All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 14, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
53:16
Episode 819 Scott Adams: Talking About Barr, Stone, Swalwell and Taking Questions on Valentine's Day
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Happy Valentine's Day.
Come on in here. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
And it will feature, yes it will, a special Valentine's version of this simultaneous sip.
What makes it special, you ask?
Well, you're going to have to wait and see.
But I think you'll agree, it's pretty special.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
Could be hot chocolate today, but 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, Valentine version.
Go! Mmm, yes, just as I suspected.
When you match the subtle undertones of Valentine's Day with the exceptional flavors and pungency of the simultaneity, I think it makes a lovely bouquet.
And you don't have to hate me for that.
I hate myself just for saying that sentence.
So, what's going on?
It's a weird, slow news day.
So I thought I'd take some questions later, except I put on my headphone and I forgot to click the option for taking questions.
So it turns out I won't be taking questions today.
I just realized, because if you don't click that option before you turn on the periscope, you don't have that option.
So this might be the slowest periscope.
Or the shortest one you've ever seen.
But I will take your questions in the comments after I start paying attention to them.
All right, I learned some news today.
I should have seen it coming.
I tweeted about it earlier, but did you know that you probably knew that Ukraine had, I guess on three occasions, had offered Lieutenant Colonel Vindman The job of Secretary of Defense for Ukraine.
Now, if this is the first time you've heard that, I don't know what you've been watching, if this is the first time you've heard it, but if it's the first time you've heard it, I want to assure you that you heard it correctly.
You're not crazy.
American Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, the very one of the Ukraine Perfect Letter story, while he was working, I guess, with Ukraine, They offered him the job of their Secretary of Defense for Ukraine three times.
I guess he's got some Ukraine heritage in his background, so there was some reason for that.
But here's the part I found out.
The only reason that Ukraine offered Vindman the job of Secretary of Defense is that Hunter Biden turned it down.
No, that's not true.
But wouldn't it be funny if it had been true?
Yeah, that's the way the news should go.
The news should always follow whatever is the funniest.
Now, you can fill in the rest of the joke on that Hunter Biden joke.
I know you're doing it in your head.
He turned it down because it wasn't paying enough.
Exactly. Hunter Biden turned down the job of Secretary of Defense for Ukraine because he was overqualified.
Good job. Nice writing.
Yeah, there are a few more jokes you can fill in there, and they're all good.
Today we have the biggest story of the day is not even a story at all.
The news business is so good at weaving something out of absolutely nothing that it's starting to be quite impressive.
You saw the collusion hoax, something out of nothing.
The Ukraine story, something out of nothing.
The president is a big old dictator, something out of nothing.
They're really good at making something out of nothing.
Today's a good example. So you probably know the story, but if anybody doesn't, President Trump tweeted about, I'll just give you the rough outline of the story, he tweeted about the Roger Stone sentence being nine years, said something about it being excessive, I guess.
And then everybody said, whoa, the president can't be tweeting about a case that's still active and still going on.
He would be influencing the Department of Justice, which technically is in his domain as president, but by tradition you're not supposed to do that because you don't want to show, you don't want to look like a dictator who's telling your Department of Justice to do what you want.
Versus doing what they know to be right.
So then part two of the story is that after the president did that, or sometime around that time, Bill Barr simultaneously also had the same thought.
He saw the verdict about Stone and said, what?
That looks excessive.
Let's look into this and see if we can find out what's going on or adjust it, which he did.
So here's the story.
The President of the United States and the Attorney General that he appointed are in complete agreement.
That's the story, right?
The President thought there was something wrong with this stone sentencing independently.
And I think we believe that it really was independently, because Barr has a pretty good reputation, right, as a straight shooter.
So Barr has said no, independently.
And having nothing to do with the president's tweet, and I think even before it, he said, what's wrong with this stone thing?
We've got to look into this. So the real story should be this.
The president of the United States and his attorney general completely agree.
So does Alan Dershowitz.
So does Jonathan Turley, famous constitutional scholars and lawyers.
So do pretty much all of the independent lawyers who are looking at this.
You know, the ones who are not Blatant partisans pretty much are all on the same team.
So what kind of a story do you make out of everybody agrees?
How the hell do you turn that into a news story?
Well, CNN can do it.
And here's how they did it. Because Barr clapped back, as they like to say, he clapped back at the president's tweet, saying, and again, this is just paraphrasing it, that it was impossible to do his job Under these conditions, when the executive is tweeting about it, it makes it impossible for Barr to do his job, and that he wouldn't be bullied by anybody, the Congress, the press, or the President.
Now, what did CNN say about that?
Whoa! They said, whoa!
Whoa! It looks like Barr and the President are having a little tiff.
Let's make something out of this.
Now, what did the President say when asked about Bill Barr clapping back and saying that the President shouldn't be doing all this commenting?
The President said, that's fine.
I'm going to do it anyway.
All right. So, what's the story?
What's the story?
Let me put it to you with yet another frame.
Do you want a president, it doesn't matter what party they belong to, etc., would you want a president to watch a travesty of justice, the Stone sentencing, would you want him to watch any travesty of justice, whether it was Stone or anybody else, and watch it with the public, The public is watching the same thing he is.
We're all watching the same stuff.
It's clearly a travesty of justice.
It's obvious. It's public.
We know all the facts we need to know.
We watched it. We all have the same opinion.
Travesty of justice. We all, at least, the president's supporters seem to be.
And I don't want a president who won't comment on that.
I certainly do want a president who would not And here's a key word here.
I would not want a president who privately weighed in on what the justice system was doing.
In other words, if the president put his finger on the scale privately with the individuals in the Department of Justice, such as calling Bill Barr in and saying, you know, hand on the shoulder, Bill.
You know, it really means something to me if this, you know, went this way.
I think you should do this.
It could mean a lot for your career.
You know, something like that. Had it been a private conversation, I think you'd have to filter it differently.
But when your president does something in the most public way it can be done, should you see it the same?
Because I don't think so.
I think that if your president tells you exactly what he's thinking publicly, that's always good.
Now, I'm sure somebody's going to come up with an exception to that.
Maybe it had to do with national security.
You don't want to know the president's inner thoughts, but that's what the president says, too.
The president says, when it comes to national security, and sometimes even to negotiations, that being unpredictable is an advantage.
So when you watch the president negotiate with, let's say, an adversary, he acts unpredictable.
And he doesn't really let them know exactly what he's thinking.
And he tells you, I'm doing this intentionally, and then you watch it work.
It's a good strategy. But when he's talking about domestic stuff, do you want your president to not tell you his actual opinion in public so we can all see it?
I don't want that.
Why would anybody want that?
In what world would you not want your president to publicly So this is all good news.
Now, there is one situation in which that would not be a good idea, and that would be if he had a weak Attorney General.
Do we have a weak Attorney General?
Well, some might argue we used to, but not now.
Is anybody arguing that Bill Barr is a weak Attorney General?
No. No. Your perfect situation is the one you just watched.
Your perfect situation, the one that, you know, if the founders could map it out on paper and say, you know, we want to update this constitution, let's build a system that's really good.
Let's map out what's the ideal situation.
The ideal situation Is that your Commander-in-Chief, your President of the United States, says in public, on domestic issues, not defense issues, but says in public what his real opinion is.
What's better than that?
I can't think of anything.
And it doesn't matter if it's about the Department of Justice or anything else.
Now, again, this is predicated on the fact that your Attorney General is not going to be swayed by this strong Executive President.
Bill Barr is...
I want to say he's alpha as F. You know what I'm talking about, right?
Does anybody think that Bill Barr is going to be bullied?
I don't think so.
Doesn't look like it to me.
And he said so in public.
Now, do you think that President Trump respects Bill Barr less for clapping back in public?
We can't read their minds.
But if I had to guess, I'd say that they're both pretty happy with the situation, in the sense that they both showed where their line is.
Bill Barr said, here's my line.
You just crossed my line, so now I need to make sure that I've defined this line a little bit more clearly.
I'm going to do it clearly, strongly, and in public.
How do you beat that?
How do you beat that, really? What system in the world is better than a strong Attorney General publicly, strongly, and clearly saying, okay, you pushed a little too hard.
Now here's my line, just so everybody knows.
I'm not joking about this.
This is the line. Perfect situation.
Along with, in my opinion, a President who's willing to tell you in public His actual thoughts on the issue.
And certainly I appreciate it when a president weighs in on something that looks like a miscarriage of justice.
So CNN is reporting this like some kind of a problem while you and I are watching the most perfect system you'll ever see.
It doesn't get better than what those two did this week.
That's as good as it gets. It really is.
We don't want all of our leaders to be on the same side all the time.
And I like the fact that the President is simply acknowledging, you know, I think, in a sense, the President acknowledged that Bill Barr's opinion is valid because he didn't push back on Bill Barr's opinion.
He just said, I'm the President.
I'm going to keep doing what I'm going to do.
You know, I'm going to communicate with the people.
The way I communicate with the people, nobody's going to tell me to not do that.
Perfect. Perfect.
All right. Do you think that Mike Bloomberg has hired comedy writers so that he has clever responses to President Trump's tweets?
I think so.
This is going to be something to watch for because it's going to be kind of obvious after a while if If Bloomberg starts spouting these little rejointers that are a little too clever, a little too funny, a little too well packaged, it's going to reveal that they're coming from comedy writers.
Now, who's the comedy writer for President Trump's tweets?
Nobody. Nobody.
The president writes his own comedy.
He writes his own tweets, he writes his own insults.
Now, he also retweets, you know, funny memes and stuff, but you can tell the difference between a President Trump tweet, you know, the insulting ones, the funny ones, those are all him.
There's no comedy writer feeding him stuff, and I think it's obvious by the way he does it.
Nobody could write There are good writers who could write good stuff in their own voice, but I don't think anybody could write a tweet in the president's voice quite the way he writes them.
I don't think that could be done.
We wouldn't know right away if the president started using comedy writers.
That's not going to happen. So Bloomberg was responding to the Haidt comments from the president, and he came up with a quip.
He said, I heard a little clip where he said, where I come from, Height is measured from the neck up.
And then the audience has to think for a while, wait, height is measured from the neck up.
So he's saying that if you have a really tall forehead, That's good?
What? No, that doesn't make sense.
So your height is measured from the neck up.
Is that because you don't have a long enough measuring device?
Or is it good to have a big head?
What exactly? Oh, oh, I get it.
I get it. I get it. He's saying I measure my height from the neck up because he's saying the brains.
Brains, that's right.
Brains! Brains are the important part.
Now, who wrote that?
I think Bloomberg might have, you know, pulled that out from, you know, something from his childhood or something, because it sounds like an old saying.
It doesn't sound like something that was written for this purpose.
It sounds like he pulled it out from maybe his past, you know, somewhere he heard it.
But I think you're going to see Bloomberg hire writers, and it's going to be funny when they start doing their thing.
All right. Eric Swalwell has crawled out from under a rock.
He was hiding after the Russia collusion fell apart and the Ukraine thing fell apart.
But he's back, and he's my representative out here in California.
And he said on CNN, he was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper, and I just tweeted around a tweet, I did a screen grab of Swalwell talking to Anderson Cooper.
And you have to look at Anderson Cooper's body language, which I will demonstrate here in a moment for those of you watching on video.
And I'll describe it for those of you who are listening.
But Swalwell was talking about the Stone situation, and he said that instead of, essentially, instead of tweeting about it, the President could have just pardoned him.
But here's where Swalwell goes into full crazy, crazy land.
Swalwell says that the reason the president doesn't simply just part in stone is he wants to show the world that he can manipulate the Department of Justice.
And Anderson Cooper is sitting there listening to this Crazy bullshit.
And you had to see Anderson Cooper's body language, and I'll demonstrate for those of you watching on video, but you can see it in my Twitter.
Anderson Cooper is sitting at the desk with him.
He's leaning back, and he's got both of his arms crossed, and it's just the two of them.
And so Swal was talking, and Swal was leaning in, and Anderson Cooper's got his arms tightly crossed, and he just says, you really think the president is thinking that?
And it was that moment when you realize that even your own team, let's say the left-leaning anti-Trump team, if you will, roughly speaking, it was that moment when you realize that even your own team wasn't buying your bullshit anymore.
And, you know, I've said this before.
I think Anderson Cooper is one of the people who is capable of seeing past the craziness I'm not sure that everybody who even works in the industry is even capable of doing that, but I think Anderson is.
And I think Anderson Cooper has his own biases and political preferences like everyone else.
Everyone kind of shows their bias in that job.
So he's no different in that way.
But I do think he's also capable of noticing when his own team just went off the rails.
And you could watch it happen.
Assumption that the President was cleverly not pardoning him because he wanted to really show that he's a dictator who can control the Department of Justice is so batshit crazy that even Anderson Cooper couldn't treat it as a serious statement, at least in terms of his body language.
In terms of his professionalism, of course, he did.
All right. I thought that was hilarious.
Rush Limbaugh. I don't know when Rush Limbaugh said this.
But it was reported, I guess on CNN, that – and they say conservative radio personality and Medal of Freedom recipient, so they throw that in there to further mock him.
They say Rush Limbaugh said that 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg had little chance of winning the election because, quote, America is still not ready to elect a gay guy.
Now, of course, on CNN, they want to make this look like Rush Limbaugh is anti-gay.
Is that what he said? Did Rush Limbaugh say anything bad about gay people?
Well, I don't know what he's ever said in the past, but in this case, there's nothing negative about gay people.
He's talking about other people.
He's talking about other people being prejudiced.
Isn't that just an objective statement?
He's not even giving you his opinion.
He's just saying, I think other people are not ready.
He didn't say anything about himself.
But the implication, the way it's framed and sort of presented, makes you think, huh, is that because Limbaugh has a problem with this?
Now, I don't even know Limbaugh's opinion on this topic.
I have no idea what his topic is.
But is he right?
Let's just talk about whether the country's ready or not.
I'm going to disagree with Limbaugh on this.
I disagree.
I say that the country actually is ready and that the reason that Buttigieg might not make it to the dance, so to speak, might not get to the final nomination and might not get elected to president, I think the reasons have everything to do with him and almost nothing to do with his sexual preference.
That's my view.
My view is that if Buttigieg had the skills of an Obama that he could be president.
Because, you know, you've got the skill and then you've got whatever other people might suggest is a disadvantage, but if your skill is high enough, it doesn't matter that you have a disadvantage of any type.
Your skill level can overcome it.
You see this with President Trump better than anybody else.
President Trump has a lot of negatives according to some people.
You know, his personal life in particular, his personality, etc.
But, because the President's skill level is so extraordinary, he can get past, you know, grab them by the you-know-what, And maybe nobody else could have.
It's possible that nobody else, maybe no other politician in the history of the world could have gotten past that.
But if your skill level is enough, you can.
So here's where I disagree with Rush Limbaugh.
I think the country is absolutely ready.
Totally ready. We would just need a better candidate.
Do you agree? Because I don't think it's even right to say that the country's not ready.
It You can't ignore the variable of how good the candidate is.
When President Obama ran for office, the country was not ready for a black president.
Obama made us ready.
I would say that Obama did not come into an opportunity and, well, lucky.
It's lucky that you're the first black guy who ran for president at exactly the time.
The country was just ready for it.
I don't think that exactly happened.
Now, of course, the country was getting more and more ready over time.
It was the readiest it had ever been.
But I would argue that Obama made us ready.
I think he made us ready.
He didn't wait for us to get ready.
And that's what's missing in Limbaugh's analysis.
Pete Buttigieg, if he were Obama-quality politician, and he's not, he could make us ready.
So when you say, is the country ready, I think that's looking at the wrong variable.
He could make us ready, and I would argue he's doing a solid B-plus job at it.
Buttigieg is doing a solid B-plus job of making the country ready.
And I actually like a lot of the things he's doing in that domain of getting us ready.
I like that he's not hiding anything.
He's fully transparent.
He's got his husband involved in the campaign.
Nothing is being de-emphasized.
He's just transparent.
Exactly the right thing.
He's not saying that being gay is an advantage, because that's a mistake that Hillary made about being a woman.
She tried to make it an advantage.
It's what Obama did not make as a mistake.
Obama never said, hey, it's time for a black guy.
He didn't. That would have been a mistake.
He downplayed that.
And so I would say Buttigieg is a solid B +, but he'd need to be an A-plus to get elected.
And I don't think he's quite A-plus yet.
Maybe he will be someday. And I've said before, and I'll say it again, I think the country needs to have an LGBT president if it's not this time.
Let's get around to it.
You know, check that box. It's just good for the country.
Good for the country to, you know, and I wouldn't want a situation where you picked somebody for their immutable characteristics just to get it done.
I'm not in favor of that.
But should we have a contest where that's the best candidate?
Let's do it. All right.
I tweeted around yesterday an article that's getting a lot of attention.
I saw that Don Jr. also independently had tweeted around.
And it's just worth mentioning again.
And it was written by Dr.
Karlyn Borisenko.
And what was remarkable about it is that she was a lifelong Democrat, I guess, and went to a Trump rally And described the story of how she felt and what it was like at the rally and how it changed her.
Now, the bottom line to it is that she thought it would be a big scary thing with bad people.
She went to the rally and they were all really nice.
That was it. She found out that her worldview about what a Trump supporter was and how they acted and who they were was just totally wrong and had been fed to her by the media.
What was remarkable about the article is that, first of all, it was a first-person account of somebody changing their mind.
How often does somebody change their mind?
You just don't see it.
I mean, it's a dog bites man situation.
So first of all, the topic was really interesting to watch that journey of the mind.
But secondly, it's really well written.
And it sort of jumped off the page.
Because I can't read long articles.
I mean, I skim them or I look at the headlines, pick out the key points.
I can't read a long article.
But I could read hers.
I could read it and was happy to read the entire thing.
Because the way she formed sentences, just the journey that she took me on was really well done.
But I'm getting to a point here.
I'm not just going to compliment the piece.
There's something I'm getting to that's useful.
So, given that it's very rare for somebody to change their mind, and for somebody to break out of what I would call a TDS bubble, and I think she called it that herself, you know, in her own words, she basically referred to it the same way.
To watch that journey was extraordinary, and I said to myself, and you've seen me do this a lot of times, I said to myself, what kind of person Who is qualified to break out of a bubble?
It doesn't matter if it's on the right or the left.
Who has that skill?
So I clicked on her profile, and then I did a little hunting down on her LinkedIn page to see what kind of background she had.
Now, you know, in my book, LoserThink, I tell you that people who have had experience with different domains have an advantage in understanding reality.
And that you can escape your bubble, if you're in one, and most of us are, you can escape your bubble by adding to your talent stack.
So let's see what kind of a talent stack you've got from somebody who can break out of a TDS bubble, arguably the hardest bubble that anybody ever broke out of.
And by the way, she did not break out of the bubble to become a Trump supporter.
That didn't happen. And she had some negative things to say about the President's style.
So she didn't become a Trump lover.
That would be suspicious looking.
But she simply became a non-Democrat because she could see what was happening on her side.
So that's the highest level of awareness, I would say.
What kind of background gets you there?
So I look at her background.
Organizational psychologist.
Author, coach, speaker.
She's written a book.
I guess workplace organizational behavior kind of stuff, and she lists herself as a Chief Science Officer.
And then I went and clicked on her LinkedIn, and I see that she has a Master's of Business Administration, a Bachelor of Science in Communication and Public Relations, and a Doctor of Philosophy.
She's a PhD in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
In other words, in other words, She has exactly the talent stack that her article predicted.
She has a full view of the field.
And you could see it.
Because nowhere in the article was there any loser think.
Nowhere in the article were there dumb analogies trying to prove something.
Nowhere in the article did she act like she could read the minds of strangers.
Nowhere. And that's what you'd expect for somebody who is, you know, a doctor of philosophy, who understood psychology, communication, had a master's of business, corporate experience, wrote a book, knows public relations.
The talent stack works.
So, here's my point.
Oh, and here's the funniest part of the story.
It's just funny because her writing was so good that she became sort of a national headline there.
Not a headline, but at least on social media, she became kind of a little sensation for a while.
She has the last name of Borisenko, and somebody accused her of being Russian or something.
And she said that she's married to a Ukrainian.
Now, I don't know if he's Ukrainian, American, American or what.
I don't know, but he has a Ukrainian last name and she married him.
Now, what are the odds? What are the odds that Ukraine just keeps popping up?
Yeah, it's the simulation.
Code reuse. It's like the system is down for maintenance and you only have so many options.
You know, like half of the simulation is down for maintenance, and they're saying, all right, until March, all foreign countries are just going to be Ukraine.
What? What are you talking about?
That can't work. How can every story in the news be about a Ukraine?
I know, I know, it doesn't make sense, but we've got to bring the simulation down for maintenance.
We're just bringing down the modules that give you a variety of international events.
It's just all going to be Ukraine from now on.
All Ukraine. So, you've got that going on.
So, congratulations to Dr.
Karlyn Borisinsky.
For breaking out of her TDS bubble, seeing the full field, and doing it the honest way by building a skill stack that is world-class.
It's a world-class skill stack.
All right, that is all I got in my prepared notes.
Does anybody have any questions that they've been dying to ask?
By the way, you know, I apologize for always having to Deal with my nasal problems while I'm live streaming here.
I am looking to schedule some surgery to do some roto-root-ring in my nasal polyps to solve this problem.
It's not really allergies. I'm not sick.
It's sort of something that has to be roto-rooted out.
So we'll do that. And when I do, I'll probably miss a few days on Periscope.
It's not a dangerous situation.
All right, somebody says, why do we need a gay president?
Well, need is not the exact word that I would say.
I would say it would be good.
There are things that could be good for you that you don't really need.
They're just good for you.
And I don't think that we have to force it.
I think it needs to happen when it happens, and it will just be there will be, you know, somebody who's just got high-end capability.
Slaughter Meter is at 100%.
Oh, yeah, I heard that Caruso Cabrera is running against AOC. Did you hear that?
Now, you may recognize her name as a CNBC host or whatever for years and years.
I would be real worried if I were AOC, because that's a really strong competitor.
All right. Yeah, somebody was saying, if you notice when Pete Buttigieg, or when people talk about him, I think when he talks about himself, he talks about himself being the first openly gay president.
I think he's actually said that, or people have said it about him.
But it's funny that they put openly in there.
They have to say he would be the first openly gay, because there is, of course, Much to speculation that he would not be the first gay president, he would just be the first openly gay one.
I'm not going to name names, but you can do that on your own.
Who will be the Democrat candidates?
Well, I think...
The odds of it being a brokered convention are high, because I think that Bernie is going to come in with the most votes, and it will be a topic of common understanding by then, among Democrats, that he can't win.
I did a little poll of who would be the most entertaining.
It was just a Twitter poll, so it's certainly not scientific.
In the Twitter poll, I said, which of the top four vote-getting Democrats would be the most entertaining?
Forget about who would have the best chance of winning, just who would be the most entertaining?
And Bernie won.
So people think that the funniest, most entertaining race would be between Trump and Bernie.
I don't know, because there's something about Bernie that's not as fun to mock.
I felt like the right answer was Bloomberg.
Because two insulting New Yorker billionaires fighting it out would be a lot of fun.
Bernie, I'm not sure, takes the bait.
One of the reasons that Bernie does so well is that he doesn't play the normal game.
So I don't know he would respond insult for insult, so that wouldn't be any fun.
Everything we know about Bernie, he admits.
You know, you could put a different word on it and call him a communist, but he's now hiding the fact that he wants free healthcare and free education and all that.
So I'm not sure that the normal attacks against Bernie would be fun, because it would just say it's just sort of things that he admits are true.
Yes, I'm a certain age.
Yes, I want to do these things.
I don't know. There's not much to it. Well, Biden would be the funniest, but I don't think at this point nobody expects him to be the nominee, I think.
What's my opinion on Project Veritas?
Well, Project Veritas is an amazing window into behind the curtain.
I think it's been a real eye-opener and scary when you see some of the opinions.
But those opinions generally are coming from individuals.
And in any organization, you've got a wide range of opinions.
Some are very supportive of the organization they're in.
Some people think their boss is an idiot who should be fired.
So I always take it as a useful data point.
So when I see a Project Veritas thing where there's somebody undercover saying something horrible, I don't say to myself, well, there's the opinion that they all share.
I say, well, there's one person.
Maybe more if they show more people on camera who have this opinion which is odious.
Find me any organization that does not have people with odious opinions in it.
I don't think he could. So I try to keep it in perspective.
I think it's useful and illuminating, definitely an eye-opener.
Sometimes it's jaw-dropping to hear people talking candidly, but try to keep it in perspective.
You know, a lot of people with a lot of different opinions in the world.
Let's talk about those attorneys who resigned, the prosecutors in the Stone case, when the President and Barr started looking into their decision.
Four of them resigned. Now, could you say that they had been dissed by Barr?
Well, in a sense, you could say that he dissed them.
And if the Attorney General was dissing The attorneys.
Could you say the attorneys were dis-barred?
Okay, you don't have to laugh too hard.
That's right. They were dissed by bar.
They were dis-barred.
Saying it twice makes it so much funnier.
Alright. QAnon, your thoughts.
Is Q still around?
Does Q still exist?
You remember...
My prediction that Q was not real.
A lot of people have that same opinion.
And sure enough, we don't see a lot of Q. I think Q petered out.
Alright. Did Bernie fire the gulag guy?
That's a good question. The guy who appeared on the Project Veritas video.
I don't know if he still has his job or not.
Has the book Profiles in Corruption changed your mind on Biden?
Well, I haven't read it, so no.
But I'm assuming that in there there are lots of indications of stuff such as Biden travels somewhere and then his son gets a big deal in that same country.
I think we kind of know all that stuff, so I'm not sure it changes my opinion.
My opinion is it's obvious that there was something Swampy and sketchy, but I don't know of anything that was technically illegal.
It was just awful.
But maybe there is.
Somebody says, your polyps are caused by allergies.
They will grow back. That is correct.
There are some treatments to keep them from growing back quickly, but there's a high chance they'll grow back.
I can't tell what you're groaning about.
So...
I'm getting lots of some people saying, nice try.
Oh my God, it's gotten worse with Q. Yes, Q is definitely active.
It's funny, I don't see anything about them anymore.
Could it be that I've successfully blocked them all?
I mentioned this before, but something happened on Twitter in the past, I don't know, month or two.
Where my trolls all disappeared.
And a lot of my trolls were Q supporters.
And I haven't seen a Q supporter in I don't know how long.
So I don't know if...
I may have clicked some filter where they all disappeared.
And then the other day, I think it was two days ago, several hundred people were dropped off of my Twitter as followers.
So I don't know if... Did this happen to any of you?
I lost several hundred followers on the same day.
Now, I don't think I don't think that's Twitter doing anything unscrupulous.
I think that probably those were identified bots and accounts that were fake and not real.
So I'm guessing that Twitter is really active this year trying to delete all the fake accounts and the bots and the Russians and everything.
And it wouldn't surprise me at all if I had several hundred of them.
That wouldn't even be I guess.
HEPA filters in the house, somebody says.
Yeah, maybe.
Am I vaccinated?
I am. Somebody says, Omer says, I don't know what to say, but I want your attention.
You win. You got it.
Scott, you're so out of it.
What's that mean? You mean out of it today?
Well, I will tell you that For the last three days I have been waking up at 2 in the morning in screaming pain and rolling around on the floor.
I mean that literally, actually rolling around on the floor in pain.
So I'm only getting three or four hours of sleep a night for the last week.
That's a holdover from the meds side effect.
Poor Frida.
Did you see the president's tweet about going to meet with the governor, Governor Cuomo of New York, who of course is famously the brother of Cuomo on CNN?
And the president is mocking Cuomo in New York for what they're doing with the Alcindor.
it's a long story, but it doesn't matter.
And he throws in, don't bring Frito to the meeting.
He doesn't know how to stop causing trouble.
I'm seeing lots of medical recommendations here.
Yeah, I use an antipod every day.
And I do have meds to keep the polyps to a certain size.
But we don't need to talk about that.
Somebody says, is Buttigieg the darling of the intel community?
I don't know.
How would you know that?
Have we seen yet?
Somebody's asking about...
Somebody's asking about the...
I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought because I saw another question.
Somebody's asking what the pain is that I'm rolling around.
It's digestive...
Intestinal pain, which is a known side effect.
When my doctor prescribed the antibiotics, she, in one case there was another doctor, they said, this is probably going to cause you some intestinal issues.
Man, were they right.
Thoughts on Trump cutting student loan forgiveness in the public sector.
I don't know about that story.
Is Amy Klobuchar worth an 18 to 1 for the nomination?
Oh, I would say so.
If the odds of Klobuchar getting the nomination are 18 to 1, I don't know if that's the case.
Somebody just said that in the comments.
But I would think her odds of getting the nomination are closer to probably 5 to 1, something like that.
So I think you would likely lose your bet, but those odds are not bad.
Now, the reason that Klobuchar has more of a chance than anyone else is that I think she could put up the best fight.
So here's what Klobuchar has going for her.
She's a woman, so she's going to bring in the woman vote somewhat automatically, because the Democrats are Basically as primed as you could possibly be for a woman president, and they would like to get a little revenge from last time, and she would do that.
The other thing Klobuchar has is that the biggest negative she has is a little bit like a positive.
What's the biggest negative that Klobuchar has, which is she's really tough on her own staff.
Now when you hear that, how do you process that?
Well, we see her acting very civil and politician-like in public, and people like that.
They say, yeah, that's the kind of vibe we want from a leader, very professional, doesn't go too far, etc.
But at the same time, we hear that she's tough as nails, maybe too tough on her own staff.
What do you say about that?
Well, it depends what the job is.
If the job is president, I'm kind of okay with it, because it's the same thing that you hear about Trump.
You hear that he's tough on his own staff.
I generally think that might be a requirement for a good leader.
I think a good leader has to be pretty tough on the staff to get that next level of performance and to even get rid of people who are not A+. So you don't get to A +, if you're willing to put up with B-plus work.
So if Klobuchar's problem is that she can't handle B-plus work from a staff that she expects to be A-plus, that's not much of a problem.
Now, of course, we don't know the details of what's happening behind the scenes, but on the surface, it's not as much of a negative as it could be.
It's sort of a negative that feels a little like a positive.
Now, yeah, she's boring, but it looks like she's solving for that.
Because her last speech was roundly praised as being emotional and good and on point.
So she's also very smart and she's a learner.
You can always be fooled by the people who can learn.
And if you look at where she is right now compared to the day she started, is she better?
I'd say yes.
I'd say she's improved.
And you don't know how far that can take you.
In the same way that I think President Trump has become much better at being a president, even with all the trouble he gets into.
But he's certainly better at it, because practice helps.
So Klobuchar would be the strongest contender.
And if the Democrats decide to pull together and go forward with their strongest candidate, I think it's her.
But, so the unknown is whether the Democrats will ever pull together and try to get behind a candidate who actually would have a legitimate chance of winning.
I think Bernie doesn't have a legitimate chance.
I think Bloomberg, he has more of a shot than the others.
He has more of a shot than most of the others except Klobuchar, I would say.
And maybe even a better shot than Klobuchar.
But if you're a Democrat, Do you want to back the guy who's exactly the opposite of the guy you want to be your president?
He's almost like slightly better than Trump, you know, in your mind, because you say, oh, it's another old white guy from New York with a billion dollars and more.
I just don't know that he's got enough contrast to win.
But Klobuchar has all the contrast in the world.
And I don't think that she would take any crap from the President.
She seems tough enough.
I don't know. And I've said this before, but I think one of the things you have to watch out for is the pendulum effect.
Because the country always likes to fight the last war, if you know what I mean.
So if the thing that's bothering you at the moment is Trump's personality, there are going to be a whole lot of people who say, you know, I just want something different.
And who's got the closest to the opposite of his personality?
Klobuchar, probably.
She's pretty solid.
Here's my take on Warren.
I don't know that you can...
Well, let me put it this way.
A little bit of Warren goes a long way.
And I think this is not to do with her gender, because I think I have the same feeling about Bernie.
My problem with Bernie and my problem with Elizabeth Warren is that they're both very substantial people, you know, substantial records of service, substantial careers, smart, you know, good leadership qualities, very substantial people.
But I can't watch them for a long time.
Do you have that? I can watch Bernie For about a minute.
And then I just need to change the channel.
And it's not because I don't like, you know, Bernie's personality.
I just can't watch him.
I don't know. You know, it's a television world, and when he's on there shouting his old man, you know, yelling at the sky stuff, I just don't like watching it.
By contrast, I can sit down and I can watch an hour of Trump at a rally, I could watch Trump give a 15-minute press conference, and I'm riveted the whole time.
I'm riveted. And Obama had the same quality.
He could hold the camera like a few people before him.
Bill Clinton, same thing.
I could watch Bill Clinton talk forever.
When Bill Clinton would give the State of the Union, it was good stuff.
You could watch that like a Like you were watching a good TV show.
When Ronald Reagan gave the State of the Union, you'd cry.
It was like watching the best show you'd ever watch.
You could watch him for a long time.
But Elizabeth Warren, can you watch her for 10 minutes?
I can't. And it doesn't have anything to do with her policies or opinions.
There's something about her, and just so it doesn't sound sexist, I'm throwing Bernie into my analysis, but I have a very similar feeling about Bernie.
A minute, two minutes of Warren, that's plenty.
That's sort of all I need.
A minute, two minutes of Bernie, that's all I need.
Now, this is not the same for, let's say, Buttigieg.
I can listen to Buttigieg.
I can actually listen to...
There's something happening around here.
I'm hearing some kind of a chainsaw.
I hope that's not in my house.
I can even listen to Biden for a fairly long time for a different reason, just to see if he says something crazy.
But he's not...
I don't know. He's not hard to listen to the way Bernie is, the way Warren is.
So that's all I got for that.
All right. I don't have much else to say, so I'm going to end here.
▲
Export Selection