Episode 825 Scott Adams: Heavily Medicated But Not Down
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Content:
President Trump knows identity of "Anonymous" author
President Trump pardons and clemencies
Tom Cotton taken out of context on coronavirus
Did Senator Chris Murphy violate Logan Act?
Bernie notes FOX more fair to him than MSNBC
A linguistic kill shot for Bloomberg
International opinions of America and our standing in the world
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
So it doesn't matter how bad I feel, I'm here for you.
Is that right, DJ Dr.
Funk Juice? Good to see you.
Always good to see you. And the rest of you, would you like to join me in this very special version of the simultaneous hip?
I think you would. Yeah.
Wait. Hold on. Hold on.
Don't go too quickly. First, make sure you have the right ingredients.
You need 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 like coffee.
And join me now.
And I'm not cornholio, and I know some of you know what that means.
Join me now for the simultaneous sip.
It's the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Go! Wait.
What? Oh!
That's all I needed. Now I feel great.
For a moment there, I thought I was sick.
No! I just didn't have enough coffee.
I hope that's not happening to any of you.
I feel better now.
All right, let's talk about the news.
I love it when Trump fills a news cycle.
Man, that man knows how to fill a news cycle.
So he was heading off, I guess it was at the Andrews Air Force Base And he happens to just drop this little gem, that he knows the identity of Anonymous, the author of this tell-all book that said bad things about his administration.
Now, the thing I love about that is that maybe he knows the identity of Anonymous, maybe he doesn't, but I'll tell you what he does know.
Suspense. The man knows suspense.
And the fact that he would just put that out there, you know, there's going to be a good surprise coming.
Have you noticed all the firing and stuff that I'm doing lately?
Yep, I know who Anonymous is.
Now, if he doesn't know who Anonymous is, Anonymous just turned on the TV and was flipping through the channels, just sitting at home, drinking a beer or Whatever Anonymous does, might be a sock involved, I don't know.
Just saying, we don't know.
And Anonymous turns on the TV, and there's the President of the United States looking at the camera and saying, Yeah, I know who Anonymous is.
Wouldn't that just ruin your whole day?
Now, that's the beauty of it.
The beauty of it is, he might know.
And that would be interesting, and it would be twice as fun that he teased it and makes us think, oh, he knows, he knows, does he know?
Makes us talk about it.
The man knows how to put on the show.
But even better, if he doesn't know.
If he doesn't know, Anonymous is just like booking a flight out of the country right now.
That's one of the funniest things he's ever done.
All right. So I guess Trump is pardoning and granting clemency to a bunch of ne'er-do-wells who probably, you know, there's going to be some debate about how reasonable these were.
Now, the power that the president has for this stuff, the clemency and the pardons and stuff, it's a really interesting law because I can't think of any other law Or constitutional right or power or anything.
I can't think of any other where we expressly say you don't have to give a good reason.
Pretty much our entire system of government is set up around the notion, well, you need to have a reason.
It's okay to be wrong.
But you still have to state your reasons, right?
You've got to tell us why you're doing it.
And then if you get it wrong, we'll decide at the voting booth or Or when we pass a law or whatever, we'll decide later.
So being wrong isn't the worst thing, but you've got to tell us why you're doing stuff.
But you don't have to with these pardons and clemencies.
You can pick something that looks like the worst idea in the world to absolutely everybody else, do it anyway, and then the public says, ah, well, you do have that right.
It's a weird little law.
Here's what I think is happening.
So, as has been already reported, some of these situations have some connection to Trump or Rudy Giuliani.
So the people being pardoned and the clemencies, they have connections to the Trump world in some way.
So that makes sense.
And again, it's a weird little law.
If you said, should it be right that all these pardons are going to trump related people, meaning people who know the family or know Rudy Giuliani or they were on The Apprentice, stuff like that, is that right?
Well, most people would say, oh, that doesn't seem fair.
Let's adjust that.
But it's the one case where it just doesn't matter.
Now, I think that beyond The fact that it's servicing some allies like Rudy Giuliani.
I think the other thing it does is it creates a context, doesn't it?
Have you noticed that? I think while we're arguing in the weeds, we're going to be arguing about each of these pardons.
Hey, does that, you know, Bernie Kerik guy, does he deserve a clemency or whatever it was?
I'm confusing all the terms, but you know what I'm talking about.
And then we're going to talk about Blacovic, did he serve enough time, and all that.
So we're going to be talking about the details.
But the bigger picture is, Trump is creating a context for pardons, which is, some of these are going to be pretty controversial.
So, don't be surprised.
Don't be surprised, because there might be some more, let's say, controversial ones coming up soon.
You might have a little controversy coming your way.
So, rather than give it to you when you're not ready for it, let's toughen you up a little bit.
How about this Blagovich?
How about Blagovich?
Blagovich was a Democrat, right?
Am I right? Fact check me on that.
I'm assuming he was a Democrat, but I'm not up on my blog of itch history.
And so that would be a good little context to put out there.
It's like, yeah, I'm going to do some controversial ones.
I believe he also did three pardons or clemencies or whatever it was, probably pardons, that were recommended by Alice Johnson, the first woman that got out under the prison reform stuff.
So, there are two categories.
Think about this.
Just think about the larger feel of it.
Just rise up above the details of who these people were and what their crimes were, etc.
And think about it. There were two classes of people.
One were people who had a connection to something in the Trump universe.
And the other was probably African-American prisoners.
I don't know the details of whoever Ellis Johnson recommended.
So think about that.
The inner circle now includes a collection of black prisoners.
So he sort of lumped people I have a connection with, With Alice Johnson and the people she's recommending, they're somehow in your mind now, it's one category because they happened about the same time, which is kind of brilliant.
Because you say, what team is Trump on?
You say, well, he's on the team of the people who are getting stuff, right?
So, you know, Blagovich must be on the team, but so are these prisoners who are getting out that were recommended by Alice.
Seems like they're all on the same team, right?
They're all in that They're all on the good side.
So there's something kind of subtly brilliant about what this does to the context because it opens up the possibility for, obviously, Flynn, Stone.
It's getting very close to the point where he could flip the switch on Manafort without causing a revolution.
I don't think Manafort...
Could get pardoned without, you know, too big of a political reaction.
I think that would be too far.
But Stone and Flynn, the president, could do easily.
I think that there would be no problem.
Now, especially now that he's created this other context.
And I love the fact that he doesn't seem to be caring too much about reelection.
Because you wouldn't do any of these if re-election were your primary objective.
So it's got to be some bigger play or a complete lack of worry about getting re-elected.
I don't know about that. In other news, there's a tragic story of a stuntwoman who attacked her ex-husband and was shot and killed.
Or was she?
I'll just let you think about that one.
All right, Tom Cotton is getting some press.
And of course, all of the press that Tom Cotton is getting is people taking him out of context and willingly misinterpreting what he's saying.
So what Tom Cotton is saying is that the coronavirus is coincidentally, or maybe not, very close to the Wuhan Bioweapons Center, and we can't rule out anything as a cause.
So this is how Fox News wrote this headline.
It said, On coronavirus origins.
He stands by his startling theory.
What startling theory?
Tom Cotton said, clearly, consistently, and repeatedly, we don't know where it came from, so we better keep all the possibilities open.
And one of them we can't rule out yet, is there's a facility just down the road, and that would be a big coincidence.
Now, is that a startling theory, or is that simply a statement of fact?
We don't know where it came from.
This thing hasn't been ruled out.
I'm not ruling it in.
I'm just saying it's not ruled out.
And that turned into a startling theory?
That's not even close to what he's saying.
Now, you could argue that it is not, let's say that it's not good leadership form To put that idea out there without a little more meat on the bones.
I think that would be a reasonable criticism.
I don't know if I'd agree with it because I think the information is already out there.
The internet has been bubbling with this forever.
So I'm not sure in this case he's really adding any information to what's sort of bubbling around out there.
But, you know, maybe you could argue that senators shouldn't put something out there without a little bit more meat.
Then, I saw Martha McAllen push back on him in a video interview and was pointing out that the experts say there's nothing about the coronavirus, that it's DNA, there's nothing about it, that suggests it's engineered.
Now, some of you heard a very early report that said, hey, this thing looks engineered, it's got some parts in it that it shouldn't have.
But that turned out just to be wrong, and other people have looked at it now, and there's nothing in it, just nothing that would suggest it's man-made.
So, does that rule out the Wuhan weapons research place?
I would say no.
Because if I were a weapons research place, would I not also have a division that was working on cures?
Right? Doesn't it make sense that you would be working on If you had a research place that was making these kinds of weapons, wouldn't you also have, you know, in the same building even some people working on the antidotes and the cures, and even some people maybe researching what if this got out?
And here's the provocative part that I'm going to add.
So I'm not a senator, so I can add some conspiracy theories to the water.
But remember, consider the source.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
So if you believe anything that comes out of my mouth next, well, that's sort of on you.
And it goes like this.
And I'm just brainstorming the possibilities.
It seems entirely reasonable to me that if I were a Chinese bioweapon research facility, I would want to know about any kind of biological agent, if that's even the right word, any biological thing that could affect my people more than other people.
So if there were something, even if it existed in the wild, which by its nature, I knew there was something about it that likely would kill more people of, let's say, Chinese ethnicity than people of, let's say, Russian ethnicity, just to pick two random ethnicities, wouldn't I want to research that in my bioweapon lab?
Because if worse came to worse in some kind of major war, and the other team released this thing, The Russians would get a bad cold and we would be dying by the millions.
So shouldn't I research that so I can work on a cure, find out if there's anything that could be done about it, learn everything I can?
So it seems reasonable that a weapons research place would want to know about any naturally occurring virus that had that special quality.
Now, we don't know, we do not know, or be clear, We do not know that it has that quality.
We do know that there's a dog that's not barking, which is I keep waiting for the confirmation that a, let's say, a healthy 40-year-old, you know, black, Caucasian, Hispanic man died from the virus.
So I would like to hear the first case where somebody died outside of the The circle there.
So anyway, I think Senator Tom Cotton is certainly in controversial territory, but I wouldn't call it his startling theory.
He's just saying we don't know.
Senator Chris Murphy met with some Iranian leadership folks and that story got broken.
Was it Molly Hemingway that broke it?
I don't know the origins of it.
She might have been the first.
But If I give wrong credit, somebody will tell me.
And of course, that looks like a violation of the Logan Act, which says that no American who is not the president, basically, or authorized by the president, that nobody else can go negotiate with another country.
So here's the question. Was Senator Chris Murphy negotiating and pursuing public policy On his own, which would be a clear violation of the Logan Act, or was he just doing what senators do?
Because senators do meet with foreign leaders on the regular.
That's not even unusual. So I feel like we're in this weird world where a crime is defined by which team you're on, and we don't even pretend that that's not the case anymore.
I feel as though we used to do a better job of pretending that we would look at the facts of crimes and, you know, well, if the facts are there and a jury of your peers finds you guilty and all that, I feel like we've just departed that world.
And if you're on one team, you can just do stuff that the other team goes to jail for.
And we don't even hide it anymore.
It's just like right out in the open.
It's like, oh, yeah.
Yeah, obviously, our team can go meet with the Iranian leaders.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
That's just a senator just talking to somebody.
But if a Republican did it, I don't know.
I think it would look different.
So I typically, and I hope you appreciate this, by the way, on my periscopes, I try to avoid the old, oh, you're a hypocrite because you say this, but I say that.
Because that's the easiest thing in the world.
If you're looking at politics and you're accusing one side of being a hypocrite, it's just a waste of communication.
Because that's just the given.
That would be sort of like talking about the weather and every day you say, and today there's breathable oxygen.
Because there's always breathable oxygen.
Maybe you'd leave that part out.
Anyway. Let's talk about something else.
Bernie is saying that Fox News has been more fair to him than MSNBC. Now, I think that most of you on this periscope are sort of in on the prank, if you know what I mean.
Because you know... that there are a lot of Trump supporters who are saying really nice things about Bernie because they wouldn't mind Trump matching up with Bernie in the general election, and they certainly wouldn't mind causing some trouble with the Democrats by stirring up the feeling that Bernie is going to get robbed again for the second time.
So when Bernie says that Fox News is being nicer to him than MSNBC, it sort of loses the prank aspect of it.
You have to understand the prank part of it, because there are an awful lot of people who are, wink, wink, super Bernie supportive.
Because that Bernie, he's consistent.
Let me say, Bernie's authentic.
And he's got, have you heard, he's got an army of supporters.
They're very enthusiastic.
And, and have you heard, That because Trump wasn't expected to win, therefore, logically, if another person is not expected to win, he's going to win.
You get that, right?
The logic of that, how that all fits together?
If one person did something unexpected, and he's a completely different person in a different situation, in a different year, in a different party, with all different variables, so if that person did it, logically, QED... Then Bernie's going to be the next president.
Makes sense to you, doesn't it?
Totally, totally logical.
So, I think you just have to understand that I think Trump has, let's say, led by example to the point where many of his followers kind of understand the prank without having to be told.
Now, I'm hearing people warn us Us being people who seem to be in on the joke, warn us that, oh, be careful what you wish for.
Because remember, remember the Democrats were playing the same dangerous game with Trump.
They were saying, yeah, why don't you nominate Trump?
That would be great. No way he's going to win.
And then he won. So, you know, same thing could happen with Bernie, right?
Same thing. Makes sense.
Because analogies definitely predict the future.
Except they never do.
Because history doesn't repeat.
That is LoserThink.
I've got a good book for you if you need to know more about LoserThink.
Right over there.
Right over there in the middle of the screen.
So, here's the...
I had some pointos coming to.
So we've got Bernie who's...
I'll get back to that.
I love the fact that Bernie is calling Bloomberg a racist and he's accusing him of buying the nomination.
Because the longer that goes on, the more Trump is getting his campaign ad written for him.
Because all he has to do is take all the clips of Bernie saying that Bloomberg is buying the election and that he's just a billionaire buying the election and that he's a racist because of stop and frisk and just play that in the loop.
Because if it comes from Trump, people turn it off before they hear it.
If it comes from Bernie, it's going to remind all the Bernie bros who are disappointed.
Here I'm thinking ahead and assuming that Bloomberg got the nomination.
Which, by the way, it looks like that's what's going to happen.
So, I love the fact that Bloomberg will be so damaged by Bernie that if he gets the nomination, he's going to be limping into the general election.
Elizabeth Warren seems to have lost her voice, like actually some kind of laryngitis thing.
Oh my God, it's hard to hear her talk now.
I don't know what she's going to do with the debate.
By the way, is the debate tonight or is that tomorrow?
What night is the debate?
Tonight, right? I don't know what she's going to do because she literally can't really get out with sentences without hurting herself.
But what a time to lose your voice.
So, unfortunately, it matches her drop in the polls.
So, her drop in the polls, and then she loses her voice, and it just looks like maybe she has another couple weeks in her, and that's it.
Here's a kill shot for Trump.
Let's say Bloomberg gets a nomination, and Trump wants to create ads.
That target him.
And you know, Trump likes to do the fun ones, not just policy stuff, but, you know, things that evoke their nicknames, things that are funny, etc.
And I've been watching a lot of clips of Bloomberg lately, just because it's all over the news.
And here's the thing I noticed, that no matter who he's with, doesn't matter what the person is, he looks awkward.
Have you noticed that? If you see Bloomberg greeting somebody on stage or shaking hands with somebody or just sort of pressing the flesh with the people, trying to give somebody a hug, it all looks really awkward.
Now, as soon as you put that out there, the first time that Trump...
This is hypothetical, so just think through it.
The first time that Trump...
Tweets that Mike Bloomberg is awkward meeting people because maybe he doesn't like him that much.
That's all you would see.
You would never see anything else except him awkwardly trying to hug people and not knowing what to do.
And the beauty is, once you've been accused of, you know, sexism, He has to be careful how he interacts with any woman in public.
Think about Biden.
Poor Biden had to completely change what he does in public because of all the accusations of hair smelling and whatnot.
And it looks like he changed his act, so he just became a little more traditional that way than a little less Joe Biden.
But imagine if Bloomberg had to battle against the, let's say, the accusation of That he's awkward with people because he doesn't like them.
That he just doesn't like people.
Every time you saw it, you'd say to yourself, wait a minute, does he look like he's being awkward with this person because he doesn't like people?
And I have no reason to think that anything like that is true.
By the way, I kind of like Mike Bloomberg.
I don't have any negative thoughts about him whatsoever.
But I think he'd be really vulnerable to that idea.
Here's what I tweeted just before I got on Periscope.
So it's a scientific fact in the world of persuasion that people are more influenced by the risk of losing what they already have than by the opportunity that they might get something that's cool and good in the future.
So people will fight harder, they're more motivated to keep what they already have than to get new.
So, if you take that as a given, then look at these three candidates, Bernie, Bloomberg, and Trump.
Let's assume, I'm thinking too far ahead, but let's assume that some combination of them are in the general election.
You'd be asking yourself, what are they going to take away?
Now, the thing that Bernie risks taking away is your economy.
Right? I mean, the Bernie plan is so extreme that it actually risks your whole economy.
At the very least, you would lose it the way it was.
So all the people who thought it was good for them the way it was are going to be losing something.
And it's money, and it might be the entire economy, it might be the future.
So that's a lot to potentially lose.
How about Bloomberg? Well, the whole reason he's running is he thinks Bernie would destroy the economy too.
So he's not going to take away your money.
And in fact, who knows?
He might actually do something good for the economy.
He knows business.
But he's taking something else away.
He's taking away your illusion of democracy.
And it's happening right now, right in front of you.
It's very important...
For the country to operate properly, the people have the illusion of democracy.
Yeah, I know it's a republic, but the way people talk about it is a democracy.
And if people lose the illusion that their vote matters and that the people control things, what happens?
How does your system work If people lose trust, then voting actually is a real thing that influences elections.
And what I mean by that is that Bloomberg is so conspicuously, and I would say honestly, you know, I don't even fault him for this because it's so incredibly transparent and honest, he's pretty much saying, watch this, I'm going to buy the election.
Right? I mean, it's not about his personality or his policies.
He's pretty much saying, watch this, I'm going to buy this election.
Now, I believe he has good motives.
I think he has no improper motives whatsoever.
That's my assumption and belief about Bloomberg.
He's doing it for good reasons, in his mind.
But the necessary outcome of this is that he's going to prove that democracy is a sham.
Because he's going to prove that if you have enough money...
You control the vote.
It's not the other way around.
And he's doing it right in front of us.
So that's a big thing to lose.
You'd be losing your sense that the republic even exists in the way it was designed.
Now, what would you lose if Trump gets re-elected?
Your boredom?
Think about it. What does Trump tell you he's going to take away?
Well, if you're an American citizen...
I think nothing. Right?
Can you think of anything that Trump is promising, or at least the nature of his candidacy is looking to take away?
Now, if you're partisan, you're going to say, oh yes, he's taking away our cohesive nation.
No, he's not.
No, he's not.
It's only the political...
You know, nerds who even think that the world is even slightly worse than it was when he took office.
The reality is for people who are not living in the political mindset, if you're just going to work and waking up and dating and everything else, the world has never been better.
People have never been more unified.
People have never cared less about your sexual orientation, your gender.
People have never cared less about your ethnicity.
We're in the best place we've ever been.
Not good enough.
Keeps improving. But certainly there's nothing that Trump did that said that backwards.
In fact, the polling says we're Even the polling supports when I said that things have improved under Trump.
So if you think of it that way, what do the candidates risk for you as an American citizen losing?
Now, if you wanted to get into America and you were not already here and not already a citizen, Then Trump has something he's going to take away from you, because he's taking away your easy ability to get into the country.
So he's taking things away from, let's say, other countries that weren't paying enough for NATO. And he's taking away a lot of stuff from a lot of people, but they're all in other countries.
He's taking away China's good trade deals that they had.
He's taking away favorite deals from Mexico and Canada, mostly Mexico, I think.
Well, a little bit, Canada.
And so, if you were to look at it in terms of the most motivating thing is fear of loss, then Trump has the winning hand, because he's not taking anything away from Americans, unless you really, you know, you have to twist yourself up to turn it into something that's being lost, and it would probably be an illusion.
All right. Let's see what else we've got going on here, if anything.
Nothing. I'm looking at your comments now.
What does this do to America's international reputation?
So, that's a really interesting question, and I'm glad you asked it because it's something I've wanted to talk about.
Do you believe that other countries Have a lower opinion of the United States today because of Trump.
Do you believe that?
Because, you know, there's certainly lots of pundits who would tell you that must be the case.
And remember, there was that video of the leaders, including Trudeau and Macron, I guess, laughing about something about the Trump team when they were overseas.
So there's that, right?
But here's the thing. Do you believe for a minute that leaders of other countries are not laughing at the leaders of other countries all the time?
Wouldn't that be more normal?
Have you ever been in the room at a meeting?
If you're in a room with a meeting and you have any kind of an adversary, it doesn't matter who the adversary is.
You could be in engineering and your adversary is the marketing department of your own company.
Your adversary could be your customer who's being annoying.
If you've ever been in a room with any executives, leaders, business people, organization, anybody, if they're human beings and there's several of you and you're in a room and there is somebody to talk about on the outside, you're going to be talking about them and you're going to be laughing about it.
In what world is that not a universal quality?
The fact that you've got this video of it happening in the Trump situation, you think that makes it the time it happened?
Is that the one time it happened?
No. Do you think, and let's be honest, do you think that Trump has never laughed at Macron?
Seriously? Do you think that Trump has never laughed at Justin Trudeau behind closed doors?
Uh-huh. You know, I think he might not be laughing at President Xi.
You know, I would guess he's probably an exception.
He probably doesn't laugh at him.
Because I don't know that there's anything to laugh at in that case.
And I think he might actually like Kim Jong-un on some kind of a personal level, but of course, you know, it's not a personal relationship exactly.
But You know that they all laugh at other leaders.
So when people say, we've lost our standing in the world, I say, did we lose our standing with Mexico?
When they started guarding their southern border and paying for it?
Is that when we lost our standing with them?
Did we lose our standing with Mexico and Canada when we renegotiated the USMCA and got a better deal for ourselves?
Is that when they stopped respecting us when we got a better deal?
How about when we renegotiated with China and everybody said, oh, that's going to be a big mistake, and then the first part got done, and it looks like it's a better deal from us.
Did everybody respect us less?
For pushing back against China?
No. Did anybody respect us less for anything?
Anything? Do you think other countries cared about the whole Ukraine BS? Do you think other countries took too seriously the Russia collusion stuff?
I'm not even sure they think it's anything but funny.
So... Anyway, I don't think that that's real.
I think that there are always countries laughing at other countries and that I doubt that other countries have a serious complaint about the United States.
There are more countries copying us than mocking us, I would say.
Nobody trusts Trump and his lies.
Outweigh the truth equals the loss of respect.
Well, I feel...
The one thing that Trump has going for him is that the 15,000 lies or times that he has departed from the fact-checking, don't they all fit a certain category?
And don't you think that leaders have recognized that yet?
Here's the category.
Let me give you two examples.
Trump says, the size of my crowd at my rally was 10 million people.
Okay, that's one thing. And the other thing is, we used to have a bad trade deal with China, and we'd better renegotiate that, so we'd better try hard.
So those are two statements of facts.
Which ones do the leaders of other countries think they should take seriously, and which one do they believe?
They believe that China has a bad situation with us and we need to fix it.
That matters. Does it matter that Trump exaggerated his crowd size?
No. If Trump accuses a political rival of shooting JFK, suppose he did that tomorrow, would the leaders of other countries say, oh my god, he's going crazy now?
Or would they say, and be honest, or would they say, oh yeah, he always does stuff like that.
It's kind of funny. He's just getting the news wound up, making people talk about this, distracting.
But don't take it too seriously.
Do you think there's anybody in another country who would say, oh my God, we better launch the nukes.
We better cancel our agreements with this country.
Their leader is crazy.
He's just making stuff up.
No, because they know him.
Now let's say that Trump says, if you do X, there's going to be a big price.
Now that's the statement that could be true or false.
Do you think other countries look at him and say, oh no, he just lies.
You know, there's all just loss of trust.
We can't even trust that he's going to attack us or sanction us.
He's just a big old bluffer.
I'll bet they don't. I'll bet when he threatens another country, they think it's dead, cold, serious, and they take it as a fact.
Does that matter?
Yeah. Yeah, it matters.
Sure matters. If Trump says he has the best economy in 400 years, and it's not exactly true because it was once that time 150 years ago, it was a little better, do other countries look at that and say, my God, he can't stop lying?
It's like he's a compulsive liar.
Everything that comes out of the man's mouth is a lie.
We'll never do a deal with him.
Do they say that? Or do they say, yeah, I probably would have said the same thing.
It makes them fact check that, and then they'll realize it was only one year and there was something special about it, but really it has been a great economy for 150 years and he's taking credit.
Yeah, I probably would have done the same thing.
Smart play. If you actually dig in and even do a little bit of discernment About the so-called lying.
You'll see it's all in the same category.
It's all in the BS category.
And you know it's BS. You know his style.
You know it's hyperbole.
You know he wrote a book telling you he does this.
He wrote a book telling you he would do it again because it's a good thing to do.
And then he does it right in front of us over and over again.
We know hyperbole.
We get it.
And we know that when he says, I want to lower your taxes, he frickin' means it!
Right? When Trump said he wanted to lower your taxes, do you think that was a lie?
Now, he could succeed, he could not succeed, but it wasn't a lie.
How about when Trump said he'd build the wall?
Not successful yet, right?
But was that a lie?
That was not a lie.
Because look at the political capital, look at the effort, look at the creativity, look at the risk.
I mean, he's putting it all out there to get that frickin' wall or something that makes border security better, whether it's a wall or other.
So when you look at what he promises he's going to do, He's pretty darn reliable.
So when the campaign says, you know, promises made, promises kept, I think that other countries look at that and say, holy cow, that's a lot of promises made and a lot of promises kept.
And when he says that Bernie Sanders is actually the son of an alien, not an alien from Earth, but a space alien, and his real...
His real purpose is to take over the world, or anything else.
I think leaders of other countries say, oh, that's just campaign talk.
Don't take it too seriously.
So, if you believe that other countries have less respect for the United States, I think you've bought the mainstream news line, and I think there's no evidence for that.
And in fact, all evidence...
Suggests that they're more sophisticated than that.
The leaders are, anyway. The people who make a difference.
That they're more sophisticated than that and they know the difference between things that are BS and things that are meant to be taken seriously.
All right.
I guess that's all I got.
Can you remind me?
Is the debate tonight or is that tomorrow night?
He laid down his mindset and the art of the deal.
That's right. You are Dunning-Kruger.
We all are Dunning-Kruger.
That's how it works.
Alright, I think that's all.
Somebody says, how's your stomach?
Really, really bad. Yes, today was not a good day.
But I will talk to you tomorrow, and it will be better.
