All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 1, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
43:12
Episode 774 Scott Adams: Learn to Shake Hands Like a Pope, The Anti-Benghazi, North Korea
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Come in here, my flock.
I have much to teach you today.
Some days you come here for the entertainment.
Some days you come here for the learning.
Today is going to be a learning day.
Today I'll be teaching you how to shake hands like a pope.
Bill, congratulations on Baby Pulte.
Bless her. And all of you, bless you, DJ Dr.
Funk Juice. Good to see you again.
Best name on Twitter.
And once we have 2,000 people here, I will show you how to shake hands like a pope.
But before then, I know why the real reason you're here.
It's for the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stye, and 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.
The simultaneous sip.
Go. Miraculous.
Divine. Best I've ever had.
All right. Now, I think you've all seen the viral tweet of the Pope shaking hands, but you don't know the moves, so I'm here to teach you the Pope handshake.
You can follow along.
It goes like this.
First, stand up. Take a few breaths.
Loosen up your shoulders. All right?
You don't want to go into a handshake situation all tense and stiff.
So shake it up.
Shake it up. Now, when the person you're going to shake hands with is, let's say, over there, the Pope technique is to use this arm as bait.
So watch how...
Here, I'll adjust this a little bit.
So this arm will just be natural.
So this one's just natural over here.
But this one... This one's going to be just sort of floating out there, like bait.
And you want to start looking this way, and you turn this way, and just let it dangle a little bit.
Somebody's going to grab it.
You know they will. And when they grab it, like this, you hesitate for a moment, like you don't know what's going on, then turn, like that, look her in the eyes, and start slapping.
Now the face is also part of the handshake.
So you want to get the angry face.
And then the release is very important.
And then the walkway.
So you got to get the walkway.
But there's a part two.
Part two is the apology.
If you've been doing handshakes with no apology afterwards, you're probably doing it wrong.
So then the apology comes later, like, oh, sorry.
Didn't mean to slap you up.
So let's run through it again.
Loosen up. One arm is bait.
Let it dangle. Let it dangle.
Somebody's going to grab it. There!
You got it. You got it.
You got a hip. Twist.
Turn. Look at him.
Angry. Slap.
Turn. Release.
Walk away. Got it?
I don't think it's that hard.
I think most of you could manage that.
And scene.
Well, let's talk about all the news.
The news we got. We got news.
Kind of news all over.
Two pages of news. Look at this.
All the news. Just kidding.
There's not much happening. Let's talk about it anyway.
President Trump has labeled his defense of our embassy in Iraq as, quote, the anti-Benghazi.
That's right. He actually tweeted the anti-Benghazi.
Does this man know his audience or what?
Because the entire audience was saying, don't Benghazi us.
Literally, you know, a hundred million people, the moment they heard there was some trouble at the embassy in Iraq, a hundred million people thinking as one have exactly the same thought.
Do not Benghazi us.
Whatever you do.
Don't Benghazi us.
And so the president, of course, being very tuned into the will of the people, has actually branded it.
He branded a move.
Who brands their move?
Have you ever seen that before?
He branded his move as the anti-Benghazi.
I can't like that any better than I do.
Now, it's hard for me to know exactly what Iran hopes to get out of this.
Apparently, there was some big umbrella group They told the protesters to stand down, but there's still one Iranian-backed group that's there.
And I asked myself, how much do I know about what's going on over there?
And the answer is, not a lot, because I'm trying to understand how some other country's militia can have a major protest in your country.
So if you're Iraq, how does the Iraqi government and military Allow another country, Iran, to hold a protest in their country while attacking an embassy that they protect.
Does Iraq have any power?
Now, of course, I've known that Iran has huge influence over Iraq, but I didn't know they had that much, so I think that's a little surprising to me.
It looks like the United States is going to dig in, and if they want to fight, they can have it.
It appears that we've made it clear that there's a line, and here's the line, and if anybody gets hurt, it's going to be a really bad day in Iraq.
It looks like the protesters sort of understand that, because somehow we've had these major protests with zero injuries anywhere.
It's kind of hard to have a protest that big with no injuries at all.
I mean, maybe it's just not true.
Maybe there were injuries. I've got to think those rubber bullets hurt a little bit.
So I guess some of the protesters got shot with rubber bullets.
Lindsey Graham did one of the best moves, let's say persuasion moves, political moves, one of the best moves about this Iraqi thing.
So Lindsey Graham tweets, and I'm paraphrasing, That Iran better watch out because they are an economy that depends on oil refining.
Now that is what you call a threat.
You know, if you say a threat like, oh, don't do anything to us.
We've got a big military.
We'll do something back to you.
If you punch us, we'll punch you twice as hard.
Now that's good.
You know, you need to have a credible threat.
But it's so unspecific.
So non-specific, just to say, we'll attack you twice as hard.
It doesn't really register the same way a specific threat does.
So when Lindsey Graham says to Iran, you know, you should be careful what you do if your entire economy depends on your oil refineries.
That's really specific!
And it's really good.
Because the other thing it does is it says, we're not going to attack your people because we don't have a beef with your people.
We don't have a beef with even your military, really, if they stand down.
But if Iran keeps causing trouble and American lives are lost in particular, they're going to lose their refineries.
And now ask yourself, if their entire economy depends on the refineries, and I don't mean that every part of their economy, but it's such a big part that it could take down the economy if it went down, I don't know how we lose this.
Do you? Unless we're worried that they would respond aggressively on the mainland.
And I suppose that they would have those plans.
But have you ever noticed that Iran...
Somebody tweeted this this morning.
Is it true... So first of all, let's just see if this is true.
So fact check me on this.
Is it true that Iran has never sponsored a terror attack in the United States?
Because if that is true, I think that's important to know.
Because it would tell you their intentions.
Obviously they have the capability.
Iran could very easily sponsor an attack in the United States.
So if they haven't, it means they really don't want to.
And why is that?
Why would Iran be so bellicose and so aggressive in the Middle East, but zero aggressiveness Well, I would think that their long-term ambition is just to get the United States out of the Middle East, and attacking the homeland would just make us dig in.
So if they can bug us and cause pain in the Middle East for as many decades as it takes, well, maybe they can get us out of there, and then they would have more influence.
Probably the last thing that Iran wants is a hot war with the United States.
I would think that would be literally the last thing they'd want.
But I never thought of this middle ground where we take out their refineries.
I'd never really, I don't know, for some reason that had never occurred to me because I assumed that taking out their economy would be a bigger deal.
But now that you understand there might be just a, I don't know, a handful of refineries, how many are there?
But we could take them out in an afternoon.
So Lindsey Graham has signaled to Iran directly that we could take out their economy and therefore, I think, the regime.
Because if the economy fell that hard, I don't know how the regime would stay.
But he's basically saying, we could take you out in an afternoon and nobody will even die.
So that's a really, really good threat.
Lindsey Graham. So congratulations on that.
Did you see the video of the Iraq protesters trying to break down the door?
They've got this battering ram that's not the biggest battering ram in the world.
I guess it looks like the diameter is only, I don't know, 10 inches or something.
And And you see all these young men trying as hard as they can to break down this door.
It looks like a glass door.
It must be some kind of reinforced glass.
But they're hitting this battering ram.
There's like 20 of them. And Mike Cernovich...
Mike Cernovich tweeted that video and said it was the most soy battering ram he'd ever seen.
And until I saw that comment about how much soy they were putting into that battering ram that couldn't break through a glass, I laughed for about two minutes after I saw that.
But it does seem to me that there's something about this protest This lacking passion.
You know, they got a lot of people to show up, but there's something kind of lacking.
You know, the fact that nobody got hurt and they couldn't even get their battering rams through a glass door.
It just feels like it's not their best protest.
You know, they're not putting their best people on this one, I think.
So that was pretty funny.
In other news, Mike Bloomberg tweeted out the worst tweet of 2019, I think, for a presidential candidate.
And this is what he said.
So Mike Bloomberg goes, As president, I'll turn the East Room into an open office plan, where I'll sit with our team.
I'll use the Oval Office for some official functions, never for tweeting.
But the rest of the time, I'll be aware a leader should be with the team.
And then he shows a picture of, it must have been his mayoral office, where it's just this sea of cubicles, and he's just this little tiny dot in the middle of a sea of just messy cubicles.
And I thought to myself, okay, that Mike Bloomberg is a really good way to become a mayor.
That is mayor-level tweeting.
Do you know what I really don't want in my President of the United States?
I don't want him in a cubicle.
May I say that again, only louder.
I don't want the person who's representing my country, the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the most impressive military force ever assembled in the universe, as far as we know.
I don't really want him in a cubicle.
Do you feel me?
Now, I know I'm taking this harder than other people, because I am the guy who invented the Dilbert comic.
I am probably more famous for being associated with the horrors of cubicles than anyone.
Now, he called it an open office plan, because I think it's those low cubicle walls.
And the only thing worse than cubicles...
According to every study, is the open office.
Do you know who loves the open office?
The guy who gets to tweet about it and say, look how awesome I am.
I have an open office.
Yay! I'm just like you.
That's it. The entire benefit of an open office is that you can tell people you did it.
That's all it is. It doesn't have any good impact on efficiency, on productivity, on ability to do work.
It's all bad. It's completely bad.
Offices are way better in every possible way.
But you get to brag about it.
Now, again, as a mayor, Or as a CEO of, let's say, a Fortune 500 company, if you said, oh, I'm just going to be the cubicle guy, I'll work with the team, I can see that working.
You want your mayor to be down in the trenches, don't you?
That's what a mayor is.
You know, a mayor is really close to the people.
That's about as close to the people as you can get.
So a mayor working with the people on the potholes and the strategies and stuff like that, Makes perfect sense.
CEO? Yeah, maybe, depending on the culture.
Might want to make it look like an open office, make everybody feel equal.
No big benefit, but okay.
But as soon as you take that to the office of the presidency...
Somebody said this in the comments just as I was thinking it.
Keller80 says, out of touch.
That's all it feels like, doesn't it?
It just feels like Mike Bloomberg...
Doesn't have the game anymore?
Because how did he not know that this was a pretty good play for a mayor and the worst play ever for a president?
He didn't make that leap on his own?
Because that's sort of broadcasting to me that he's lost a step.
I can't see him making the same mistake when he was 45.
Doesn't it seem like an old guy's mistake?
And then he puts it with the worst photograph of this busy, messy-looking environment that would inspire nobody, and then he wraps it in a boring tweet.
He made every mistake you can make in one tweet.
He showed that they don't have a good production stuff.
Obviously, he doesn't have good advisors who can actually change his mind, because there's no way his advisors said that was a good idea.
Well, they may have said it was a good idea.
But do you think there was any advisor of Mike Bloomberg who said, yeah, Mike, tell him you're not going to use the office.
Tell him you're going to be in an open office plan.
I think that could be our key to the White House.
Do you think there was even one advisor who honestly told Mike Bloomberg that was a good idea?
I doubt it, because he's at least paying for good advisors.
He's got a lot of money.
He probably has really good advisors.
So he's not taking advice, it seems.
I mean, we don't know, but it would look like it from this.
And I've never seen a more clear message that he's not ready to be president.
It's actually kind of...
Shocking, really.
It's shocking. Have you noticed the bots are back?
The Trump bots?
Now, I don't know who runs the pro-Trump bots, the Twitter users, but they're so easy to spot that it makes me wonder why they last.
Now, I don't want to get them kicked off of Twitter because there are bots on both sides, and I guess it's just part of the process now.
But they have such a common look That I always laugh when I see them.
So it's usually a young mother or somebody who is a youngish woman.
And it's sort of a generic picture where you say to yourself, I'm not sure there's a real woman there, but it's a picture of a woman.
And then you look at the profile and it's got all these little identifiers that no real person puts there.
It's just clearly a bunch of, you know, flags and symbols and mega and all kinds of stuff.
But I have to say, they perform a service.
So a number of them follow me and tweet at me.
And they do a really good job of surfacing the good pro-Trump content.
So if you missed it, the bots are actually really helpful.
So good work, bots.
To the extent that you're finding good content that people care about and you're tweeting it, not bad.
Not bad. So I don't mind that at all.
But the bots are back.
They had disappeared for a while.
Also, the trolls are back.
I was noticing today, trying to figure out what the 2020 approach would be on this impeachment stuff.
And it looks like the Democrats, the anti-Trumpers, have chosen, not surprisingly, the least effective thing they could do.
The least effective thing that the anti-Trumpers could do is say, ha ha, you were impeached.
Because what do the Trump supporters say?
No, he wasn't. It's sort of the perfect two movies on one screen.
The anti-Trumpers can claim with lots of evidence that the president was impeached.
They had a vote. Voted to impeach.
The pro-Trump people can claim with equal credibility.
Not really.
Because it hasn't been sent over to the Senate.
And if it ever went to the Supreme Court to decide, the Supreme Court would probably say, no, nothing really happened.
I was credited with this thought, but I actually borrowed it from somebody.
I saw it on Twitter. And who was it?
Was it Jeff? I'm not sure who said it.
But the analogy was this.
And this is one of those cases where an analogy is just funny.
If you plan to order a pizza, but you don't actually put in the order, can you say you've ordered a pizza?
And so it is with impeachment.
Sure, you voted on it, but if you don't transmit it, Can it be said that you impeached?
Now, I love the fact that some legal experts, and I think Mark Levin is one of them, is saying that the Senate, because the Senate has full authority to hold a trial any way they want, they could actually vote to hold the impeachment null and void.
And I don't think anything would be funnier than that.
What would be funnier Then the Senate, instead of voting yes or no on impeachment, which would still allow that the impeachment happened, it just did not get confirmed in the Senate.
But it would be way funnier if the Senate just said, we're going to make the House vote null and void.
How great would that be?
It would be just the greatest humorous thing to do because then the Trump supporters could say with complete and fair argument that there was no impeachment because it was found null and void.
I absolutely love that idea just for the provocation of it.
I tweeted...
Oh, let's talk about Kim Jong-un.
Here's a little trick I learned in hypnosis class.
I'm going to teach you something that at least some of you, maybe a small percentage, but some of you are going to find this will totally change your life.
And it's just a little bit of advice.
That once you start looking for it in the world, you're going to start noticing something you hadn't noticed before.
And once you notice it, it'll be like this little superpower.
And I know that because I gained this superpower when I learned hypnosis.
And it goes like this. People tell you what they want, even if they're not telling you what they want.
So that's the tip.
People will tell you In fairly direct language, what they want, even if they don't know they're doing it.
So people will choose words that very clearly transmit what they want without ever intentionally doing it.
And if you start looking for it, it's just so obvious that you'll be amazed you didn't see it before.
Now the context I learned it, Somebody's giving me an example in the comments.
I'm going to use your example, Matthias.
So this is the actual example that my hypnosis instructor gave.
Since people are sexual creatures, and we're never that far from our mating instinct, our language picks up our mating preferences In just casual language.
So if you're talking, let's say you go on, let's say, a co-worker date.
So you're with somebody who's whatever gender you prefer, and you're out on just a co-worker lunch.
But you're thinking, I wonder if this co-worker has some sexual thoughts about me.
Now, if it's a woman, she doesn't have to worry about it because it's a man and probably does.
But if you're a man, And you're trying to figure out if the other person has a crush on you.
Watch for the language.
This literally happened to me once, not long after I'd learned this trick.
I'd learned that one of the tells is, let's say you're a guy, and you go out to lunch, and you bring a woman, and you're just friends, but maybe one of you thinks it could turn into more.
If the woman says, I'm so hungry, I'm ravished, You're in.
Because ravished is the wrong word.
They meant to say, I'm famished.
This actually happened to me.
That exact example was given by my hypnotist, a professor, who said, if you're on a date and your date says, man, I haven't eaten all day, I'm ravished.
Your date wants to get ravished.
Yeah, or ravenous, right.
I'm either famished or I'm ravenously hungry.
But to say I'm ravished is basically directly telling you that's where my mind is.
Now, the first time you hear it, you're going to say to yourself, oh, it's funny, it's confirmation bias.
You know, I believe I'm hearing it because it's what I wanted to hear.
That's the first time you hear it.
Then test it. You go home with that person, next thing you know it's your boyfriend and girlfriend.
Watch it happen again, in the example in the comments.
You're talking to your potential partner, and the potential partner says, oh, I can't make it today, I'm all tied up.
Do they mean I'm busy?
Well, it could mean, innocently, yeah, I'm all tied up with some other thing.
But look for how often people will signal their sexual preference just in their ordinary language.
Once you start seeing it, you can't unsee it.
And I've been doing it for enough decades looking for it and then testing later whenever you could actually find out for sure whether your hypothesis was right or not.
It's really good.
It's really predictive.
Now, it doesn't apply to just...
People's mating instinct.
People also will reveal what they want in just regular conversations.
Yes. I'm seeing more examples in the comments.
So here's what Kim Jong-un said and how he told us what he wanted.
So listen to what he says, and then I'm going to put the hypnotist filter on it.
To tell you what he wants, all right?
So here's what Kim said.
So they had some big deal where he threatened shocking action, you know, if the United States didn't do what he wanted.
Now, it's very unspecific what the shocking action is, and that's not the interesting part.
Here's the interesting part.
Kim, during the party meeting, declared that the North will never give up its security for economic benefits.
In the face of what he described as increasing U.S. hostility and nuclear threats.
So he said he'll never give up his security for economic benefits.
Kim told you exactly what he wants.
He wants security.
And he's also described the exact problem.
The problem is Kim is asking for military security And apparently we've offered him money.
Economic security doesn't keep him in power.
He's saying it as directly as you can possibly say it.
I don't even care about the money, because I'm not starving.
He's saying it so directly.
He wants security guarantees.
Now, have we offered him security guarantees?
I doubt it. Wouldn't you doubt it?
I doubt we've offered anything like that.
But could we offer him something that was at least moving in that general direction that would be something short of a guarantee?
Because, you know, guarantees are mostly just words.
But is there a way we could say, you know, Kim, you've now communicated directly what you need.
And directly, you need some guarantees that we're not going to attack you.
Here's what we could do.
We could declare the end of the war.
Would that not look like a march in the right direction?
We could say, Kim, we commit that we're going to unify, but there's no date for it, and we expressly say that we're not going to overthrow North Korea, because we don't care.
We don't care about North Korea.
We could say, Kim Jong-un, there's nothing we want less than a war with you, and we're going to actually repurpose some of our forces in South Korea, so it's more of a general...
Asian, you know, base.
And it's not going to be about North Korea.
We'd really love it if you turned your guns away, you know, your artillery.
We'd love it if some international group, let's say India.
Let's say we said, you know, I know North Korea, you don't want the United States messing around and even inspecting your stuff because you think we're all spies, etc.
But would you trust India?
What if India agreed to be a middle group?
Because they have nuclear capabilities as well.
So maybe they have people who are trained who could go over to North Korea and say, yeah, you still have nukes, but they're not pointed at the United States anymore.
So it just doesn't matter to us too much.
Anyway, so that's my hypnotist take on North Korea, is that Kim has told us exactly what he wants, and I believe that we have not offered anything even in that domain.
Or at least we haven't heard of it.
So until you hear that the United States is at least talking about what would keep North Korea safe at the same time we get what we want, there's nothing happening.
I would say it wouldn't even qualify as a negotiation.
If what we're offering is economic and what they're asking for is military protection, security, there's no real negotiation even happening, which sounds like what's going on.
All right. I tweeted provocatively, and many people fell into my trap yesterday, that I suggested this idea.
Now this is more of a thought experiment, but I want to add some meat to it.
The idea was this. Find a remote spot in America, some places away from civilization, and build a generation four nuclear plant But have lots of space allocated around it for future carbon scrubbing technology.
And the carbon scrubbers are a number of startups who do this, as I wrote about in my book, LoserThink, which you should all have by now.
So you can allow them all to test their things.
And here's the thing. Once you get the Generation 4 plant up and running, maybe it takes five years.
You know, you may have to iterate before you've got a plant that's up and running.
So let's say it's up.
Now, I've been informed by people who are smarter than me that it's no point in having an isolated nuclear plant because for it to operate right has to be connected to the grid because it's producing power all the time and that power needs to go somewhere.
So you could connect it to the grid even being far away from civilization.
So that's just one more power line.
And so let me get to the good part of the idea, because I didn't put that in the tweet, and people jumped on it right away.
And then I said, we should charge other countries, the big industrial countries, for someday being able to remove carbon directly from the air with our Generation 4 nuclear plant providing all the free-ish electricity to all these carbon scrubbers.
And we'll say, we'll make a business out of it.
And there's no limit to how big these scrubbing fields can be.
Because, you know, we'll just scale them up as big as we need.
And we'll charge the rest of the world for our services of cleaning the planet.
And here's the fun part, the part that everybody screamed about.
And I said that we'll do it in return.
For rejoining the Paris Accords.
But here's the part I didn't put in the tweet.
Not joining the Paris Accords the way they are, but rather redefining them.
So we would say, for example, here's our deal.
We'll build a giant carbon scrubbing complex to save the world.
You'll kick in so that you're paying for it.
And in return, we'll rejoin the Paris Accords, but it's our only contribution.
So that's the key. So we would agree...
This is all just a thought experiment, right?
So the agreement would be we'll rejoin the Paris Accords, but we'll be a special partner which is only doing one thing.
Just one thing. We're building this giant carbon-scrubbing nuclear-powered facility that could grow to any size, can scale up rather quickly.
Other countries can bring in their startups with carbon stuff and bring it in.
Now... Now, you may be saying to yourself, that's an impractical idea, Scott, for any one of ten reasons.
But here's the fun part.
That's why it's a thought experiment.
The thought experiment is this.
If we take a proposition to the rest of the industrial world, and it looks like this.
Hey, you guys, it's great that you're trying to reduce your carbon footprint and all that, but there's nothing you're doing that will make a difference.
What we're doing might take five years to get it up and running, might take ten, But we're doing something massive.
We're doing something on the scale of a Manhattan project for climate.
We're going to do it in one location, but you need to fund it.
Because if you don't fund it, we're not going to do it, and we're also not going to be part of the Paris Accords.
You fund it, we'll build it.
And then we'll join the Paris Accords, and we will have done...
Here's the fun part. We will have done...
More than all of you put together.
And here's the great part.
Suppose the United States says, we don't really even think there's a problem, because we've got a president who's called climate change a hoax.
So we don't want to spend our money on it, but we would certainly spend other people's money on it.
We would certainly want to spend China's money, India's money, because they're polluting like crazy.
Somebody says, and Fukushima.
So if anybody's new here, Generation 4 is the technology that doesn't melt down, because it can't, and it also eats existing nuclear waste as its fuel.
So it reduces nuclear waste in the world, While eliminating the chance of meltdown because of the design makes that impossible.
The old Fukushima type designs were the slightly more dangerous kind.
Not slightly, far more dangerous because they put their backup generators below sea level in a tsunami zone.
So you can't really compare anything to Fukushima.
Now, I've identified whenever you talk about climate change, there are certain personalities that emerge.
Anytime I tweet at it, there's the CO2 is plant food guy.
Have you ever seen this?
Any tweet thread on climate change, there's always the guy.
It's always a guy. It's never a woman.
It's a guy who comes in to inform everybody who's reading the content.
Do you know CO2 is plant food?
If you remove all the plant food, all the plants will die.
Now, I'm pretty sure every scientist, I am sure, every scientist knows that if you remove too much CO2, the plant would die.
I'm pretty sure we would unplug the machines before that happened.
So, that guy always makes me laugh, because he thinks that nobody's heard that before.
Oh, the CO2 is plant food!
So that's the worst take.
The other worst take is that it's the Sun And that the scientists forgot to include all the elements of the sun.
That's the worst take.
So, you can certainly be a skeptic on climate change, and there's plenty of room for that, I think, even though the consensus is on one side.
There's always room for skepticism.
But don't do the bad ones.
The bad ones are that the scientists forgot the sun when they were studying warming.
Maybe... But I don't think so.
That would be the least likely thing.
All right.
And I believe that's all we have to talk about today.
Break out the hanky for that one.
Yeah, that needs to be a Dale. Scott, CO2 is already down to 0.04% of air.
It's dangerously low.
There he is. There's the CO2 guy.
So I told you that every conversation brings out that guy, and then that guy came out just like that.
Scott, don't you understand?
Don't you understand?
CO2 is plant food.
CO2 used to be way higher in the past.
If it gets lower, all the plants will die.
CO2 plant food guy.
He needs to be like a Saturday Night Live character.
And then there's the sun guy.
It's warming. This is sun.
The scientists forgot to study the sun.
All right. The 16 largest freight ships release more pollution than all personal cars in the world, says Stranger on Twitter.
I don't know that that's true.
It would be really interesting if it were.
Did I celebrate last night?
No, I did not.
Random date changes do not excite me.
And I don't drink.
And Christina doesn't drink either, which is one of our many compatibilities.
Someday I'll run down the list of all the ways that Christina and I are weirdly compatible.
It's like there's just so many things.
People are, I think, surprised that we're a couple for all the obvious reasons.
But you would be twice as surprised how many things we have exactly in common that really matter.
All right. I don't even know why I was talking about that.
Scott, you're doing what you don't like, ridiculing a belief.
What? I love ridiculing beliefs.
Are you kidding me? Alright, I'm just looking at your comments.
Yeah, I was surprised that so many of you were awake just for this.
Was she ravenous?
Somebody says, you got money.
She likes money. I think we could be reasonable adults on my Periscope.
Is there any such thing as a marriage that isn't about money, at least in some important way?
If there's anybody out there who's getting married...
And they haven't considered, you know, both of your financial situations and what it looks like together, you really ought not get married.
So the very minimum, like, I guess the minimum standard for even thinking about getting married is, do the finances work?
If you add the two of you together, do you die or do you do better?
So every time anybody says, oh, it's about money in any relationship, whether it's mine or anybody else, I always say, how would it not be?
Isn't that like one of the most basic things you've got to work out?
That the money works for both of you in whatever way?
So... Do you think Trump and Kim signed the agreement just to signal progress?
Yes, in a sense.
I mean, anything that was...
But is there any signed agreement?
We don't have a... Do we have a signed agreement with North Korea?
I guess there was some kind of agreement that said we would work toward denuclearizing the entire Korean Peninsula, but it was nonspecific.
▲
Export Selection