All Episodes
Aug. 15, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:39
Episode 1093 Scott Adams: Post Office Efficiency, Biden Botching Everything, ACLU Backs China, Barr Disses Teachers Union for Racism

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: FBI high-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith ACLU supports China and child traffickers? NY Police Union endorses President Trump AG Bill Barr: teachers unions and systemic racism Kamala: kids age 18-24 are "stupid" Arab countries leaning in Israel's direction, diminishing Iran ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Sings* Hey everybody!
Come on in!
Come on in. Gather around.
Grab your beverage. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Is it going to be the best coffee with Scott Adams you've ever seen?
Yes, it is.
Until tomorrow, because it gets better every day.
Yes, it does. It gets better every day.
And all you need to join in on this incredible experience that people around the world are enjoying simultaneously, all you need, really, it's very little, almost trivial if you think about it, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or gels or stein, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel, if any, Kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Yeah. Including the legal system.
Why not? Go.
Ah. I feel justice breaking out all over the place.
Plenty of it.
If you are sitting around tonight and saying to yourself, what can I do in the middle of this pandemic?
What type of entertainment can I find that's in my own house without even leaving the house?
The answer is you should watch the Greg Gottfeld show tonight because I'm on it.
I'm not alone, of course.
Other wonderful people on it too.
You know the show. Check your local listings.
And you will be delighted.
So that's the Greg Gutfeld Show tonight, so I'll be on that as a guest.
The big news, unless you watch the fake news, is that lawyer Kevin Clinesmith is being indicted for falsifying evidence that continued the investigation onto Carter Page.
Which we know now was all a bunch of BS. And I ask you this.
If you have a high-level lawyer working for the FBI, and this high-level lawyer falsifies documents to keep a guy under surveillance and risk his life in the larger service of overthrowing the legal government of the United States, I'm just going to put this out there.
Shouldn't that be the death sentence?
Because, it's a weird thing, because it's sort of a, it feels blue-collar, or white-collary.
You know, it's like if you change some words on a document, well, that's not so bad, right?
I mean, it's not like you murdered somebody, is it?
But it kind of is.
It kind of is closer to murdering somebody.
Because that's the whole point of treason.
Treason doesn't say you murdered this one person.
It says you created a situation that is so dangerous for the country that the entire republic is in danger.
So this one lawyer did a crime which, in my opinion, put the entire republic at risk.
That, in terms of how bad it is, potentially, you know, he got caught, but in terms of how bad it is, potentially, it's treason level.
You know, I don't think there's any chance that the death penalty could be, you know, actually used, but it's treason level.
So I'll just put that out there.
Apparently, The MSNBC and CNN, they don't think this is a big story.
It's by far the biggest story.
But you're watching it in real time, and it's probably blowing your mind, that the press can make anything important seem like it's completely unimportant, and they can take something that's completely unimportant and blow it into something that looks like it's the big national story.
And you stand there and you look at it objectively and you think to yourself, are we spending all our time on the unimportant stuff?
And the answer is, yeah, we are.
We are. A little bit more on that in a bit.
Bill Mitchell got banned from Twitter, I understand.
Jack Posobiec was reporting on this on Twitter.
And this was Jack's information.
He said that Bill Mitchell first received a seven-day ban for tweets talking about mask dangers, then was using a second account to tweet during the ban and had his main account permanently suspended.
Now, I blocked Bill Mitchell a long time ago.
Now, I think he's a nice guy.
I've been on his show a few times.
And he's very nice personally, so it's not a personal thing.
But I blocked him because his certainty on a medical thing just is not good.
Now, I wouldn't have necessarily banned him from Twitter.
I don't know if that's something I would have done.
But I certainly banned him from my life because I didn't want to interact with with someone who is not a medical professional who had certainty about a medical thing.
It's just not good, right?
Now, I'm perfectly okay with anybody who tweets a study that turned out not to be valid.
That would be every one of us on Twitter.
There's nobody on Twitter who hasn't at one time or another retweeted a story that turned out to be false, a study that turned out to be not reproducible.
That's just sort of everyday on Twitter.
But most of us don't sell it as a fact.
Most of us would say, well, this is interesting, or these people say this.
Once you cross over into I'm telling you the facts, listen to me, people, you're probably on shakier ground.
So I don't know the full details of this, but I'm guessing that Bill Mitchell was saying something as a medical fact when maybe...
Maybe we shouldn't be speaking in terms of certainty.
But we'll see.
I guess more information on that will come out.
Alright, here's my favorite stupid story of the day.
Now, as the creator of the Dilbert comic, you know my filters are turned for corporate behavior that's a little bit ridiculous.
And I've always wondered...
Will there be a day sometime in the future where there'll be some company that's so big and so unwieldy, that has so many moving parts, so big, the bureaucracy, that it would someday sue itself?
Right? That sounds silly, right?
Would a company ever get so big that it wouldn't know that it was suing itself?
Well, something like that's happening.
And I thought I would share it with you.
So, the ACLU... The ACLU is, first of all, backing China, saying that TikTok and WeChat, the two Chinese apps that are under review for being banned in this country, it looks like they will be banned, and the ACLU is trying to stop that.
What? The ACLU is trying to stop a national security decision by the commander-in-chief.
What? These are not American companies, and nobody's saying that these products can't exist.
They just can't exist under the control of our nemesis who wants to destroy our country.
Now, if that doesn't make you think that the ACLU has lost all credibility, I would add this little factoid.
The ACLU gets a lot of its funding from Google, for example.
So Google is one of the main big funders of the ACLU. Google, of course, is maybe a little bit friendly with China.
So what do you make of the fact that Google is maybe a little bit friendly with China and is funding the ACLU, and the ACLU is siding with China over the United States?
Now, they wouldn't put it that way, but that's the way it looks to me.
Because even if this is like a gray area, it's still the United States call how much risk we're willing to take.
It's not up to China to decide how much risk the United States takes.
They don't get to decide.
And also, I don't get to decide.
I don't think the ACLU should get to decide how much risk the United States takes in terms of foreign adversaries either.
You know where that belongs?
Commander-in-Chief. It's purely a security issue.
So that makes you wonder about them, but here's the real story I was getting to.
The ACLU is also going after this small startup called Clearview AI, who does a An app that if you have a photo of anybody, it'll find you more photos of that person so you can figure out who they are.
So it's used by law enforcement to identify people.
And I guess the ICE, so the federal government's ICE, you know, immigration guys, they signed a contract with Clearview to use the app to catch child traffickers.
So here's the setup.
There's a technology which we know with complete certainty because it's already being used, already successful at exactly this.
So we don't have to speculate whether it works.
That's already determined.
That's why ICE signed the contract.
They're not guessing if it works.
They know it works.
There are lots of examples already of it working in other contexts, etc.
So ICE... Decides that this technology will help them catch child traffickers.
Who would be on the other side of that?
Right? Like, who's on the other side of using a standard technology, which will be widespread far more than it is now, to catch child traffickers?
Well, it turns out the ACLU is.
So the ACLU is trying to stop ICE from using a technology That we know catches child traffickers.
Just wrap your head around that.
Now, their argument goes like this.
It's not so much that they care about this particular use.
They care about the company and what it might be for privacy, etc.
That's just a big question for the country.
It doesn't really have to do with this contract.
And there's a punchline to this.
It gets better. If you think this is crazy, there's a whole good part coming.
So make sure you hear that.
So here's the fun part.
There's, I guess, an Illinois law recently passed that said it's illegal to scrape personal data, like somebody's picture and identity or something, from other websites and then to use it for some purpose.
So since Illinois has this law, that gives the ACLU the ability to say that Clearview's a problem.
Now, they're saying that Clearview is a problem in general, and then they're taking this ice thing as the little fight they're going to make, which is the dumbest fight anybody ever took.
They're literally on the side of child traffickers.
And that's not even a joke.
They actually, literally, no kidding, took the side of child traffickers.
I've never seen anything like that.
It's the most amazing thing you'll ever see.
But anyway, it gets better.
Here's the fun part.
So Google, as you know, is one of the big funders of the ACLU. And the ACLU is going after this company Clearview.
And the cause is that they're scraping this personal information, right?
So that's the whole story. There's a story in the Wall Street Journal saying the same thing, scraping this personal information, except here's the punchline.
They don't do that.
The whole basis of the story is is that Clearview is scraping the photos and identification of people and they don't do that.
That's not their business. What they do is they create an index of stuff that's available on the internet.
They just focus on faces.
That's it. Clearview AI is a subset of Google function itself.
It's not a subset of the company, but rather they do what Google does.
Google does not store on their own servers all the information on the internet.
They don't make a copy of it.
They make an index.
Somebody says you were wrong.
Goodbye. So Clearview makes an index of faces and does not store any of that data itself.
Rather it stores the index information so you can go find it if you want to see it.
What does Google do?
Google does the same thing.
Yeah, Google does some caching, but the main point is they're not storing a copy of the whole internet.
So Google's own business model, if you did a Google image search, it would have an index to the images and then it would show it to you.
That's exactly what Clearview does.
They just have an index of where all the faces are and then it just finds it for you.
So Google is funding the ACLU To sue Clearview for the business model that is identical to Google's own business model.
And the only reason this is happening is because apparently the people doing the suing don't understand how the technology works.
They don't know the difference between an index and a copy.
Think about that.
This whole thing, it's like national news and everybody's writing about it and it's all based on the fact they can't tell the difference Between an index, which is perfectly legal, it's the way basically Google works.
All search engines are an index.
It's just another one.
It's basically an extension of a fingerprint database.
It's just better. That's it.
You know, if fingerprints were legal, And they are, to take fingerprints.
This is just a better version of it, using public information that's already available.
And if you did a little work, you could find it.
It'd just be harder without the app.
So Google actually found a way to sue itself.
Not technically, but they're basically suing through ACLU that they fund, trying to stop a company that has the same business model.
But here's the kicker. They're a competitor.
So the ACLU is managing to sue on behalf of Google, if you count them as the funding source, somebody doing the same thing that Google's doing.
Now, how is that going to go?
Somebody says I blocked the wrong person.
Well, the one I touched said you were wrong, so if I block the wrong person...
No, I don't block people for disagreeing with me.
If you're new here, the rule is this.
You can disagree with me all you want.
But you just have to show a reason.
It could be a summary of a reason.
Just, oh, I think you didn't look at this data or whatever.
But if you just say you're wrong, I block you.
Because I don't need it.
Anyway, so keep an eye on This ACLU story, because it seems they've turned bad.
Now this is an example of Gell Mann amnesia.
I talk about this all the time.
Gell Mann was the name of a physicist who, whenever he saw a story about physics, he knew the story was wrong, but then if he saw a story about some other topic, he would say, that's probably right, knowing that every story he saw that he knew the information about was wrong.
Now, is it more likely that they're only wrong about the things he knows about?
No. Now, in this case, with the Clearview AI, I know this much about technology, and I've looked into this specific issue, so I know that it's an index.
So if you know just a little bit about how things work, you can tell that all the headline stories are just complete bullshit, Because they think that they're scraping and keeping the personal information, which isn't happening.
Alright. I live in California, which as you know is a third world country.
It wasn't always this way.
But last night I'm getting an alert on my phone about which parts of California are going to have to go without electricity, while the temperature yesterday at my house was 106.
Now, my house is built to be very green, so it could be 106 outside, and my house wouldn't get warmer than probably 80.
You know, it would be livable.
But it's pretty rugged if you live in any less insulated house.
That's a big deal.
So I actually live in a state that can't figure out how to keep the lights on all year.
Really? Now, could you even think of any greater indicator of incompetence than you can't keep the lights on?
In 2020, you can't keep the lights on all year.
And it's not even because there's a surprise.
It's not like there was a disaster.
It just got warm.
That's it. It got warm, and my state is not well-run enough to keep the lights on?
Oh, that's pretty bad.
You know, it wasn't long ago that we didn't have enough water.
So we don't have water, electricity, and it looks like we're going to get rid of police and just fill the cities with, I don't know, homeless and protesters or whatever else.
So I saw some stats that people are leaving San Francisco and New York City in droves and But it's not everybody, is it?
It's basically all the people with money are leaving.
And I have to say that I've wondered for some time why cities can exist.
It just seems like cities should disappear.
Now I say this as someone who, you know, through most of my career I would have to go to New York City You know, once or twice a year for a book publication thing or a press tour or something like that.
And every time I'd go to New York City, I'd have the same feeling, which is, you know, there's a great energy here, and I do like, you know, the people are great.
If you're in Manhattan, of course I'm talking about before any of the protests happened, it was great people, great energy, but the city's completely broken.
I mean, even months ago, I'd go there, and I'd get a high-end hotel room where I'd pay a lot of money, and it's about the size of a shoebox.
You just can't even wait to get out of there.
So it just is unlivable, and then you try to get someplace, and you just can't get across town in less than an hour.
It wasn't really livable, in my opinion, but apparently people liked it.
I'm not surprised that San Francisco and New York are going to get emptied out.
I also don't necessarily think it's the end of the world.
Because the people leaving have options.
They have enough money.
And the people staying behind...
I don't know. Were they shopping at those retail stores anyway?
Who knows? We're mixing concepts here.
All right. So the New York Post...
I had a story about the New York PD, the police department union, endorsing Trump.
Now you've got this super Democrat city, New York City, and their police department just endorsed Trump.
And I looked at the comments for that article, I tweeted about this, and the people who were really confused They got cause and effect backwards, which was weird.
And they were writing stuff like, well, no wonder the police are not trusted if they're going to back the President of the United States.
And I thought, there's something wrong with these people.
And I kept seeing comments like that, and I thought, don't they have cause and effect backwards?
Isn't it that everything went wrong and people turned against the police and that's why they're backing Trump?
I mean, they didn't back Trump first and then the city fell apart.
Kind of was the other way around.
So I thought, who could be so dumb that they would reverse cause and effect?
And I started clicking on the profiles of the people with those comments.
Writers. Writers, artists, musicians.
It is so consistent.
The ones who really don't understand anything that's going on, They're just always writers.
And I'm looking for somebody who's an economist or an engineer.
None. None.
There's nobody who understands how to compare things properly or to analyze things.
None of those people are confused about why the New York Police Department might want to back Trump.
To them, that's not too surprising.
But to the artists, what's going on?
Bill Barr was on Hannity, might have been last night, and he said this, which made me happy when talking about racism, systemic racism.
And Bill Barr, Attorney General, says the racism in this country looked no further than our public education system.
That's a racist system, he says, maintained by the Democratic Party and the teachers' unions, keeping inner-city kids in failing schools.
And I say to you, how perfect is that?
Now, I was saying before that the mark of the Democrats seems to be not knowing the difference between what is important and what is not.
It's very consistent. Now, what is important If you're looking at the concept of systemic racism, what are the big things?
Well, one thing that's not important is hoaxes and things that aren't true.
Another thing that is not important, if you were to rank all the problems of black Americans, the least important thing would be the thing they're protesting about.
The protesters are worrying about police brutality.
Now, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, Even assuming it exists exactly as is presented by the protesters, which is not so much the killing, but maybe the more stopping and the more physicality.
That's certainly something I would assume might be happening.
I don't have data on that, but it feels like that probably does happen.
And I think to myself, if all of that's true, it's still your smallest problem.
What's the biggest problem?
Well, Bill Barr just called it out.
The biggest problem, the alpha problem, the base problem, the problem that makes all the other problems is that the school system is broken.
You know, if black Americans were getting good educations no matter where they lived, inner city or other, would you have as much poverty?
Would you have as much crime?
Would you have as much anything?
I mean, it pretty much fixes...
Fixes is too strong a word.
It removes the friction that racism otherwise puts on the system.
So in other words, if you're doing great, you're not as affected by racism, even though racism doesn't go away.
As long as you're doing great, it doesn't affect you.
So if you fix education, people have a far better chance of doing great And then, yeah, there's still racism.
You can't make it go away.
It's one of those things that's like air.
It's always going to be there.
But you can make it not matter.
So I think the administration might want to hammer on this whole priority thing a little bit more because the Dems are getting this wrong all the time, the priority stuff.
Let me give you another example of that.
Turn on CNN. What are they yammering about?
The birther issue.
The birther issue. Born out of the fact that when the president was asked about Kamala Harris's legal eligibility to be vice president, and the president said, well, you know, there's an interesting theory about that, but I don't really know.
And that turned into CNN's biggest story.
That is the smallest story.
In terms of the priorities of anybody in this country, that is the smallest story.
And it's not even true.
Because the president is not pushing birtherism.
He's just saying, I don't know, maybe.
Which is just enough to get people yapping about all the wrong stuff.
Now, it's becoming increasingly clear to me that one of the reasons that CNN and MSNBC might want Black Vice President for Biden is so that they have reasons for insulting President Trump.
Doesn't it just make it easier?
It makes it easier for them to criticize Trump if they've got at least one black person on the ticket, right?
They want a black person, they want a woman, they got both, so that they can claim everything Trump says is sexist or racist.
It's kind of transparent.
I mean, it's just the ultimate situation.
Now compare that to what the President's working on.
Let's say, for example, peace in the Middle East.
What is more important?
Peace in the Middle East or the thing he said he didn't know about but turned into a story where he's really promoting it when all he said is he didn't know about it.
How about ending ISIS? How about the economy?
How about decoupling from China?
Those are pretty big things.
And how about You know, the question about the post office.
I guess everybody's treating that one seriously.
But look for this pattern that the Democrats can't tell the difference between a big problem and a small one, even when it's their own problems.
They can't tell their own problems, the big ones, from the small ones.
Very consistent. All right.
There are three things that I think have great potential...
To help with the coronavirus situation.
That doesn't mean for sure.
So don't imagine you see any certainty in what I say next.
I'm not a doctor. But there are three things that appear to me, just from reading and watching the news, to have the most immediate short-term potential.
One would be the blood serum plasma situation where you're taking the blood antibodies from people who have already recovered and sharing it with people who need some extra protection.
The other is these cheap over-the-counter test strips that will get your viral load when it's at the high point, which is when you want to catch it, but won't get everything in the world that could be caught.
But they're so cheap that you could do it every day, and that would be enough to basically just halt the virus.
And the third thing would be hydroxychloroquine, which, for whatever reason, there are still people on both sides.
My current view is 30% chance that it really works, based on just looking at the various arguments back and forth.
But that's still enough.
To give it a whirl.
In other words, if your doctor says it makes sense for you, if in fact I'm right, and it's a 30% chance it might work, that's totally a good reason to prescribe it.
But what do these three things have in common?
The blood plasma thing, the over-the-counter test strips, and the hydroxychloroquine.
The thing they all have in common is that they seem to be under-emphasized, at least in this country.
It feels like the three most promising things are not really being pursued.
At the very least, on the hydroxychloroquine, we should be animals about finding out if there's something to it.
Like, we should be chewing through a concrete wall to either dismiss it as useless or to confirm that it works.
And I don't feel I see that energy happening.
It's perfectly fine if the government wants to say, you know, it's not proven to the level that we'd want in order to go hard at it, but who's making sure that that's true?
Who has studied every situation, bundled them together of the hydroxychloroquine users versus all the states and all the countries that weren't using it, and just see if there's any difference?
Instead, what we see is that you'll see one country compared to three or four others completely useless because it would be so easy to cherry-pick any countries and say, look at this trend.
These ones I cherry-picked are doing better than these other few I cherry-picked.
And of 180 countries and of 50 states, all different experiences, completely useless.
So if you think you've seen an argument that is completely useless persuasive that hydroxychloroquine works, I think you're wrong.
I think you're wrong.
There's lots of indication that we should find out if it works.
I mean, there's plenty of that.
But there's no strong indication, in my opinion, that says it works.
But there's plenty of suggestion that it might.
The fact that we're not going hard at those, or explaining to the public why we're not going as hard as we could, I mean, why aren't we seeing some kind of blood plasma donation thing like every day?
You know, why don't I walk out or drive my car into town and see a sign that says, you know, sign up here if you've had coronavirus and you've recovered so we'll get your blood.
I mean, I know it's happening.
But it feels like it's the most understated part of everything, right?
We've got hundreds of vaccines being tested and all this other stuff.
But the things that we almost could be sure would work, and then hydroxychloroquine, we should just make sure we know if it works.
I feel they're a little underserved, or maybe it's just the communication of them.
So I would like one or the other.
Either communication that says we're doing everything we can, Or we've looked into it and we're not going to do anything more because it doesn't work and here's the reason.
That would be fine. But they feel underserved.
That's all I'm saying. Is it too early to say that brain-dead Biden has botched his campaign?
Is it too early to say it's botched?
Now, if you've been following me for a while, you know why I'm saying botched.
Botched is one of those great words, and you're seeing that the Democrats are using it to refer to the president's coronavirus response.
It's just an excellent persuasion word.
You know, I didn't realize it until I heard them use it, and I thought, wow, you don't really argue with botched, because it's so comprehensive.
It's like, wow, I don't even need to give you the details.
Details? No, it was botched.
It just makes the details not matter.
So I thought I'd start using that about the Biden campaign because it does seem to fit.
I mean, you could argue that the whole campaign has been botched even though he's ahead.
So yesterday, Harris and Biden did their little...
It looks like they've got some kind of a set that looks like sort of a war room with flags on the wall and maps of the United States.
It looks sort of like a newsroom, but maybe like a war room kind of cool thing.
And my take on it is, good try, but I think they missed.
It felt like a miss.
Their little artificial set looked pathetic.
Because it didn't look high-end enough so you'd say to yourself, well, it's like they're broadcasting from the Oval Office, or it looks like they're broadcasting from some important place.
It just looked like you had a little set designer, and you put your little douchey desks in there.
It didn't quite work.
I know what they were going for, and so what they were going for made sense to give it a more powerful or serious look.
That made sense, but they didn't quite hit the mark to me.
It looked a little amateurish, I guess.
Botched. I think you could say it was botched.
Anyway, here was the interesting thing.
If you're looking at it from the audience's perspective, they had Kamala Harris in a desk on the left, and they had Biden on the desk on the right.
Let me ask you this.
If you were the one in charge of designing where each of them sat, Would you have put the top of the ticket on the left, or would you have put the top of the ticket on the right?
I would have put the top of the ticket on the left, because the left is the important part of the position in Western culture.
So in the West, we read from left to right.
I've told you before that if you look at a website, The important news or the news that they want you to think is important is in the top left.
Same as reading. Our brains are just wired, at least in the West, to look at the top of the left, or at least the left, and start there and go to the right.
So we're compiling a number of, let's say, subjective-looking, anecdotal situations that all suggest the same thing.
When you see a photograph of Kamala Harris with a big picture and then there's a tiny little Biden behind her just to indicate that he's part of it too.
It's all collectively coming together like the public is supposed to see Kamala Harris as the top of the ticket.
They don't want to say it out loud, but you're going to see it in photography and positioning and in a hundred different ways.
And then they didn't take questions.
If they do take questions, I would like to suggest something for any reporter who can get Harris to sit down and take questions.
It goes like this.
You've probably all seen the video of So Kamala Harris was giving a talk somewhere, couldn't have been too long ago, I think it was before she was running for president, but not too long ago, in which she said that young people, I think between the ages of 18 and 24 she was talking about, she said that they're stupid.
Now, is she wrong?
No. No.
No, she's not wrong.
She's completely right, because I've said exactly the same thing.
It isn't really even an insult to say that young people are stupid, because I was young.
I'm talking about myself.
Scott Young, stupid, compared to more experienced Scott.
Likewise, and this is meant as no insult to my dear, beloved viewers, but you were all stupid.
You were all stupid between the ages of 18 and 24.
There's no way around that.
But now you're wiser.
You're experienced.
You're mature. But you were stupid then.
I was stupid. Kamala Harris was stupid.
President Trump was stupid.
We were all stupid when we were that certain age while thinking we were smart.
But here's the thing. If somebody gets Harris to answer some questions, here are the questions I would like her to answer.
Kamala Harris, you once said that young people are stupid.
Does that extend to Greta Thunberg?
Isn't that a great question?
Would you say that Greta Thunberg is stupid because she's in that age group?
And one follow-up question after that is, do you think that the stupidity just stops at 24?
Or would you say, Kamala, I'm just asking for your opinion, would you say that somebody like AOC... Who's on the younger side of the political professional spectrum.
Would you say that at the age 25, on her 25th birthday, she became smart?
Or do you think there's a little bit of that stupid stuff from age 18 to 24?
Does it linger a little bit?
Or would you say AOC is out of that stupid zone yet completely?
We're just trying to understand how the stupidity works according to your worldview.
Now, those would be hard questions to answer, wouldn't they?
Somebody says, awkward, your wife.
See, now I don't block you for that because you gave me reasons.
As long as you give me reasons, you're okay.
So it turns out that Bahrain joined Egypt and Oman in backing the UAE's deal with Israel.
So the president and I think Jared Kushner had teased that there might be more good news coming in the Middle East.
Maybe this is the beginning of it.
So Bahrain and Oman and Egypt And the UAE are all leaning in Israel's direction.
Now, would we be surprised at this?
No. Because the President and Jared Kushner have set up this situation where, if you imagine there were two major powers in the Middle East, and throw in Russia as a complicator, but if there was the Iranian sphere of influence, And there was, let's say, the Saudi, Israel, the United States sphere of influence, because they're sort of on the same team-ish.
It didn't make sense to be in the Iranian sphere of influence anymore, did it?
Because it's a losing sphere.
Nobody wants to be on the losing team, and it's pretty obvious that Iran is not heading toward a good place.
So I think that the president degraded Iran to the point...
Where it was just smart to be on the winning team.
It's like, you might as well just be on the winning team.
Why don't we just make peace, act like civilized people?
And the Palestinians apparently did not like what the UAE was doing, and so they decided to withdraw their diplomat and close their...
I don't know if they closed the embassy.
But I'm thinking to myself, does the UAE really care that they lost the Palestinian embassy or ambassador?
I don't think they care at all.
Do they? So, anyway, that's good.
You know, there's this little side story about Jeff Zucker, the head of CNN. And how he's been a Kamala Harris supporter for a long time.
And you have to ask yourself, how important was it, in terms of Kamala Harris getting the VP spot, how important was it that CNN was going to back her?
I mean, I'm sure they would have backed whoever the nominee picked.
But don't you wonder if CNN was really the one who was the main force behind picking Kamala Harris?
You know, the CNN... Clinton universe?
Yeah, I don't think anything happens the way you think it is.
I feel like the real story behind all of this is never quite the one that you hear.
Alright, what else we got going on here?
I think those are the big things.
Just make sure I didn't miss anything.
No, I did not.
I have been very thorough.
Arms embargo? Who's got an arms embargo?
I just see that in the...
Middle East is a powder keg, you think?
Well, that's no different than ever, right?
Representative Tlaib didn't like it?
What a surprise!
Somebody says Brett Baier is anti-Trump.
That is not true.
He is neither pro nor anti-Trump.
You know, Brett Baer is like the one guy who you'd have to say, alright, he's playing it right down the middle.
He's trying to tell the actual news.
What about Jeff Bezos?
Are you saying that he was behind some of this?
I don't know. I don't know that exactly.
Alright. Well, let us continue watching what happens with the plotters who were behind the Russia collusion hoax.
See how many of them go to jail.
The Millie Weaver story, I'm a little confused by that one.
We don't know quite what's going on there, so I'll just watch that one a little bit.
Yeah, I'll be on the Greg Gutfeld show tonight.
Check your local listings.
And thank you.
Export Selection