?
Are you borrowing from the British system, the US system?
What set of laws do you bring to these countries within countries?
First off, we, as a venture fund, we're willing to get pitched whatever set of laws.
You just have to convince us that it'll be a great place to live and make jobs.
I think that my dream is to someday find better laws than exist today, but I think...
What we need to do right now is just to copy the existing best practices, so I think of it like a tech stack.
If you want to make a great web product, you're going to use existing languages, you're going to use your MySQL Apache Linux And so I think British common law is kind of it.
And what some of our researchers are doing right now is going around to different countries, looking at their laws, and trying to find who has the best contract law, who has the best housing codes, who has the best mortgage law, and then take those, copy them, make them match each other because they were written for different countries, and simplify them, and actually make the world's first open source legal system, which is on GitHub right now.
So you did it again.
Like every time I think you're going to say something I'm going to disagree with, you say exactly the word I was waiting for.
I was waiting for you to say the word simplification because if you hadn't said that, I would have lost all confidence because that's like 80% of the problem is that the laws are too complicated, right?
Yeah, definitely. So I love that.
All right. Tell the people who some of your famous venture funding backers are for this so they can get an idea how serious this is.
Sure. So our anchor investor is Peter Thiel, who was the first investor in Facebook.
Other investors include Mark Andreessen, who invented the web browser and runs Andreessen Horowitz.
Naval Ravikant, who's been on with you, who founded AngelList.
Balaji Sreenivasan, who was CTO at Coinbase.
Roger Ver, Bitcoin Cash.
A lot of great Silicon Valley people.
For those of you who are listening to this who may not be familiar with all the names just listed, those are the smartest people in Silicon Valley.
That's it. They're basically just named the smartest people in Silicon Valley and they're all on the same project.
So that's telling you a lot.
For those of you who recognize the names as soon as you mention them, you probably just sort of fell out of your chair because it's hard to get that group of cats on the same project.
I mean, that's pretty remarkable, so congratulations on that.
Is there any reason that you wouldn't do this in the United States?
Yes, so they're actually, this year for the first time I saw a plausible project in the U.S., there have been some federal court cases in the last few years that have strengthened Native American sovereignty.
So, for example, you can't enforce intellectual property laws on Native American reservations.
You can't enforce Trump trade tariffs on reservations.
So there's one that I've seen that's looking for a team of people to try a charter suit in the U.S.
But, you know, mostly the idea of these is to copy best practice laws and hire honest judges for places that need that.
And so the better run a country is, the less interested it's going to be.
And in the U.S. especially, there's a very strong federal government, and it's very hard to get local independence.
With congressional support, you can actually do significant exemptions from federal law with what's called an interstate compact.
But you have to have a majority in Congress.
So it's not very fertile, but I'd love to see someone do something with Native American land.
Well, now, are you familiar with the vast amounts of land that's available basically for free in some of the rundown inner cities, typically called the blighted territories?
Bill Paltay's been involved in clearing those out.
And I know, for example, Jack Dorsey funded one of those with Bill Paltay.
To clear up in St. Louis.
So there are these vast tracks within the inner cities where you could also build a walled city with its own security and its own systems and try to make something work within the city.
Is it the American laws?
If the American laws aren't that broken, wouldn't that be an easy place to start because you've already got laws that people kind of agree with.
They just need the other stuff.
The security, the keeping the good elements in and the bad elements out.
Yeah, I mean, it's definitely possible.
And I mean, some Silicon Valley groups like Y Combinator and Google have looked into doing a city and what you could get there.
And they both ultimately gave up.
I think as far as pronomos, what we're interested in is zones that have kind of different and simplified laws from the rest of the country and where the country really wants us to come in.
I'm not sure that's true in the US, but I would say this is part of a broader movement to kind of rewrite and reform cities.
So is anything you're doing directly or indirectly related to construction, or is it really just about the laws and the society?
Well, these cities are going to have to get built, but we're not trying to innovate.
I mean, I'm really interested in kind of all these city technology companies and what they're doing in China where they can put up a skyscraper in a week.
But we're just directly going to focus on kind of getting these zones created and on the legal part of it.
But then, yeah, these projects are actually going to build.
And, you know, one thing I want to emphasize is that, like, we as a venture capital company, it's not like we have one legal system or one government that we are going to impose.
This is about a bunch of different groups around the world doing startup cities that each have different laws.
And we're the only people who go into the city are the people who want to be there.
So that's what's cool about this is it's not imposed on anyone ever.
So as a venture fund, then the model is that anybody in some other country can put together a proposal and say, I want to bring this set of laws into this area and I want to work with you, with my government to get them to approve it all.
Is that the basic model? Yeah, it's really important that they have strong connections to the country and that the government be interested in order for the government to pass laws and just for the project to be welcome.
I think this can so easily be something bad if it's imposed from the outside, and so it's critical that the country be saying, hey, we want one of these cities.
Who are you finding is calling for this the most?
Because it seems to be a perfect fit with our immigration and homeland security.
If you could use these to pump up the viability of the Central American areas, we'd have less illegal immigration.
Do you find interest from people like that?
Who's showing you the most interest?
I would say that I have had some discussions with U.S. security officials, and they love the idea.
You know, the idea of countries close to us having more prosperous cities that are better run.
I mean, that just benefits America.
In general, I'd say it's kind of smaller...
Smaller nations who are worried about economic development, in some cases climate change.
So in my work with seasteading, which was the idea of building on the ocean, which I might have seen somewhere in one of your comic strips, we worked with French Polynesia, and there they were worried about climate change mitigation and how to protect their drowning islands.
So there's a variety of interests, but mostly it's smaller countries who want to get jobs.
Do you have any good connections in the U.S. government that would be useful to you?
I have some, but it's a big government and I could always use more.
Who would be your ideal person you'd want to get their ear in the government?
Well, there's a new U.S. development bank that's being merged out of a couple of the existing international investment systems.
That would be great. And, of course, it would be nice to get a tweet from Trump.
Yeah. Usually that would take at least a senator or something to get on board.
So if you've got to target a senator, maybe we can hook you up.
Sounds good. All right.
And where can people go to find out more about this?
Check out our website, which is pronomos, P-R-O-N-O-M-O-S. It means goodlaw in Greek,.vc.
Or check out our Twitter, at pronomosvc.
Or my Twitter is at patricimo.
And you can look at my Twitter feed, and you'll see I tweeted an article out just this morning, so you can follow up in there.
So thank you so much, and make sure I'm saying this right.
Patry? Patry.
Pod 3. You know I'll never be able to say that correctly.
I'm going to have to Americanize that a little bit.
But thank you so much.
You know, everything about this idea I like.
Literally everything about it.
I don't say that about most ideas, but I don't see a single thing wrong with this if you can pull it off.
And it looks like you've got a good head start with lots of good backers.
So we'll be watching this carefully, and check back in with me if you have any exciting updates.
If you get a city that bites, I'm all over that.
I want to hear more about that, okay?
Sounds good. Alright.
Thanks so much for joining.
And I'll talk to you later.
Thanks. Bye. Alright.
That was quite interesting.
I hope you liked that as much as I did.
Let's talk about some other things.
Somebody sent me a tweet of a little video of a guy ice skating who looks exactly like me.
And I gotta tell you, I have watched that little video, I don't know, 50 times?
Because I even can't tell the difference between that guy and me.
I mean, it looks like me.
You know, I always talk about the simulation doing code reuse.
Oh, my God!
It just looks like another version of me ice skating.
So I don't have anything to say about that except it's blowing my mind.
Have any of you seen that little clip that people are sending around?
It's another one of these Laurel and Yanni situations.
In which there's a guy on a swing, and apparently some people think he's facing one direction, and some people think he's facing the other direction.
I don't know.
To me, it looks like his feet are facing in one direction, so I don't know how anybody's confused about that one, but I guess they are.
Speaking of two movies on one screen, New Yorker editor, a fellow named David Remnick, who is no friend to President Trump, Recently said on CNN, and this is the funny part, he said this on CNN, he said,
quote, we have a country that's split, and to the great frustration of people like you and people like me, remember he's on CNN talking about this, we don't somehow understand why the evidence of things, why facts, don't penetrate so many of our brothers and sisters in America.
Huh. I wonder why the citizens of the United States are skeptical of the news.
Is there anything that happened in the past few years that would make you skeptical about the accuracy of the facts on the news?
Anything? Anything?
can you think of anything I can't think of a thing I saw speaking of living I saw an article I think it was on CNN about homeless people who have jobs The example given was an Uber driver who sleeps in a car.
And I thought to myself, sleep in your car, that's a bad deal.
How do you have a bathroom?
How do you shower? And all that stuff.
And then it turns out that there's at least one Quote, safe parking lot, I think this is in the LA area, that has bathrooms and a security guard.
So if you're a homeless person, but you have a car, you can drive into the parking lot, sleep in your car, and you've got some kind of shared bathroom situation, and a security guard.
And I thought to myself, well, that doesn't help, obviously.
That's not going to help people with mental problems and addiction problems.
But there is a class of people We just can't afford a home, but they do have a job.
And I'm thinking to myself, not the worst temporary solution I've ever seen.
It's not the worst. If they're working, they have a chance of working their way up to something.
So I like the creativity of that as a temporary step.
I was watching last night a Documentary, I think it was on Amazon Prime, about Iraq's prostitution industry.
Do you know anything about that?
So apparently, in some forums of Islam, I think mostly the Shiites, but maybe a little bit others as well, that they have this system where you can temporarily marry somebody.
And by temporarily, you can get married for half an hour.
Or you can get married for a month and asked to be blessed by a cleric, an actual religious leader, which they will do for money.
So if you pay your cleric some amount of money in the form of a tip, your cleric will officially bless your, quote, marriage for an hour to somebody you want to have sex with.
Now, apparently, because there were so many men killed in the Iraq war and the economy was so dislodged, there are this tremendous number of women who are doing these temporary marriages, contract marriages, which are just prostitution.
So, the weird thing that's happened is because of the economy and the shortage of men, etc., that the clerics Have actually just become pimps.
And that's not even...
I'm not even exaggerating.
Apparently the vast majority of them, the street clerics, I'm not talking about whoever's at the top, but the everyday clerics, pretty much all of them will, and wait for this, I'm not making this up.
They will approve a temporary marriage to an adult male Iraqi, or just a visitor I suppose, If the girl is over nine years old, and the documentary demonstrated that was true.
Now, they did some test examples where they had a guy come in and act like he wanted to have a temporary marriage with a 12- or a 13-year-old, and it was easily approved.
Grown man, 12-year-old virgin, and the cleric said, yeah, that's no problem.
Yeah, no problem. Just don't take your virginity, you know, in the...
I won't get too detailed, but in the classic way.
And even the cleric says, yeah, yeah, you can do all the other stuff as long as she says yes, that's all you need.
Unbelievable. So, now, I knew that this was a practice in Iran, but apparently it may be even more of a thing in Iraq because of the economic upheaval and lack of men to marry.
But the women don't have a lot of choices.
If the woman is not married in Iraq and she doesn't have much of a chance of getting a job, you've got one path there.
So it's the least religious country I've ever even heard of, at least in that specific sense.
Anyway, that was shocking beyond belief, so I'll just put that out there.
You know, I run on and on about this concept of two movies on one screen, how the country is divided into seeing reality in two completely different ways, even though it seems like we're looking at the same stuff.
And this question of, is the president impeached or not impeached?
I don't know if you could come up with a more perfect example of two movies on one screen.
We're actually having a conversation, a national conversation, I don't think you could find a question that would get that much closer to being objectively true or objectively not true, and we can't even agree on that.
You've heard my opinion on that, which is we can agree that the House voted to impeach.
That much everybody would agree on.
And we can also agree that they have not forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate and therefore they have not completed the steps that the House does.
So if the House is not done with all their steps, even though they voted, can you say that the impeachment is done or could you simply say that it was voted on?
I'm on the team that says you can say it was voted on But until they're transmitted, the process is not complete.
So I would say it's an incomplete impeachment process.
That's what I'd say. There's some talk about President Trump's meme he tweeted around that shows him in sort of a black and white menacing pose when he's on a chair and he's looking right at you.
And it says, the meme says, in reality, they're not after me, they're after you.
I'm just in the way.
It's a really strong meme.
It's just well done wording and the image are really good.
And I like what this did because you notice that the Democrats had turned the question of Trump into a question of Trump's supporters.
And they had very publicly and collectively tried to make it a case that you could not be a good citizen.
and also be a Trump supporter and that maybe you could be beat up in public if you even wore a hat that suggested you were such a bad person.
So when Trump turns this around, and I think he was just tweeting the meme somebody else made, but it's clever because the Democrats have actually said in pretty direct language and direct action, certainly on social media, that they're coming after Trump supporters.
And so the president says they're not coming after him, they're coming after you.
And I believe that the Democrats have completely validated that because they say it pretty directly, right?
They say all Trump supporters are scum, they're all going to have to answer for it, you know, you are guilty for all of this.
They've said it directly.
And I actually have started to think I wonder if there's a safety element here.
Because I haven't thought this before, but I'm starting to think it.
What would happen if Trump lost the re-election?
Would Trump supporters never be able to get jobs again?
Could you apply for a job?
Somebody would check your Facebook, see you were once a Trump supporter, and then you can't get a job forever?
Is there an element of self-preservation Four people voting for Trump so they can get at least four more years of not being potentially victimized by the side that would like to victimize them.
So I would say there is an element of self-protection there and that should not be ignored.
It's also good to put Trump in the role of the protector.
It's a very strong image.
If you think he's acting as your protector, Then you're going to be very supportive than if you think he's just doing a job.
He's doing more than a job.
All right. There's a disagreement, maybe you've seen it, on the question of the evangelicals.
So there was one evangelical organization who said that President Trump should be impeached.
And then there was another evangelical organization who recently said, no, no, he should not be impeached.
And what do you do when your evangelical organizations disagree?
Well, I think you've got to kick it upstairs, right?
If you've got some evangelicals who say God wants Trump to be impeached and others say God doesn't want it, well, you're going to need a tiebreaker.
I think you know you're going to need a tiebreaker.
And that's what I'm here for.
I'm here to be your tiebreaker.
I would like to ask God directly.
Who is right? God, if you're listening, I know you are.
Can you send us a sign?
Should we get rid of President Trump?
That is the question. God, should President Trump be removed from office?
Send us a sign. Okay.
God, should President Trump stay in office?
I think that's our answer.
I'm glad we settled that once and for all.
And let's see. So there's some conversation about more information about the Ukraine situation.
So apparently there's new information that completes some of the timeline.
And this fellow Mike Duffy, the White House official in the Office of Management and Budget, apparently 90 minutes after the call that Trump had with the Ukrainian president, the order came down to freeze the Ukraine money.
And this is the way it was worded in the memo that apparently has been surfaced.
Quote, based on guidance I have received in light of the administration's plan to review assistance to Ukraine.
So there's a plan to review the assistance, including the Ukraine security assistance initiative.
That would be the money for their defense.
Please hold off on any additional blah, blah, blah, blah of the funds.
So people are saying, wait a minute.
That came 90 minutes after the phone call, so they must be connected, right?
It must be because of the phone call that the President is extorting the President of Ukraine by holding off those funds because of the timing.
First you make the phone call, 90 minutes later you freeze the money.
Maybe. Maybe.
Here's another possibility.
Let me give you the filter from somebody who's lived in the real world and worked at large organizations.
Here's how large organizations often work.
It doesn't have to be every time, but often.
If you're making your Ukraine decisions, you do them all at once.
So if the president was working on Ukraine that day, probably got briefed before the phone call, then he had the phone call, and then you make decisions that are related to Ukraine in the phone call, because that's sort of Ukraine day.
So What should you make of the fact that the phone call to the President of Ukraine happened within 90 minutes of another decision about Ukraine, about holding the money to review it?
What should you make of that? Well, what you should make of it is that that was the day he was making Ukraine decisions.
That's the easiest explanation.
It's easier if you're the leader of a country and you've got a million topics and you're trying to make decisions on a million different topics.
You don't want to do a slice here, a slice there, you know, switching between topics.
You want to say, today is Ukraine Day.
Today you're going to get briefed on Ukraine.
You're going to talk to Ukraine.
You're going to make some decisions on Ukraine.
It's just Ukraine Day. That's the most logical explanation for why everything happened about the same time.
And also...
Who cares if he did hold the money back because he has that right to do that.
Anyway, that's about all. The news got really slow because it's time for Christmas.
There's not much else happening. Anybody have any questions?
Does anybody have a question they would like to come on as a guest and ask me?
Oops. Why is the Ukraine thing a threat to our democracy?
Yeah, it isn't. It is not.
Please retell the story about...
I don't know what story you want me to tell.
I'm just looking at your comments now.
Dems trying to confiscate weapons?
Yeah, I'm not up on that, so...
I'll have to study up on that.
Have you heard of Earthships?
I have, but I'm not an expert on that.
Oh, the letter you got that made you retry Dilbert.
I've told that story so many times.
I think I'm going to hold off on that one.
Am I your youngest, biggest fan?
Yes, you are, Jared. Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Did you see Joe Rogan posting on the simulated video of Trump singing All I Want for Christmas?
Now, is it a deepfake?
I think 2020 is going to be the year of the deepfake, don't you?
We're going to see a lot of deepfaking.
Why not LASIK yet?
I looked into LASIK and it wouldn't work for me.
So I would still need glasses for all of my up-close work, but since most of the things I do are up-close, I'm on my phone 90% of the day, having LASIK would just change my problem from needing glasses to drive, which I do an hour a day, to needing glasses for looking at things that are close, which I do 23 hours a day, except when I'm sleeping, I guess.
Was Trump really afraid of running against Biden?
I don't think afraid would be the right word, but he does seem to think that that's going to be the guy.
Where does LoserThink rank in your recommended books list?
Well, in my recommended books, I'm recommending the persuasion reading list is what I usually recommend.
So LoserThink isn't about persuasion per se.
It's about how to think more productively.
For fun, have John Dvorak.
I know John. He'd be fun.
Maybe we should do that. John, you may be watching this right now.
If you are, you are invited.
Yeah, I've invited Matt Gaffee to be on here, but I haven't nailed that down with his, I think his wife.
I'm not sure who does his scheduling.
What about the Trump charity settlement?
Not too interested. Yeah, I know there's a story about there was a Trump charity and he got in trouble for her and, I don't know, had to pay a fine or something.
I don't know. Not too interesting.
The slaughter meter is at 100% or 200%.
One-eye LASIK works.
Yeah, I could do one-eye LASIK, but that...
There's something about that that's scary.
How about Candace Owens?
Yes, I'm invited to and have accepted talking on Candace Owens' show, but I need to get down to L.A. to do that when she's there.
So it's a scheduling thing.
I did hear from somebody on Cory Booker's, somebody who knows Cory Booker who wanted to see if he could connect me to see if I could get Cory Booker on here for an interview.
So I'm working on that as well.
Alright. Yeah, you know, the thing with the charities and stuff, I always feel like we don't have the full story.
So I feel like those are the ones where we never really know what was going on, so it's hard to comment on those.
How about Adam Carolla?
I did Adam Carolla's show just recently.
The McLaughlin group is back.
Yeah, bonded employment.
I rolled down an idea about...
I don't want to talk about that now.
Will Trump lose the popular vote again?
You know, I don't know.
But I don't know that it matters because losing the popular vote really means that you lost, what, California and New York, right?
That's all it takes is to lose California and New York and you've lost the popular vote.
So I don't know that it matters.
I don't know that it matters. Oh, here's an interesting question for you.
It's the end of the year. Why don't you name your superstars?
I want to hear your superstars for the media.
People who you followed who wrote articles, maybe they were pundits, maybe they were online personalities.
Tell me who were your superstars for the year.
I saw Molly Hemingway's name go by and she's on my short list of superstars, a tremendous writer and communicator.
Byron York, I would say, one of the best.
Matt Taibbi, incredible.
Joel Pollack, amazing.
These are just the most effective, influential, just quality writers that have influenced me this year.
Mike Cernovich, every day.
He's interesting.
I love watching Jack Posobiec's Twitter feed, one of the best there is.
Yeah, I don't follow Sarah Carter and John Solomon as much, but I hear good things about them.
Kim Strassel, incredible.
One of the tops, for sure.
And we like all of our Fox News hosts.
Those are automatics.
Yeah, Victor David Hansen, he's a star.
Tim Pool, Dan Bongino, Cheryl Atkinson, yeah.
Rush Limbaugh, of course.
Kanye, of course, in his own way.
Glenn Greenwald. You know, I have such a love-hate relationship with reading Glenn Greenwald, because he's brilliant, and I like most of what he says, but not all of it.
Andrew McCarthy, of course.
Amazing. Yeah, and of course the politicians.
Nunes, Gates.
All great. All right.
That's enough for now, and I will talk to you.
Yeah, Michael Tracy. Another great one.
▲
Export Selection