Episode 829 Scott Adams: Why Bernie Can't Beat Trump, California Homeless Solutions, Biden Hallucinations
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Content:
Bernie's math, persuasion skills and enthusiastic young supporters
Bernie is ripping the Democrat party apart
Coronavirus did NOT come from the wet market
Is MSNBC Lawrence O'Donnell, crazy or acting?
James Carville's smart observations
Gavin Newsom and the homeless problem
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Today will be one of the best coffees with Scott Adams of all time because we've learned that coffee is even healthier than we thought.
How about that, huh?
Yes, the recent science, New York Times reports, says that coffee is really, really good for you.
So, not only do we have the delight of the simultaneous sip, but we're all going to be healthier in a moment, those of us having coffee.
And all you need to participate is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or gels or stye in the canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee because it's so healthy.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Go. Yes.
Science confirmed.
I feel healthier.
Don't you? I think you do.
All right. How bad is it for the Democrats when one of the biggest conversations is which candidate Trump would destroy the most?
Have we stopped even talking about Democrats winning the presidency?
I feel as if the conversation is shifting to how badly Trump will destroy whoever gets nominated, probably Bernie.
Speaking of Bernie, What does it mean that Bernie has so much support from young people?
What's that tell you?
Well, it could tell you he's bribing them with the money of old people.
I mean, that's basically what he's doing.
He's transferring money from the old to the young.
So that'll get some young people.
But the problem is, aren't young people the dumbest among us?
And I say this with love, because everybody was young.
And if they're lucky, they get older.
And I tried this following experiment with a teenager in my social world.
So recently a teenager was noting that she seemed to be as smart as an adult.
Doesn't matter the topic.
And I said this, have you ever noticed that you know more than you did when you were six years old?
Try this with a person in their 20s.
A person in their 20s says, Bernie, it's Bernie, it's Bernie all the way.
And say this, you know, do you think you know as much as you did when you were 6 years old?
Or do you know more?
Are you smarter than when you were 6 years old?
Now, anybody in their 20s is going to say, um, yeah, obviously.
Then you say, are you smarter than when you were, let's say, 14?
You know, now you're 25.
Are you smarter than when you were 14 years old?
Most people in their 20s will say, um, yeah.
Yeah, I'm a lot smarter.
And here's the punchline.
Do you think that stops?
Do you think that you're not going to be smarter at 40 than you are at 25?
Do you think there's any chance of that?
Now, you could argue that when you're 85, you might slow down, and maybe a 25-year-old is smarter than an 85-year-old on average, could be.
But you ask a 25-year-old, do you think you're going to stop growing and you're not going to get any smarter?
Or do you think it will be like every other year of your life, Where you get more experienced and smarter.
Because if the people who are twice as experienced are generally thinking that the person you're voting for is a really bad idea, but you don't see it, what is the problem here?
Now, you can't really change people's minds with this argument, but it's a lot of fun.
Get people to first agree That youth is associated with lack of experience, and that we know that because all of us are smarter than we used to be, and there's no exception.
You can't find anybody who believes they were smarter at 14 than they were at 25.
Nobody's going to say that.
So we have to look at the fact that there's a candidate who's getting a lot of the young vote, and it's not a compliment.
If you know what I mean.
Alright, I wonder if there's anybody who will take this position in voting.
Let's say Sanders gets nominated.
Will there be anybody who says, I really, really don't want Trump, but on the other hand, I don't want Bernie to destroy the world with his socialism.
So what would you do?
Because you don't want Bernie to destroy the world, but you desperately don't want President Trump anymore.
How would you vote? I'm wondering if some people will do this.
Vote for Bernie and then vote for all Republicans in Congress.
Just try to flip the House Republican.
Why? Because Bernie, if he's elected president, means you don't have President Trump.
So that mission might be accomplished for somebody for whom that's the biggest mission.
But if you get Republicans in Congress, Bernie can't do anything.
He doesn't have any power.
So you can get rid of Trump without worrying about Bernie if you also flip the house.
By the way, I'm not suggesting anybody take this path.
I'm wondering. It's just a question.
Is there anybody out there who says, you know, I just can't take Trump one more year, but I can't take a risk on Bernie, so I'm going to vote in Republicans to keep him at bay.
I mean, it could happen.
You can imagine somebody voting that way.
Alright, does Bernie have persuasion skills the way Trump does?
And here's a filter I'm going to put on this to let you see the whole race a little more clearly.
Generally speaking, money will predict outcomes.
If you follow the money, you're generally going to be closer to a good prediction than if you don't.
Ignoring the effect of money is just always the worst predicting mistake you can make.
And right now you have a situation.
Let's see if you agree with the way I'm going to frame this.
Politicians generally try to bribe voters...
Somehow. I mean, it's all bribes, one way or the other.
The way Trump tried to do it is he tried to bribe the American voters with money from other countries.
Right? Because Trump was saying, let's close down immigration, which would be bad for the other countries.
But his argument was that it would be good for especially low-income voters.
So he was explicitly trying to take money out of the hands of other countries and put it into the pockets of Americans.
In other words, bribing Americans to vote for him.
Look, I'll give you money.
It's going to come from these other countries.
And I'll even make Mexico pay for the wall.
You could argue whether that happened or whether Mexico paying for their forces on their southern border to keep the caravans out is sort of like paying for the wall.
But the point is, Trump said, I'm going to make other people pay our bills.
What did he say about NATO? I'm going to make other countries more of the bill.
It's like free money.
What did Trump say about spending?
Instead of being a deficit hawk, he ran up the deficit.
Basically, Trump said, I'm going to give you money today, and it's going to come out of people in the future.
I'm going to take money from the future and give it to you today.
Right? That's what a debt is.
Somebody in the future has to pay for it, but today we give free money.
The other way Trump gave us free money, or tried to bribe us, is by cutting regulations and cutting taxes to goose the economy.
If the economy is better, it creates money where it didn't exist before, and then Trump says, hey, we can all share on this money.
So Trump was bribing the public But bribing us with money that didn't yet exist, and money from other countries, and money that maybe was even imaginary.
That's a pretty good package.
Because nobody who is a voter had to say, oh, I'm going to give my money to somebody else.
It was all somebody else's money coming to us.
That's good persuasion. Now let's look at Bernie.
Bernie. I don't know if you'll be able to see this too clearly, but maybe you will.
So here's my little chart.
Let's say Bernie gets the nomination.
Well, you can expect that Republicans are still going to vote for Trump because Republicans are pretty unified right now.
So whether you are an older and richer or younger and poorer citizen, if you're a Republican, Or even an independent who usually votes Republican, you're still going to be happy with your choice.
So you can expect that Trump will get pretty much all of the Republican vote.
Then what about Bernie?
Remember, follow the money.
Bernie's plan is to take money from the older and or richer part of the public.
It usually tends to be the same, right?
It's not completely overlapping, but...
It's the older people who have more money, and he plans to take a lot of that away and give it to younger people.
So you should expect the younger people who would say, hey, free money, yeah, sign me up.
So if you're a Democrat and you're younger and or poorer, tends to be the same but doesn't have to be, you're probably going to say, you know, that looks pretty good to me.
So I think Bernie could be expected to get all of the younger or poorer Democrats.
But what about the people who've got some money or they're a little richer?
Let's say you are Chris Matthews.
Let's say Chris Matthews is up in this top left quadrant and he's getting ready for retirement, one assumes.
He's at age where you start thinking about how much have I earned and what's my retirement look like and all that.
And he's looking at working all of his life, working really hard, amassing a certain amount of money, getting ready to retire.
And then Bernie is saying, I'm going to take that money that you earned, fair and square, and I'm going to give it to people who ran up big debts who really shouldn't have.
Let's say student loans.
And did not work as hard as you do for their money.
Is Chris Matthews, even though he's a Democrat, going to vote to give his money that he worked all of his life and now is looking for his retirement?
And suddenly, Bernie says, I want to take the comfort of your retirement away and give it to people who did not do the hard work you did and did not do the right things.
What is Chris Matthews going to do?
Is Chris Matthews going to say, yes, it's good for other people that I have a less secure retirement and that I worked hard and then just sort of gave it to people who didn't.
Is that going to be okay with Chris Matthews?
I'm going to say no.
So I don't see any scenario in which Bernie can get the older, richer on his side.
If you take the filter, the money is determinant.
So here's the basic problem.
Trump will be bribing the public with money that is imaginary, is future money, is potential money, is money from other countries.
So no voters are out of pocket for that stuff.
And Bernie is doing the opposite.
He's saying, I'm going to take money from the people who are above average, in terms of their living conditions, and I'm going to transfer it to people who are below average.
All the people above average should not vote for Bernie if they're going to vote for their own self-interest.
Now, you assume some people are going to do it anyway because they want a better world or they're not doing the math good.
So people will still take the suboptimal path.
But I think money is really predictive.
and Bernie has a proposition which is half of the people who should be voting for him should be able to look at it and say, you know, I'm in the half that's doing okay.
It's just all bad for me.
It's just good for the people at the bottom.
Why would I vote for that, say the people who were in the top half?
All right, does it seem to you that nobody is taking Pete Buttigieg seriously at the moment?
I feel as if, you know, if you look at the last three contests, Buttigieg either came in first or second, right?
Or he was near the top in all three contests.
Shouldn't we be talking really, really seriously about Pete Buttigieg?
But we're not, right?
Even the Democrats are not really taking him seriously.
And I think that the...
The whole PowerPoint attack on him, just being sort of an empty, jargon-filled suit, I think it took a toll.
I think Pete went from exciting and new, and he's the shiny new thing, and he's smart, and he's fun, and he's good-looking, and he has a lot of cool things about him.
But then you listen to him, and it just sounds like empty jargon talk.
And I think As soon as the word PowerPoint was mentioned, I think that was the end of his political run this time.
So I may be overstating how much difference that made, but you just don't see any enthusiasm for him anymore.
Let's see. Who would you say is dividing the country if Sanders and Trump run?
If you listen to Trump talk, Trump will be saying and doing things like this.
Here's me in a room full of young black voters cheering me on because they're Republicans.
Here's me praising black leaders.
Here's me bragging about lowering black unemployment.
Here's me bringing us, basically, bringing everybody together.
Not insulting Americans, insulting other people and his critics, but not insulting voters who are minding their own business.
And then there's Sanders. Do you know what Sanders is saying?
Have you heard him recently? He's decided that he's going to go full racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic.
And first of all, none of that even really lands.
Calling Trump a homophobic?
That is so not even close to what I'm observing, are you?
I mean, what would you even look at to claim that Trump is homophobic?
It's ridiculous. And the other claims are just warmed up, you know, the Charlottesville fine people hoax and ridiculousness.
So you've got Bernie who's ripping apart the Democratic Party.
Wouldn't you agree? I mean, there's a lot of division with the Democrats.
That didn't exist before.
And it's not something that Trump made.
Trump is out there every day saying, let's get together, we Americans.
And that does not include people who came here illegally.
That's his message. Like it or not, that's his message.
It's all about coming together.
But Bernie is all about...
Separating the rich and the poor, making the rich and the poor enemies, making the Republicans look like a bunch of racists and sexists, and it looks to me like Bernie is just ripping the fabric of the country apart to get elected.
Am I wrong? Would that look like a biased statement today?
Now, if you were looking at candidate Trump in 2015, And comparing him to candidate Sanders in 2020, you'd probably say, oh, you know, there's two candidates who look like they're trying to divide the country.
That was candidate Trump.
But President Trump is funding the historically black colleges, he's doing prison reform, he's bragging about black unemployment being low.
He doesn't look like he's dividing the country to me.
He looks like everything he's doing is To bring it together, and Bernie is working as hard as he can to divide it, because that's his path to victory, I imagine he thinks.
So, certainly we cannot accept that Trump is the one dividing the country.
It's just not happening now.
If you said he used to be that way, and his rhetoric used to be more dividing, I would say, yeah, that's probably true.
I would say that's probably true.
It's just not true now.
So, is anybody taking Joe Biden seriously?
Did you hear the two things he said this week?
I guess he told audiences three times in the last two weeks that he was arrested 40 years ago in South Africa while trying to meet Nelson Mandela.
Except there's no evidence, independent of him saying it recently, that that ever happened.
Joe Biden seems to have hallucinated some history of his own in which he tried to meet Nelson Mandela in South Africa and got arrested.
But it's better than that.
He also told audiences that his deceased son had been the Attorney General of the United States, which he hadn't been.
Had he been an attorney general of a state or something?
That's probably what he was thinking.
I don't know the resume of his deceased son, but those are some pretty big departures from reality.
And at this point, I don't think anybody takes Biden seriously, much less his own team.
All right. I'm fascinated by how the media moguls are going to handle Bernie Sanders.
Let's say you're Jeff Zucker.
Jeff Zucker makes a lot of money.
Does Jeff Zucker want to live in a world where Bernie Sanders takes Jeff Zucker's money away and gives it to other people?
I'm going to say no.
I mean, I'm not going to read his mind.
I can't read Jeff Zucker's mind.
He might be the greatest guy in the world and he just thinks, you know, other people should take my money.
But I suspect that anybody who wanted to have less money so that poor people could have more They certainly have ways to do that.
It's called charity. You can give away as much of your money as you want.
So if Jeff Zucker wanted to give away all his money, he could do that without Bernie Sanders.
And I'm guessing that he doesn't want to do that.
So what does CNN do when they've got Trump, who is their nemesis?
They of course have to say bad things about him.
That's their business model.
But they can't really promote Sanders Because he's going to be really expensive for the talent and the owners of CNN, the managers.
It would be a disaster for them, the same as it would be a disaster for me.
I would suffer greatly financially under a Bernie Sanders regime.
So I think we're starting to get the answer to that, because on CNN, they recently hired Joe Lockhart.
And Joe Lockhart writes this article on CNN, their website, saying that Bloomberg needs to take out Bernie and quickly.
Can you imagine?
That's sort of shocking, isn't it?
That they would hire...
A very anti-Trumper guy, Joe Lockhart, and he's super, you know, super partisan anti-Trumper.
And they let him write an opinion piece on CNN, basically anti-Bernie.
It's pretty much anti-Bernie.
So I think CNN doesn't want to take sides with Bernie.
What would that look like?
What is their business model even going to look like?
Because they had a really clean model, which was Democrats of the world united against this evil Trump guy.
And that worked really well.
But what if they don't like either one?
What do they do? What do they do with that?
So I think CNN is going to have to try pretty hard to take Bernie out.
And we have this weird...
Enemy of my enemy situation, in which CNN and Republicans are going to be on the same side.
So, look for that.
How wonderful is it that the two top candidates to run against Trump...
The Democrats had years to prepare.
They knew exactly what they were up against.
President Trump is a really well-known quantity...
So they knew exactly what kind of candidate would match up well.
And what they picked were one billionaire who's got accusations of sexism, racism, and foreign entanglements.
Okay, that's one of the choices that they came up with after years of thinking about what would be a good matchup with Trump.
And the other one is literally a con man.
I mean, there's no other way to say what Bernie is doing.
Because I don't think Bernie believes his math works, right?
I mean, I hate to be a mind reader because I can't tell what's in his head.
But do you get any indication that Bernie Sanders believes that despite what every economist and anybody who can do math tells him, that he alone knows how to make the math work and it'll all work out?
I don't know. If I had to guess, and again, I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think there's any chance that Bernie thinks that the proposals he's pushing are actually practical.
Do you? I mean, he does seem like he acts like a true believer, but my guess is that he wants to push things in that direction, at least as far as they'll go.
So I don't think, and again, this is just speculation because I'm not a mind reader, but I would guess that Bernie wants to push it in that direction as far as it'll go, and he doesn't know how far that is, but probably doesn't think it would go all the way to the extremes that he's promoting.
So... I don't know.
It looks to me like Bernie is essentially a con artist who's saying, I'm going to take money from other citizens and give it to you if you vote for me.
And it just doesn't look like leadership.
It just looks like a con.
He's just taking money from one pocket and putting it in another.
And he's the one who benefits.
How in the world...
Will President Trump compete against Bernie saying he would forgive student debt?
Because if you're a student, or you have some debt, or even if you have a family member who has a lot of student debt, that's a really attractive thing, right?
So let me suggest one way that President Trump could take the issue of student debt completely off the table.
Are you ready for it? Here it is.
President Trump could say, and by the way, I don't think he will do this.
So I just like thinking through the persuasive techniques.
So this is just a thought experiment.
But President Trump could say, you know, Bernie wants to forgive all student debt.
I'll tell you what.
If the Congress passes such a law, I'll sign it.
Now, your first reaction to that is, what the hell?
That would put President Trump in the same place as Bernie, just wiping off debt of the people who made what looked like the wrong choices, and the people who were hard workers and paid off their debt, they get nothing?
They get nothing? And you're suggesting, Scott, that the President should say he would sign such a bill?
Here's the thing. If Congress passed it, it would mean that both Democrats and Republicans and the representatives of the people wanted it to happen by majority.
If you're the President of the United States and if you're the President of the United States and both houses of Congress, or at least the majority, the people closest to the people say by majority, yeah, we want this law, I kind of think the President ought to sign it.
Just in general. Now, if it had a, let's say, a national defense element to it, or if it were discriminatory against some disadvantaged group, well, then the president should step in and say, yeah, I get that the will of the people want to do this, but this is mob law, and that's why you have me.
You have me to stop mob law.
But there's nothing like mob law in this.
This would be rational people who look at the choices, and hypothetically...
Republicans and Democrats got together in sufficient number to say, yeah, we're going to vote away all of the student debt.
Now, I think there's no chance that it would ever happen.
So that's the first part.
There's no chance it would happen.
But what if it did?
What if it did? I would say the president should sign it.
Even if you don't like it.
Because it would be actually a pretty fair representation of the will of the people.
Their representatives would say, you know, my people kind of want this.
So I'm going to be for it.
I think the president could completely take the issue off the table by saying, you know, Bernie's just saying that if Congress gives him that bill, he'll sign it.
Well, guess what? If the public wants it that much that it can get through Congress, I'll sign it too.
Takes it completely off the table, right?
Because I don't think it would ever get through Congress, but it has to get through Congress, whether it's Bernie or Trump.
In order for a president even to be part of the decision.
All right. There's a, in no particular order, oh, Tom Cotton was tweeting because apparently China has determined, or at least their current opinion, is that the Wuhan market was not the cause of the coronavirus outbreak.
So the current thinking, which I'm sure is subject to revision, but the current thinking is that China doesn't know where it came from.
Or at least they're not saying they know where it came from.
So Senator Tom Cotton got in a little trouble because he had suggested that we can't rule out the Wuhan weapons plant because wouldn't that be a big coincidence that a bioweapon plant was right near where a Where a serious coronavirus broke out.
But he wasn't saying, I think that's what it was.
He was simply saying, you've got to keep that option open.
And then the only other option just got eliminated.
Right? There were only two options on the table that I know of.
One was that it came from animals that were not prepared in the safest way, I guess.
And the other is it came from a bio lab.
And we just eliminated animals.
Now, that doesn't mean it's the bio lab, right?
It probably means that we don't know where it came from.
And, you know, there are probably a thousand ways it could have gotten there that I can't think of.
But, Cotton, you might be closer to the truth than you thought.
Alright, so there's some leaked pages from Twitter.
Meaning, because it's a leak, we don't know if Twitter is really planning to do this.
Or if these are just tests and demos.
But there are some leaked pages showing, at least indicating that Twitter is considering marking untrue things as lies.
In other words, highlighting them with, let's say, an orange color and a little tag that says, this tweet is not true.
Now, my first reaction to that was, huh, that could be kind of helpful.
Yeah, I would like to have something flagged.
I mean, I'll use my own judgment on it after the fact.
But it would help me if they flag things that at least some other people say are not true.
I think that would be useful.
I can make up my own mind.
I can still see it. You know, I can check links, etc.
And then I thought, wait a minute, who gets flagged by whom?
So somebody's saying in the comments.
Then my second thought was, wait a minute.
Yeah, who gets to decide?
We watch every day as people who are well-meaning can't decide what's true looking at the same information.
So, I just don't know there's any way to get there.
Now, what I wouldn't mind is if there was a point and a counterpoint.
If they flagged it in orange and said this is a disputed fact, I would be completely happy with disputed.
If, at the same time, There was a link to the dispute on either side.
So if something was flagged as potentially not true, and then I could see the people who say it's not true, and I could see the argument that says it is true right next to each other, I'd like that.
And then I don't have to worry about whether it's true or false.
I can simply note that people disagree with it, and I can look.
All right. So there might be something good coming.
We'll see. Lawrence O'Donnell over at MSNBC, I can't tell if he's lying or crazy or acting, and I'm fascinated by it.
I couldn't look away.
But he did this big thing saying, the president is a Russian operative.
This is yesterday.
This is not even during the Russia collusion hoax, but as recently as yesterday, I think it was, or the day before.
The president is a Russian operative.
That sounds like the description of a bad Hollywood screenplay, but it is real, and it is Vladimir Putin's greatest achievement.
Lawrence O'Donnell actually said that sentence on TV. And then he goes on about how Putin owns Trump.
And I think to myself, does he even believe any of that?
I can't tell.
Can you? Because he looks crazy.
Like, to my eyes, he looks crazy.
Like he's in a cognitive dissonance bubble or TDS or something.
But it looks actually crazy.
But who knows?
Maybe he's just faking it.
James Carville said something That made me pause.
No matter what you want to say about James Carville, he is a smart guy and a straight talker, and every now and then he'll just say something that will just knock you off your chair and make you rethink.
He's good at that.
And here's one of the things he said, that why I didn't think of this, I don't know.
But he said that if Russians are trying to help Bernie...
It's not because they want him to be president, it's because they know he's so weak he'll lose to Trump.
So in other words, Carville is saying that Russia only wants to help Trump, and they either do it directly through their hacking and social media, or they do it indirectly by promoting Sanders as the competitor because he doesn't have a chance of winning.
And I thought to myself, I had never really thought of that interpretation.
And yet it's kind of obvious.
It's sitting right there.
Why in the world did that not occur to me?
And I'm not sure it's true, but I'm shocked that it wasn't obvious to me that Russia could play the pro-Trump card two different ways, by supporting him directly or by supporting Trump.
But here's the thing.
National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien, who has access to all the intelligence, says that he's seen no intelligence to support the claim that Trump is being helped by Russia.
So one of the guys who has access to all the information says there's nothing there that would suggest Russia is helping Trump.
Now, here's what I'm going to add to it that James Carville needs to listen to me.
James Carville, I don't think you'll ever see this, but let me give you a twist on this because you sort of blew me away with that fairly obvious insight that for whatever reason escaped my filter.
But here's one for you, James Carville.
If Russia wanted...
Trump to get elected.
Isn't the best thing they could do stay completely out of it?
I mean, seriously?
Because they're watching the same stuff we're watching, and they know who's likely to run against them.
I don't think at this point they see anybody who could beat them.
So wouldn't the dumbest, worst, stupidest thing that Russia could do is clumsily do the same things they did before and easily got caught In other words, make some memes and try to hack stuff.
Apparently we can catch them when they do that.
Why would they do that again?
Of all the things that would not help Trump, the worst thing that Russia could do, by far, by 100 to 1, the worst thing they could do is try to help Trump.
There's nothing they could do that would be worse than that if they wanted him to get elected.
Right? Now, James Carville, what do you say to that?
Do you think Russia is simultaneously so brilliant that they can do all these clever schemes because they're so smart, but at the same time they're so stupid that the schemes they tried last time were weak and pathetic and had no effect whatsoever and they got caught?
Oh, so they're going to do some more of that stuff.
The stuff that's weak and pathetic and they're definitely going to get caught because they're such geniuses, that's their plan.
None of it makes sense.
So you know you're being lied to.
We just don't know what the truth is.
Let's see what else we've got going on.
So California might be heading in the right direction on this homelessness stuff.
So Gavin Newsom seems to be learning.
Because he's made the homelessness thing a high priority, so that's good.
And he's also made some mobile, I guess some mobile trailer homes available for homeless in the short term.
And that's good-ish.
But remember, it's not really a problem of people finding homes.
It's a problem of addiction and mental illness.
But it seems that, according to an article by Joel Pollack in Breitbart, It seems that Newsom is looking hard at legislation that would allow a doctor to basically take somebody off the street.
Now, I don't know what that would look like, but you know that I think he's getting close to what I would call the Dr.
Drew insight about homelessness.
And I'm guessing that probably Dr.
Drew broke through. I think probably he was the one Whose influence on this topic is probably the one that broke through.
And that was the idea that you have to deal with the homelessness problem as an addiction and mental health problem.
And now Newsom is starting to talk in those terms and talking about needing legislation to effectively force people into treatment.
Because if you take away the involuntary part, there's nothing there.
There's nothing you could do.
You could build houses all day long, and people will still have mental health and addiction problems, and they won't want to be in those houses, or they will ruin them.
And then the other thing that California is doing is looking to make some state land available for resettling the homeless, but also for some experimenting and also to reduce some of the permitting, make it easier to build a low-cost place just for make it easier to build a low-cost place just for the homeless.
That's all good.
That's all pretty good stuff.
So I would say congratulations to Dr. Drew because I think probably, Dr. Drew, you're the one who broke through and got everybody at least thinking in the right productive line.
Still a lot of work to do, but at least the thinking seems to be right.
So that's pretty positive.
All right.
So you got that, and I think that's about all I was going to talk about today.
Thank you.
Anything else happening for you?
I'm just looking at your comments now.
Yeah, providing 100 trailers for the 10,000 homeless or whatever it is.
It's just a small thing, but at least maybe they'll learn something from it.
What did Houston do?
Somebody says that Houston reduced their homeless, but I don't know about that.
Talk about AOC. I saw AOC was getting some heat because she wore an expensive-ish dress on the view.
But, you know, really, if we're mocking women for the dress they wear, we're just not...
I mean, you're just not being productive.
And by the way, it was a really good dress.
So, in terms of fashion, I would say A+. But otherwise, I don't think we should care about how women dress.
Naval disagrees with me on the slippery slope.
Well, I think if we were in the same room, we probably would not disagree.
Some of it is just your choice of words.
It is true that things sometimes go in one direction, but it's not because there's something called a slippery slope.
It's just true that some things will go in one direction until something stops them.
It's just a better way to think of it.
Yeah, the Phil Haney apparent suicide.
I'm kind of watching that story, but you know, people do kill themselves.
So, I'm not going to immediately jump into the, there's something fishy here.
He was a whistleblower.
So you definitely have to question that one.
Scott, have you ever thought of moving out of California?
Yes, I think about it almost every day.
You know, if you live in either California or New York and you have a high income, it doesn't make sense anymore because tax-wise it's a disaster to be in the state.
So some of my smartest friends have recently moved out of California to Florida and to Texas for the better tax treatment.
And if I did not have ties locally, I would definitely move.
But I have a lot of ties locally.
Healthcare is still a GOP blind spot.
Absolutely. You know what?
If the GOP doesn't offer a good argument for healthcare, a good plan for making it better, Bernie deserves to win, you know, if it's Bernie.
So, you know, if the president loses and he doesn't have a good health care argument or plan or persuasion, he's just sort of, you know, abandoning that argument.
If that happens, then he deserves to lose because that's a high priority and it's not being addressed.
And if the president doesn't address it, well, maybe, maybe Bernie can take a shot at it.
Yeah, Clint Eastwood is saying good things about Bloomberg.
I don't think Clint Eastwood's opinion matters, or any one person's opinion.
Yeah, you know, the only thing I don't like about Florida is the bugs and the humidity, so if you could get rid of those, maybe you'd have something.
