Episode 788 Scott Adams: The Whitest Democrats Running For President, Ukraine Confusion
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Content:
General Flynn might not need a pardon
Democrat debates and Van Jones takeaway
CNN's Abby Philip's questionable questions
Climate change wasn't emphasized in the debate?
Articulate Pete Buttigieg
Klobuchar's urgency voice
Biden gaffe watch
If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link:
I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Come on in here. Stream on in here for your morning streaming and your morning simultaneous sip, which is coming up.
As soon as we get enough of you in here who are thirsty and ready for a bit of simultaneity, and I think we're there.
All right. You know what you need to play along?
Doesn't take much. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I'm partial to coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
This simultaneous sip.
Go. Mmm.
Ah. All right, there are a few things going on.
Number one, Michael Schellenberger will be on C-SPAN testifying very soon, any minute now, to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
And he'll be talking about the, quote, green nuclear deal.
Yay! So, in other words, our Congress and the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, which I imagine is exactly the right place, will be hearing a positive message about the potential for nuclear power.
So, they'll be hearing it from the right guy at the right time and the right place.
That's good news. Now, will that message break through and change anything?
We'll see. But it's definitely the right person talking to the right people.
So, system-wise, the system is working.
General Flynn has withdrawn his guilty plea.
What? So apparently there's some...
Some disagreement on whether General Flynn did everything he was supposed to do and whether the government did everything they promised to do, which is keep a man in jail if he cooperated.
But apparently now they're talking about putting him in jail because they don't think he cooperated enough.
And so they've withdrawn their plea deal.
Suddenly it's starting to make sense why he hasn't already been pardoned.
Do you see it yet?
Because I thought the end of the year would be sort of a perfect time to pardon Flynn, but there might be a smarter play here.
It's entirely possible that General Flynn is going to win this thing flat.
He might not need a pardon.
He might win this the old-fashioned way.
I say this a lot, but if you ever get in a dispute that becomes sort of a chess match, which is what this legal proceedings against Flynn are kind of a chess match, the last person you want to be in on a sort of a strategy chess match, the last person you want to compete against is a general, literally somebody who learned how to do Stuff like this.
In other words, somebody who knows how to play a chess game.
So, it could be that Flynn is trying to win it outright and get just cleared in the normal way, because if he got pardoned, or whatever the word is, if you haven't been convicted, it would always look like he was guilty.
Wouldn't it? It would always look a little like he was guilty if the President had to bail him out.
But it looks like he's going to fight it the old-fashioned way.
And I think the President, probably not directly, but I think because it seems likely the President would pardon him if things went the wrong way, it changes his risk assessment.
If you thought you had no help and no hope of any help from the outside, you might play it a little cautiously, say, well, I don't want to go to jail, but I'd better take this six months because it's better than what might happen if I fight it.
His risk profile might have changed.
He might say, now, I might as well fight it.
I've got, let's say, a one in three chance of winning it outright.
But if I don't, I'm no worse off, because I've always got the pardon option.
And I'm assuming, I'm making a gigantic assumption here, that the pardon is in the bag, which I think it is, because I think the public that supports the president seems pretty firmly on the side of helping out Flynn.
So watch for that. All right, let's talk about the debates.
Is anybody enough of a masochist that you watch the debates?
I literally fell asleep.
I mean, actually blacked out and fell asleep about halfway through the debates.
So I had to catch up with them by looking at the coverage.
Now, I think looking at the coverage of the debates is sort of everything you need to do.
Because any impact that the debates are going to have are going to be because of those few moments that percolated up and the press decided that those moments are the ones that are going to emphasize.
So you can just look at the press coverage and you know what matters.
Because if the press doesn't report on a particular answer, well, it kind of didn't matter.
Because not many of the public are watching the debates, but a lot of them might watch the reaction to the debates.
I would say absolutely nothing happened.
And I loved Van Jones's takeaway on this.
Van Jones said, quote, there was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out.
There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out.
There wasn't one person on the stage that Van Jones thinks would not be absolutely obliterated by Trump.
And then he said, Van Jones said, none of them are prepared for, quote, what Donald Trump will do to us.
He says us, which is accurate, I guess.
I love the fact First of all, I'm a big fan of Van Jones.
So you may disagree because he's a Democrat and you don't like that.
But as Democrats go, he's the smartest one.
Now, the most interesting thing about hearing Van Jones say that nobody on the stage looked ready for running for president is that if Van Jones were running, he'd be the top guy.
Am I wrong? If Van Jones had been part of this mix and he were on stage, wouldn't he be the nominee?
I mean, seriously.
Is there anybody on the stage who could last against Van Jones?
Now, I don't think he's shown any interest in being president, but he's stronger as a candidate than every one of those people.
In part because he's not a partisan, meaning that, well, he clearly prefers Democrats and says that directly, but he's willing to look at issues on both the pro and the con side, which you don't see that often.
You don't even see it from pundits.
So he would absolutely be the front-runner if he were running.
But it looks like the Democrats have set themselves an impossible task.
So here are the expectations from the Democrats' own supporters, all right?
So in order to win, the Democratic candidate who wins has to do two things at the same time.
Be really nice to the other candidates because they're the nice party, and they've made a big deal about being civil and nice to each other.
So whoever wins has to be civil and nice to the other Democrats.
At the same time, That person is tearing the other ones apart.
In other words, to show enough toughness to be qualified to run against Trump, you're going to have to show your toughness.
But the only way you can do it at this stage is by showing it on other Democrats.
But you can't.
Those are two impossibles.
Well, it's an impossible that they can both happen at the same time.
So you see the Democrats setting themselves up with a no-win situation.
We have to be kind and also rip apart our other people in our party.
Can't do it. There's actually no space for them to do the thing they know they have to do.
And they've created this situation themselves.
Did you ever see the Republicans do that?
Maybe. I mean, maybe there was some Republican who said, well, we should be nicer to each other.
That probably happened. But did anybody really try to talk Trump out of being Trump?
Not really. I don't think so.
I mean, a lot of people said it was a bad idea to be so caustic and stuff, but I feel as though the Republicans let their candidates be their candidates, and the Democrats are just absolutely killing themselves.
You know, the circular firing squad reference seems to fit.
Now, I turned on the debates primarily to watch...
I felt like I was watching the Democrats doing everything they could to lose the black vote.
Did it feel like that to you?
All I could see was a whole bunch of white faces losing the black vote in real time.
Because if you're flipping through the station, let's say you haven't paid too much attention, you're one of those voters who you'll get serious closer to election day, but right now you're just letting the noise play out.
Wait for the noise to die down, you'll get serious.
You're flipping through the channels and you come to the debates.
You say, oh, I haven't been paying too much attention.
Let's see who's running for a candidate to be our next president.
White person, white person, white person, white person, white person, I'm out!
I don't see how the Democrats can possibly compete with not a single minority face on there.
Well, you could say that, actually, women are no longer a minority, since the last woman who ran got most of the popular vote.
And as Elizabeth Warren said, the two women on the stage are the only ones who have won every one of their elections, which was a great line, by the way.
Very well done. Meanwhile, Trump is at his rally, and while the Democrats are up there losing the black vote by being as white as they can possibly be and standing in the same place, while being hypocrites because where's your diversity?
Trump said this, quote, in his speech last night, Republicans are fighting for citizens from every background and from every race, religion, color, and creed.
We are a movement for all Americans who believe in fairness and justice, equality and dignity, opportunity and safety.
We are a big tent and a big party with big ideas for the future.
So President Trump is saying directly and forcefully That the Republican Party is the place for everyone.
Now, I've said this before, but it's one of those things that gets smarter over time.
If you just wait for this, it'll just keep getting smarter.
When I first said it, it sounded kind of stupid.
But just watch. It's going to morph over time from, well, that's stupid, Scott.
That's the dumbest thing you've ever said, to, well, that's starting to make a little bit of sense now.
Now, wait for six months from now when people say, that makes total sense now.
And here's the statement.
The most natural fit for black voters is the Republican Party.
Here's why. The Democrats are obsessed with identity, and black people are only one of the identities.
So they're scrambling and fighting for a place at the table in their own party.
Who has to fight for a place at the party, a place at the table, in their own party?
Why are black people fighting for representation in their own party?
Meanwhile, Republicans have one overriding characteristic, which I say all the time, but it's the most important thing.
And if you can find an exception to this, good luck.
But here's my statement.
I want you to fact check this all you want.
That if you're a typical Republican, you know, there are always weird exceptions to things, but if you're a typical Republican, are you okay with anyone who is a legal citizen, Who respects the Constitution and follows the law?
A-plus. If that person also is religious, a Christian, for example, well, extra credit for Republicans.
I'm not a Republican, by the way, I'm just describing.
If you're black and you only have to do those things to be completely accepted, completely, no, there's absolutely no There's no wiggle room there.
The Republican view is if you follow the Constitution, follow the laws, great!
You're A+. So if you want to be respected for who you are instead of who you look like, Republicans are the best game.
Because if you hang around with Democrats, you know that they are going to judge you by strangers.
That's right. Democrats are going to judge you by other black people who are not you because they've decided you're a group, you're an identity.
You must be treated as a group.
Republicans say nonsense.
You are an individual.
Why should you be held back by the group?
Because Republicans aren't holding you back.
There's no Republican who says you can't rise to any level you want.
President, obviously. A Republican is going to help you.
A Republican is going to help you get a job.
A Republican is going to help you network.
A Republican is going to help you with advice and mentoring.
Republicans are very helpful.
If you want to get ahead, make some Republican friends.
They're the ones who are going to say, hey, try this, do this, this will work, come to church with me.
If you want to get ahead, make a Republican friend.
That's one of the best advices you'll ever see.
You know, good luck finding better advice than that.
All right. So, over time, in six months, you're going to hear people saying, wait a minute.
Isn't the most natural place for black voters to be in the Republican Party where everybody can be exactly equal?
I mean exactly equal.
Because if you're a citizen and you're following the Constitution, you're exactly equal.
There's no wiggle room if you're a Republican.
That's exactly equal.
Especially, you know, if you're a Bible-loving Republican, extra equal.
Whereas the Democrats, well...
I don't know. You're going to have to figure out if your little group of Democrats is liked or respected as much as the other little group of Democrats.
That's a whole different game, and I don't know how you win that one.
So the natural place for the black voters, as Candace Owen has been telling people for three years now, is the Republican Party.
And again, I'm not a Republican.
I'm not a Republican.
I'm just saying that's where the fit makes sense to me.
Alright, and also you would have the most leverage in the Republican Party because there are fewer members, there are fewer black people in the Republican Party, and anybody who's got a good idea, then again, is compatible with Republicans and the Constitution and everything, you're going to be heard. You have a much better chance of being a notable, important voice in the Republican Party if you're black, just because of scarcity.
Let's talk about more on the debates.
Apparently, Elizabeth Warren, I couldn't tell if she refused to shake Bertie's hand at the end, or it was just an awkward moment where when Bertie put out his hand to shake hands, she was still several steps away.
And I think it just seemed awkward to maybe walk with her hand out.
So it's not entirely clear to me that she made a decision to not shake hands with him.
It might have been an oversight.
Just an awkward situation.
But on camera, it looked like she refused.
So to the public, all that matters is it looked like it.
And I think that's how people will interpret it.
Now, as by now most of you know, that the weirdest thing happened when Bernie was asked about his statement that a woman couldn't win the presidency, which, of course, he never said.
He said, his response was, so he was asked by, let's see, Abby Phillips, I think?
Yeah, Abby Phillips asked about that statement, and Bernie said, well, as a matter of fact, I didn't say it.
That's pretty clear. As a matter of fact, I didn't say it.
And Bernie is very credible.
Love him or hate him, it's not likely Bernie is lying on this.
It's very unlikely. I mean, so deeply unlikely, I don't even count it as a possibility.
Because he has earned that.
Now, I'll say this over and over again.
Sanders has earned the credibility which I am assigning to him, in my mind, you know, my own personal view.
He's earned it. He absolutely earned trust on this statement, and Warren has absolutely not earned our trust on this disagreement.
So after Bernie says, well, as a matter of fact, I didn't say it, Then she asked, are you unequivocally denying it happened?
And Bertie says, that is correct.
That's as clear as you can be.
Unequivocally denying? That is correct.
And then Phillips ignores the fact that he's categorically denied it happened, and she goes to Warren, quote, What did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?
So she acts like it's a fact.
After the guy who was in the room, 50% of all the people who were in the room just told her it didn't happen, and he's far more credible than Warren is on this question.
Now, let me tell you what almost certainly did happen.
Oh, let me finish this point.
So if CNN is trying to act as though they're not actively trying to kill Sanders this time too, They're not doing a good job of acting, because it's sort of looking like CNN doesn't want Sanders to be president.
They reported that he said this about women, and then the way this question was asked, like he's just a liar, which is not the case, I'm sure.
That's just so biased.
Even other Democrats noticed it.
So even other Democrats are mad.
So we have this weird situation that whoever wins the nomination is going to have a whole bunch of other angry Democrats.
Doesn't matter which way you go.
Imagine if Warren wins the nomination.
What will the Bernie supporters do?
Will they just say, well, similar policies will just move to Warren after Warren said what she said about Bernie?
And most of them, if not all of them, believe it's not true.
I don't know if they're going.
I don't know if Bernie supporters will leave the most credible, whether you like his policies or not, a separate question, but as a human being, as a politician, he's the most authentic, credible person the Democrats have.
If you support that, authentic and credible, How do you switch parties, or not switch parties, but switch candidates to Warren if she won the nomination?
How do you do that? I don't think you do.
I think Trump picks up a lot of those votes, just like last time.
And no matter which way it goes, I think somebody's going to be angry at whoever.
So let's go through... Oh, so here's what I think happened with that Sanders-Warren conversation, and see if this doesn't sound like Your experience all the time.
All right? Imagine instead of Warren and Sanders, it's a married couple.
This will make it easier for you.
Watch this. Imagine that instead of being politicians, Warren and Sanders are just a married couple, and they had a private conversation, and then when they talk about it later, they have two versions.
Bernie says, I didn't say that.
And Elizabeth Warren says, you did say a woman can't be president.
What really happened?
Winded backwards? You know, reverse engineer it?
Let me tell you what happened.
Warren and Sanders were talking because Warren was, I believe, fact-checking on this, I think Warren was telling Bernie she was going to run against him.
Or thinking about it, or probably, that was the conversation.
What was Bernie going to say to Elizabeth Warren when he found out that she was going to run against him using essentially his policies?
What would Bernie say about that?
Well, if he's smart, which he is, if he's persuasive, which apparently he is, he would say something that didn't sound like women can't win, but certainly suggested it would be harder.
So it does seem to me that what Bernie was trying to do was talk her out of running.
If you're trying to talk somebody out of running against Trump and the person you're talking to is a woman, one of the good ways to do it is to say, you know, you're going to be drawing attacks for your gender that I would not be drawing.
So you're going to have a harder time because Bernie believes that being a woman will attract more kinds of heat that Bernie would not attract.
Which would be sort of suggesting indirectly that maybe she couldn't win.
But that's not a definitive statement.
It's only a statement that she has an extra burden because she's running against Trump, and it might not be an extra burden if it were somebody else.
Now, two people are a married couple.
They walk out of that conversation.
The husband, let's call him Bernie, said, it's going to be hard to win.
As a woman, you've got extra obstacles.
What would be the way the wife, and this analogy, Elizabeth Warren, how would she characterize that same conversation?
Well, if she's like everybody else in the world, she'd say, my husband just said I can't win because I'm a woman.
Is that what he said? No.
No. He would have been talking about the extra obstacle, which is completely different from woman can't win, as Bernie rightly says.
You know, Hillary got three million more votes.
He's been saying for 30 years or 40 years that a woman could be president.
It's the most inconsistent thing anybody could ever say.
There's no way in the world he said that to somebody who could tell somebody else.
It just didn't happen. But like every other personal conversation in the world, if you say there's a problem with something and the other person doesn't like that you're saying there's a problem with something, how will they characterize it?
They will characterize it as An absurd absolute.
It's what you see everywhere all the time.
The absurd absolute is where you take somebody's assessment of the risks.
Hey, there's extra risks.
And then you turn it illegitimately into, he says it can't happen.
It happens all over Twitter.
It happens in all of your personal conversations.
It happens in every relationship.
It's the most common misinterpretation That a probable gets turned into a can't.
It's the most common thing.
Yes, I believe that's in my book, Loser Think.
So that's almost certainly what happened.
So I think Warren's credibility is falling.
Now let's talk about the first question that I think Wolf Blitzer asked was why they thought they could be commander in chief.
And I gotta tell you, that was the weakest bunch of potential commanders in chief I've ever seen.
Let me tell you what they all did wrong.
Like, so wrong.
So wrong that even I could have done it better.
I mean, seriously?
With no practice, I could have gotten on that debate stage and answered that question better, totally, honestly, completely seriously.
I could have done better.
And I'm saying that because many of you could have done better.
Almost anybody could have done better.
Here's what they did wrong.
Now, of course, they're talking to their base because it's the primary, so they're not trying to win the general.
But if you say, why are you qualified to be commander in chief?
Here's the wrong answer.
Well, I would never go to war.
I would never use my military.
I would just negotiate.
What I'd do is I'd negotiate.
I wouldn't be going to war.
What did they just tell every foreign country that might want to get a little adventurous?
What did they just tell Russia?
Take whatever you want.
That's what they said.
They basically just said, if Russia takes over Ukraine, that they're going to negotiate with them.
What? Maybe that's all you can do.
But my point is, my point is not even whether it's smart To be thinking negotiate first probably is, but the way they presented it to the world is as surrenderers in chief.
It seemed like they were competing to see who would be the least threatening to the people we want to threaten.
Now, is our situation in Iran better because they believe that President Trump would launch the missiles?
I think so. I mean, to me, it looks like President Trump's continuous, credible threat of violence looks like it makes a difference to me.
Looks like it works.
How would Iran be acting if the only thing they had to worry about is that the Commander-in-Chief of the United States would negotiate a little bit harder?
Well, I'm going to negotiate you You better stop funding those proxies or watch me negotiate you.
I will negotiate you so hard.
Weapons? No!
I'm not going to use any weapons.
Are you kidding me? I'm not even going to cyber attack because that's like a weapon too.
But I will negotiate you like a surrender in chief negotiates.
I think Van Jones is correct.
When you see them, they all look weak, particularly for a job which one of the greatest assets of the job that you could bring to the job was the impression of strength.
Trump did that.
Trump brought to the job the impression of strength.
That's important.
They're all offering to bring the impression of weakness.
Are you kidding me? You're running for president to be the commander-in-chief, and you're telling the world, I'd like to bring weakness to the job?
I mean, not with those words, but when you say, you know, negotiate, negotiate, don't want to use that military, it just sounds like you're going to let anybody do anything they want.
And maybe that's a good answer.
So even Democrats are Angry about why the Democrats are not fighting with each other, but of course they can't.
They're all stuck.
Now, I didn't see the whole debate, but it seemed to me I'm having trouble understanding why climate change wasn't pretty much the only thing they wanted to talk about.
Because it seems to me that climate change, if it's the big problem that they claim, It feels like that should have been the central point of all of their presentations.
They should have, you know, worked it back to that.
They all mentioned it, but it just seemed weak because I... It just felt like a tack on, or I have to throw this in because it sounds good.
I'm not sure I believed any of them were serious about it.
I guess that's the thing.
None of them looked...
Yeah, Steyer did make, as somebody said in the comments, Steyer did make climate change more of a central thing.
But since Steyer himself is not too important to the race at this point, he's sort of a sideshow.
It just felt like it wasn't getting the level of importance that their own team believes it should have.
When Biden was asked about his qualifications for commander-in-chief, he was asked to defend his record on Iraq, which he says, to his credit, was a mistake.
So the front-runner for the Democrats He's running to be commander-in-chief, and he's claiming that the most important decision he's ever made that was in that realm of foreign defense things, he got wrong.
And that's the only thing I remember about his answer.
Because there were other things he was sort of on the team There were other situations where Obama did something and Biden was just sort of, he's on the team.
I'm Vice President. Hey, I'm on the team.
I'm part of this.
So he took credit for some things which he wasn't too directly involved in.
He was just one of the people on the team.
I call that the Wally play.
If you're familiar with the Dilbert comic strip, Wally is the lazy one in the office.
And one of his tricks is he always joins a project that is going to succeed, whether he does good work or not, and then he can always get credit for being on the project.
So I think Biden is pursuing the Wally approach.
Well, I was on the Obama team when something good happened, when he killed Osama bin Laden, even though I told him not to.
So the two most famous things were the war in Iraq, That he says he got wrong and telling Obama not to try to kill Bin Laden that day until he had more information.
And I'm thinking, those are the only things I remember.
I don't remember anything else about Joe Biden's record.
Do you? Quick, mention all of his accomplishments in that area.
I can't think of any, but I can think of two really big, high-profile things.
One he admits he got wrong, and the other one he just got wrong.
That's tough to sell.
And still, the field is so weak, he's still the frontrunner.
All right. I think it was Scott, who was it?
Scott, I forget his name, Democrat Scott somebody, who talked about the Democrats being in a quote, pitiful crouch, which was a great A great play on words.
What is his name? Scott.
You'll tell me. He's one of the regular Democrat pundits on CNN. Anyway.
Yeah, and somebody is prompting me in the comments.
A lot of the Democrats, I believe, have said that the Iran nuclear deal was working.
Well, what does that mean?
What does it mean that the Iran nuclear deal was working?
Wasn't Iran killing Americans and funding proxies to do terror attacks?
What about that?
That counts for nothing?
What about the fact that after the Iran nuclear deal timed out, they would have done all the research and been ready to just become a nuclear force, and there were only how many years left?
And they have a long, long time frame.
If you don't mention the fact that Iran was definitely going to get a nuclear weapon in a few years, you're not really qualified for commander in chief.
It would be one thing to say the Iran nuclear deal would keep them from getting a nuclear bomb for X number of years.
That might actually be a pretty defensible statement.
But to say that the deal prevents them from getting a nuclear weapon is exactly wrong.
It guarantees them a nuclear weapon after the end of the deal.
It guarantees it. Because they'll have all this time to do research, which they're allowed to do, and then they just put it together.
Kind of a guarantee. All right.
So let's talk about...
The bottom line on the debates is that it didn't move the needle, so that's good for the frontrunners.
I thought Buttigieg has by far the most clever and...
I can say this because Buttigieg is a white male, so I can call him articulate.
If you don't know this, you don't want to use the word articulate about anybody who's not a white male.
You're allowed to say it in that case, but it becomes like a backhanded insult if you say, you know, if you said a black candidate was articulate, it would be considered an insult because, well, why are you even bringing it up?
Why do you even have to mention that unless you think it's some kind of weird exception?
But that said, Pete Buttigieg is articulate as heck.
And man, can that guy put a sentence together?
He's clearly the smartest.
Yeah, I think also what we're seeing is the benefit of youth.
When you see Pete Buttigieg handle a question, you're seeing somebody operating at, I would say, his biological peak.
I mean, yeah, he could even get better and smarter and more experienced, but man, is he on his game.
The complexity and the level of his answers was actually really impressive.
However, There is a however here.
He was the smartest, most articulate, complicated speaker.
However, nobody wants that.
Nobody wants that.
Seriously. You know, as a mayor, he would have been better as a city manager, you know, the guy who does the actual work.
I think Buttigieg is looking like a really good senator.
If Buttigieg, let's say he doesn't make it to the nomination, but someday decides to run for the Senate, he looks like exactly the kind of guy you want as a senator, assuming that you're a Democrat.
Because I like the guy who's really in the details, can really analyze something, he's a good communicator, clearly he's going to understand things at deeper levels.
But man, you see him standing next to Trump, And Trump is going to make him look like Professor Doody.
He's going to look like this wonky professor who can't communicate with the public.
Pete Buttigieg did a great job of communicating with people who watch democratic debates.
Because they're probably above average in intelligence and knowledge about things.
And so it was probably pretty impressive if you're a CNN watcher of debates.
But if you're just a voter, I don't think you want somebody that smart, if you know what I mean.
People really don't love that smart.
They want you to be smart in a streetwise way, smart in a political way, smart in a leader way, but they don't really want you that smart.
That smart is off-putting because people don't relate to it at all.
So that's his biggest problem.
I thought Klobuchar, there's something about the way she talks This sounds weak.
Does anybody else pick that up?
It's in her voice. And it's not because it's a female voice.
I'm not saying that.
So what I'm going to say now has nothing to do with her gender at all.
But there's something when she talks with some kind of urgency that makes her voice quiver a little bit.
There's something about the confidence of her voice that's missing.
Which, again, would make her a great senator.
But president, you just need that little bit of extra gravitas, confidence.
Maybe it's missing some confidence?
I don't know what it is.
Wavery, somebody is saying?
But are you picking that up too?
Now, by the way, I think Klobuchar is a really strong candidate.
I think she's smart.
I think she got this far.
As she said, she's won everything.
She would be strong in the Midwest.
She's centrist.
She's where the voters in her party are.
She's a really strong candidate.
Experience-wise and skill-wise, she got this far.
And I would say that my opinion of her has gone up every time I see her, because she's just a solid, solid candidate, I think.
But the voters are not, for whatever reason, the voters in the Democratic Party are not finding her Let's say, inspirational.
So I think she lacks the inspirational element, and I think that's going to put a cap on her.
Bernie was okay, and Biden, I thought Biden, it seemed like he was barely avoiding a gaffe.
The entire time he was talking, it felt like an old man driving without his glasses.
I think there's a right turn here.
I'm pretty sure the speed limit is 25.
Is that a car?
Or I can't tell. He missed all the other pedestrians.
But I felt like they were all near misses.
It felt like he was right on the edge of gaffing because he would stop and he'd correct what he said to make it more accurate.
He would clarify as he went.
It felt like he was struggling for coherence.
Now, he was coherent-ish.
You know, he spoke in generality, so there wasn't much there to grab onto.
But he held on, so maybe that's good enough.
Let's talk about something else.
So there's new evidence, new evidence in documents and texts and messages and stuff regarding Ukraine and the impeachment process.
And if you haven't been following it, let me explain the new evidence, all right?
And I'll try to give this in the simplest way because it's a complicated story.
Here are the players.
Marie Yovanovitch, Yudi Giuliani, Robert Hyde, President Zelensky, Lev Parnes, Joe and Hunter Biden, General Yuri Lutsenko, and Victoria Tenzing.
That's all you need to know.
That's the end of the story.
Now, there's some details to the story, but here's the rule.
Are you ready? If there are more than three people in the story, it doesn't matter.
Watch how often that rule works.
Now, not every time, but I used to be in a relationship in which I had a girlfriend who would tell stories that had too many people in them, and I realized that when you got to the fourth character in the story, I couldn't follow it anymore.
It became too complicated.
So her stories were all, okay, so then, you know, Bob was over there, and he was with Janice, and Janice's brother came in, and he was saying that her sister, and I'd be, well, hold on, hold on, I'm not going to follow any of the story.
Four characters? That's too much story for me.
If you can get that down to three, I'm going to follow along.
But here they have a one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
At minimum, it's an eight-character story, and that's not even counting the president.
That's without Trump.
It's an eight-character story.
How many people in the public are going to follow a story about Ukraine on something that feels like old news that involves eight characters operating in a way That corresponds to and connects to a story with 10 more players about something with impeachment and Ukraine and something about the letter and it was the perfect letter but maybe it wasn't perfect and who did Trump talk to and what were the dates of that and who exactly has information about the stuff that was and does it even matter?
Can he do that anyway?
The most complicated story you've ever seen and watching CNN Wrestle with this is hilarious, because it's a story that can't be told.
It literally can't be told.
I mean, you could write it down in an accurate way, which all the details are there, but nobody's going to understand it.
If they bother to read it.
It's all just becoming this same...
Yeah, somebody said conflate in the comments.
It's all starting to conflate into the same stuff.
It doesn't even feel like new.
So here's a little test.
Are you ready for this? Find an article about these new shocking bombshell revelations.
That involve Lev Parnas, some kind of a loose associate of Rudy Giuliani with this Ukraine stuff.
Find an article, and then see how far you have to read into the article before you can find what the point is.
I've never found it.
So I read a very long article on CNN.com, and I was trying to figure out, okay, it's a bombshell, it's new information, it's damning.
What exactly? And I kept reading and reading, looking for the part where they say, and here's the important part.
Here's why we're telling you this.
Here's the main point.
Here's the bombshell.
And I kept reading and reading, and then I ran on a text.
And I don't know what it was.
I mean, I actually don't know.
What was the bombshell?
I keep reading stories and seeing stories, and I don't even know.
And I even tried.
I put work into it.
I actually put some muscle into it.
I tried to understand the story and I couldn't.
There's nothing there.
All right. Here's the funniest comment.
From Representative Val Demings, a Florida Democrat in the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee.
And this is what she told CNN when asked about the Parnas documents, which is what I've been talking about.
She said, quote, I think it's something we can't ignore.
Do you know what this is?
This is something you can really You can really ignore.
All right, so Bella is out too, says, I'm very disingenuous and I'm not that stupid.
Well, you got blocked.
Reasons only.
Insults to your host are not allowed.
YouTube continues to demonetize me for no reason, and so I do a commercial a day, which I'll do again.
So my content is also mirrored on Bitshoot, B-I-T-C-H-U-T-E, and Rockfin.
You have to be a subscriber to see it on Rockfin, R-O-K-F-I-N. If you Google either Bitshoot or Rockfin, you'll find their sites, and just Google me to find it.
And let me tell you that my YouTube channel is this content.
Do you think there's anything about this content that an advertiser should be afraid of compared to other content where they swear and they do just about everything?
Well, well, well. So there's somebody at YouTube who's demonetizing me.
It's probably one individual whose actual job it is, who sees my content and says, ha, ha, ha.
Demonetize. I'm watching this story about the law enforcement, and Bill Barr wants Apple to help them break into an Apple device that this terrorist had.
And Apple either can't or won't, or there's some disagreement about whether they're helping or not.
I tend to believe Apple in this.
They probably are helping, but there's nothing they can do.
They made it encrypted for a reason.
I'm kind of torn on this, because on one hand, I do want law enforcement to be able to find terrorists and all that.
On the other hand, I kind of like the fact that nobody can get into my phone unless they have my password.
I kind of like that.
So I'm kind of torn on this.
I could go either way on this.
But I definitely respect Apple for having privacy on their phone.
That's a completely supportable position, even if that privacy is working against the government's interests in law enforcement.
Have you all seen the Bernie video?
It's about... Project Veritas has a video in which a Bernie, one of Bernie's...
What would you call it?
Campaign people. I forget who.
I don't care what his name is.
We're saying that if Bernie doesn't win, Wisconsin would burn, and that the police would get beaten up.
And I'm thinking, is that guy not fired yet?
Because if that guy's still on the campaign, I think Bernie's going to have some questions to answer.
Has he been fired yet?
Somebody says yes.
Anyway, if he's not fired by the end of the day, I think you have to worry about Bernie.
Now, here's a Bernie thought.
Let me ask you this.
A lot of people think that Bernie, at his current age, he's not too old to be president.
Would you want a president who is too old to drive?
Because Bernie does drive, I believe.
I just saw a video of him pulling out of his driveway.
And it seems to me, somebody's saying that the name of the Bernie campaign guy was Kyle Jurak.
That sounds right. But it seems to me that if you think a guy or a woman would not be qualified to drive an automobile because they're too old, and I'd be real worried about getting in the car with Bernie, wouldn't you?
I mean, seriously, if Bernie is driving, Do you want to be in the passenger seat?
Serious question.
Would you feel safe?
And if you don't, well, maybe you should find some meaning in that.
One of Rupert Murdoch's sons is mad at Fox News.
Which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's parent company, because Fox News is blaming, or at least some of the pundits are, not the news people, but some of the pundits or opinion pieces, opinion people on Fox News are blaming the fires that are just devastating Australia, blaming it on arson instead of climate change.
To which I say, loser think, loser think.
If there are two reasons for a thing, and you're only willing to say there's one reason for a thing, you should not be listened to.
If you're saying that the problem with Australia is only arson, or you're saying that it's only climate change, you should not be listened to.
Why can't it be both?
Wouldn't that be the more likely thing?
That it's climate change that you wouldn't have to worry about that much if not for 200 arsons.
If you didn't have 200 arsons, would you care that there was a climate change?
Because nothing would be on fire.
I mean, and if it was, it would be limited compared to 200 fires.
So, the same way I criticized Hillary Clinton for saying a new reason why she lost every week, When in fact, it was a thousand reasons.
A thousand things had to happen just the way they happened for the result to be just what it was.
So this whole climate change versus fire thing is just dumb people arguing with each other.
If you can't say it might be both, you don't belong in a public conversation about it.
Now, I would respect people who say there is no climate change element at all, But I think you have to say that if there is some climate change, you need both the climate change and the arson to get the problem you have.
If you take any one of those away, you might have a different outcome, although the climate part people will debate.
I saw a very convincing graphic that showed that, showing the Earth warming.
And I would say at this point that the Earth is warming Probably is as close to effect as you can get.
And probably also that CO2 is part of that.
We don't know how much. You know, that part's a little harder.
But I think that's part of the fact, too.
The only part that I think deserves serious questioning is the economic projections that come from that over 80 years.
Nobody can project an 80-year thing.
And if I had to predict, if there were any kind of a betting market, I would say this.
This is what I would say.
If there were a betting market, I would bet that we'll be fine and that fewer people will die in the future from major disasters than in the past.
Because that's the way it's always been, and we'll probably continue.
So I don't think there's going to be an earth-killing event, but it's worth worrying about.
How does global warming stop rain?
Well... Do you really want the answer to that?
If global warming changes the weather patterns, you would expect some places to get warmer, some places to get cooler, some places to rain more than the usual, some places to rain less than usual.
So it's the disruption that's the problem.
It's not some general continuous warming that affects everybody the same way.
You're talking about disruptions Which make everything different than it was.
And if you've built a society around a certain temperature and climate and it changes, well, your society is going to have to adjust to that.
And that could be expensive and dangerous.
Sunspots, plate tectonics.
Yeah, I've said before, and I'll say again, the worst take on climate change is that it's the sun.
Now, Even if you're right, it's the worst take because it assumes that the scientists haven't really looked into that.
They have.
They have. They looked into the sun.
That's in the top five of things you look into if you're a climate scientist, because the sun creates a warmth.
So you've got to look at the sun.
So everybody who says the climate scientist forgot to look at the sun or they got it wrong, that's the worst take, even if you're right.
You could actually accidentally be right about that, that it's really the sun, and amazingly, all the scientists got the sun wrong or they forgot to look at it.
I mean, it's possible.
But it's not a good take.
What's the optimal CO2 level?
Well, here's the other worst take on climate.
Here's the other worst take.
CO2 used to be much higher in the past.
That is an uninformed take.
True. It's a true statement.
But it's also true that when CO2 was high, a number of other variables, including the sun, were different.
So, looking at what CO2 was in the past is irrelevant if you go into the far past, because there were too many other things different about the Earth.
So it's not a comparison.
Sorry, Scott, the IPCC is adding the sun to the next report.
That supports what I'm saying.
That doesn't refute what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the scientists have looked at the sun, and that's not what they consider the primary mover of climate change.
So if it's included in the IPCC report, it won't be included as, oh, we found out it's just the sun.
That's not going to happen.
All right. The Sun was different, yes.
In early Earth life, when CO2 was much higher, the brightness and the warmth of the Sun was substantially different.
That is correct. That is one of the big variables that was different in the past.
What if climate scientists are lying?
Somebody says. Why are scientists automatically beyond reproach?
I never said that.
Now the Australia thing is confusing me because even if it's climate change, why are they blaming their own government?
Does that make sense? The Australians seem to be blaming their own government for climate change.
What is the total percentage of climate change that Australia is responsible for?
1%? 1%?
There's nothing that Australia can do by itself that would make any difference to climate change.
So I don't even understand what the protesters are complaining about.
They should be protesting China, right?
And India. Never hear them talk about solar cycles, because it's not too relevant, apparently.
It would take a lot to convert me, somebody says.
Somebody's saying that the CO2, one of the bad informations on the internet you'll find is that CO2 follows temperatures instead of the other way around.
Or no, you'll see on the internet, the skeptics will say, no, the warmth happens first and then the CO2 follows.
That's been debunked.
If you don't know that's been debunked, just Google it and you'll see the debunking.
Apply both venues reporting rule.
Breitbart, not Fox.
I don't know what your topic is there.
CO2 has never been higher.
Well, there are experts saying it was once higher.
Failure to do controlled burning.
That may be part of it. I don't know enough about that topic.
Somebody says CO2 is a lagging indicator.
I just told you, if you Google it, that has been debunked.
So it's one of the common things that skeptics say, but it's debunked.
You know, the scientists have looked at it and they know that that's just not the case.
It doesn't follow. But you will, and I remember I've read the debunking and it has something to do with the way the graph is made, blah, blah.
So it is just not true that it follows.
How many? There was cooling during the Industrial Revolution.
Yeah, all of those things have been debunked.
So basically, Everything that you believe is a debunking scientific fact has been debunked by the actual scientists.
There are no exceptions to that.
If you think that you have one that has not been debunked, just Google it.
Google what you think is true that hasn't been debunked along with the word debunked.
It'll pop right up.
Now, I want to say carefully that none of this means that science is right, because often there could be a consensus and they could be wrong.
I'm just saying that the people who know how to debunk this stuff have debunked all of these common skeptical things.
If you haven't seen the debunk, You shouldn't be believing the people who make these claims.