Episode 1778 Scott Adams: Today I Will Try To Persuade Trump To Not Run In 2024
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Another term of President Biden?
Russian economy is broken but doing great?
Parity crossover point has been crossed
Colbert staff arrested in Congressional building
How President Trump can fix everything
George Washington's motivation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Because if I were not seeing you, I would be seeing people who are less attractive, less smart, less with it, less kind, less generous, less gracious.
And can we put up with people like that when we could be around people like you?
No. No, not even a little bit.
So, how would you like to continue our dominance of being awesome in a world of mediocrity?
I think you would. And let's take it to the next level with a thing I call the simultaneous sip.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine here of the day.
It's just going to blow your mind.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. So I was sitting here this morning and I said to myself, what can I do To really mix things up and be interesting and maybe change the world.
Maybe change the world into something better.
And I thought, well, how could I do that?
How can one person change the world?
And then I thought, yeah, I could do that.
So a little bit later, I'm going to do it.
But I want people to see my click-baity title for this livestream, which I'm going to deliver.
I'm going to persuade Trump to not run in 2024.
Will I succeed?
Let's do the other news first while people pour in.
And that teaser, that teaser is going to leave you right on the edge.
Yeah, you won't leave.
You won't leave when I said that.
Well, here's a question that I have for Biden supporters.
People who supported him and then, despite what they see happening with his administration, what do they think would happen with a second term?
Wouldn't you love to be inside the mind of a Biden supporter who is legitimately thinking, you know, I think the best thing for this country would be another term of Biden's?
How do they...
Project that in their minds.
Do they say to themselves, you know, a second term would look just like this one, and this is going great, so why wouldn't you want more of that?
Is that how it works?
Now, I'm not even trying to be, you know, like, biased.
It's hard to understand what exactly would be the thought process.
Or would they say to themselves, as others might, Well, he seems to be going downhill pretty quickly.
And at this point, the rate of decline is probably going to get steeper.
You know, it's not going to plateau.
So in six years or so, there's not going to be much left of him.
But do the Democrats who support him say, you know...
I think there'll be enough left as long as he can breathe.
He's still going to be better than all the other choices in the Democratic Party and all the choices in the Republican Party.
Do they actually think that?
Or have they convinced themselves that they're in some kind of a tight spot where they've given away all their options and it's just the best they got?
They hate it, but they're going to make the best of it.
Which do you think it is?
Do you think they think It would actually be a good thing to have a president who's 150 years old.
Do they really think that?
So, I'm genuinely curious.
I would love to be able to get into the brain and say, all right, I see what you're saying, but what are you actually thinking?
What's the internal thought process there?
Do you really look at Biden and say, yeah, that looks pretty good to me.
I don't see how a 30% decline from this point would be any problem.
Well, you can tell it's the weekend.
And all the people who make the news, the fake news, must be on vacation.
Because do you see how heavy the news is on Saturday with whatever the hell Bill Maher said on Friday night?
What's going to happen when Bill Maher takes some kind of a hiatus?
He always takes some time off, right?
There is so much news that is, what did Elon Musk say and what did Bill Maher say?
How much news can those two people make?
Apparently, multiple stories every single week.
Now, this is one of those times when I think I'm living in a simulation.
And it seems as if the simulation has become so complex, because now there are 7 billion people that have to be managed and have to keep track of all that, that I feel like maybe the simulation's resources are being taxed.
And it's reducing the number of choices for other stuff.
Because it seems like the news should be getting infinitely more complex, wouldn't you say?
Isn't the world getting infinitely more complex?
And so wouldn't you sort of logically say, it seems like every news story now is going to be this wild thing that you never heard before.
Because everything's just wildly going, and things are being invented, and things are changing quickly.
So shouldn't you expect that the news stories become wildly divergent, like just something you've never heard before?
But instead, the news every weekend is, what did Bill Maher say?
And it's always even the same frame, that he criticized what you think is his own team, but I would argue he's a more independent thinker than that suggests.
Why do we have fewer choices?
What's going on there?
Is it because the news industry has just given up, and for economic reasons they'll just do whatever's the easiest, and whatever's the easiest is watch Bill Maher and then write an article on your laptop...
While you're sipping wine and watching whatever funny thing Bill Maher says.
That's all we got left.
Because there are no real problems to solve or anything.
Right? But that's all I've got too, so I'm going to talk about Bill Maher.
So should we talk about what Bill Maher said?
That's all we got. That's all we got.
But we'll get to the good part of that.
So I guess he torched the Washington Post about the reporter who...
Made us think about a sexist-sounding joke and blah, blah, blah.
You know that story. So he was making fun of the wokeness at the Washington Post.
He also said that DeSantis would be better than Trump.
He didn't back or promote DeSantis.
He was just saying of the two of them that DeSantis was at least not crazy.
So again... Credit to Bill Maher for being, you know, an independent thinker.
Because it's hard...
I would think that if you're being honest, it would be hard to look at DeSantis and say that would be a mistake.
Like, even if you're a Democrat...
Now, I get that he might disagree, let's say, on abortion, might disagree on, you know, half a dozen policies...
Yeah, I get that. But how can you look at DeSantis and not say that he does a good job of representing his base and that at least his opinions are part of a legitimate political conversation?
And I feel like Bill Maher gives him that due and it's kind of refreshing to see.
It's refreshing to see anybody who can speak independently today.
Well, I keep wondering if the Russian economy is broken or doing terrific.
It's so weird that we can't tell.
Because today there's some CNN reporting that the Russian economy is mostly smoking mirrors and that even though, sure, the rubble's doing the ruble.
Isn't that weird?
That the Russian news is about rubble and rubles?
It just seems weird. Like, basically, there are two things that can define the entire story of the Russia-Ukraine situation.
Rubble and ruble.
If you understood those two situations, you'd know the whole thing.
And that's just weird. I don't know.
It's like one of the founders of Black Lives Matter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't her last name Colors?
And she was one of the founders of Black Lives Matter.
Her last name is Colors.
Like, that's just weird.
I don't know what to make of that.
I saw a tweet by Brian Machiavelli, and he was saying that it seems like the simulation is less interested in hiding itself.
I swear it seems like that.
I feel as if...
The way we're finding out we're in a simulation is that whoever created it is dropping such obvious hints that it will be hilarious after we're sure of what happened.
Like, we're all in some kind of giant practical joke where we can't see that it's obvious that somebody's messing with us and that we're part of some kind of observational game or science experiment or something.
And I'll say more about that in a little bit.
But one of the ways that makes me think that that's the case, and I'm being facetious here, but doesn't it seem that parity and reality have legitimately merged?
I've been saying this for a while, that the parity-reality crossover point has actually been achieved.
And what I mean by that is you can't tell when people are kidding now.
Because people can say outrageously ridiculous things, and you would have to know who they were to know if they were kidding.
Let me say that again.
You would have to know who the person was to know if they were kidding.
You wouldn't be able to tell by the words.
You cannot tell by the words.
But if I said something that was sort of super woke...
You'd probably say to yourself, I think he's kidding.
But then he's also very pro-trans and pro-LGBTQ, so is he kidding?
We're not really sure.
So even I fall into that category, right?
There's no escaping it.
So let me give you an update on the Dilbert comic.
So a while ago I introduced a black regular character named Dave.
And Dave's characteristic, because you have to give every cartoon character, has to have some kind of a defect or a stereotypical personality trait.
Because that's what makes comics interesting.
They are meant to be stereotypes.
But how do you do a stereotype in our sensitive world with a black character if you're a white creator?
It's just a little bit too...
It's a little too sensitive in 2022.
So what I came up with, I think, is working so far, which is Dave, the engineer, and his defining personality trait is that you can't tell if he's kidding.
So he's sort of a character for the ages.
He's perfectly designed for 2022.
That the parody reality crossover point happened.
And when the boss talks to Dave, he can't tell if Dave is kidding.
I'll give you an example. So a Dave cartoon is running today at Dilber.com.
I tweeted it if you want to see it.
It's at the top of my Twitter feed.
And so the boss goes to talk to Dave, the engineer, and the boss says, why is your project late, Dave?
And then Dave says, supply chain issues, climate change, systemic racism, COVID, and something about inflation.
And the boss says, I can never tell if you're joking.
And Dave says, I love that about you.
Now, this is actually based on one of my co-workers from a million years ago.
I worked in a big bank, and we would have regular office meetings once a week to do status updates.
And I don't think there's anything worse than a regularly scheduled status update meeting.
For boring, you can't really top that.
One of the people who attended the meeting, he was one of the managers, his name was Red.
I forget his last name.
I'm not sure that Red was his real name, because I think he had red hair.
It might have been his real name, but I don't know.
I think maybe it was his nickname.
But Red was probably the funniest person I've ever worked with, and I've worked with some pretty funny people.
And what Red would do is he would give his status updates in jargon.
But the jargon was all the actual jargon that was used in the bank.
But what he would do is he would use so much jargon that if you knew Red, you knew he was joking.
But if you didn't know him, you weren't sure.
And he never broke character when he did it.
And I thought, I thought my face was going to explode one day.
I wish I could do an impression of it, but if you could just imagine red, I'll give you sort of the visual so you can see him.
So he was an older guy, he was probably in his 60s or so, you know, with thinning hair and, you know, he had these magnifying kind of glasses so that his eyes looked bigger than they would look if he didn't have glasses on.
And he had sort of a perpetual smile That no matter whether he was serious or joking, he still had that same wry smile, so that when he talked, you sort of always knew he was kidding.
No matter how serious he was, he was also kidding.
I've never seen anybody who could take something so non-seriously while still completely doing his job.
He was a good performer.
One day, he went into his jargon-filled status update, and the boss who, I don't know if he was completely in on the joke or not, I think he was, because he was pretty with it, sort of just sat there, and he just lets him go, and Red would just go, Well, you know, in this teamwork-filled synergy, we've got to re-engineer all of our processes to make our systems run so they're self-healing.
And he would just go on.
And you would think that it couldn't go any further, like he'd used every jargon in the first 10 seconds, and you're like, okay, that's the funniest thing I've ever heard.
And then that 10 seconds just keeps going, and by about the second minute of nothing but nonstop jargon...
You're reduced to a puddle.
You're just crying. I lost so much moisture that day of tears shooting out of my eyes as he's going through his status report.
It was just the most beautiful thing.
Anyway, you had to be there.
I'm sorry I bored you with that because you had to be there.
All right, but Dave is back.
That's the point of that. So is the Russian economy going to hell or not?
So CNN says maybe it is going to hell, but there's smoke and mirrors, so you can't tell.
And the funniest story of the day where, again, I made a tweet and somebody couldn't tell if I was kidding.
So actually, I wasn't planning this to work so perfectly with what I just said before.
But there's a story about some of the crew from the late show with Stephen Colbert, and I guess they were arrested by the U.S. Capitol Police in a congressional office where they weren't supposed to be.
So they were there trying to do some kind of a segment for the show, and I guess they didn't have the right approvals, and they got arrested.
And so I tweeted...
To me, that looks like an insurrection.
And somebody pushed back because they couldn't tell if I were being serious.
Of what?
That's the parody reality crossover.
That somebody couldn't tell if I was being serious when I said that seven people filming a comedy show without permission in a room was an insurrection against the country.
And somebody thought that I actually believed that, and I was arguing that, and then they pushed back.
Here we are. I turned into red, and I wasn't even trying.
All right. Uh...
There's a Gallup poll that says the belief in God is waning.
So I wonder what you would say.
What percent of U.S. adults do you think believe in God?
If you haven't seen the story, don't cheat, all right?
No cheating. So if you haven't seen the latest poll, so you're just guessing, I don't want the real number here.
I'll tell you the real number.
What percentage of U.S. adults say they believe in God right now, this year?
So how can it be that we live in the same country and there are people who are guessing that 80% believe in God and there are other people thinking 40%.
Do we live in the same country?
Or maybe it's people from other countries who are voting.
But there's something wrong with that, isn't there?
There's something wrong that there are people who are adults who live in this country who think that maybe 40% believe in God and others think that 80% believe in God?
Which one do you think is true?
The answer is 81%.
But that's actually at an all-time low.
So that is lowest in 78 years.
It's down six points from 2017.
So from about the time that Trump got elected, belief in God went down six points.
Do you remember my most mind-blowing prediction from 2015?
Yeah. I predicted that, I think it was 2015, might have been 16, I predicted that Trump's election would change more than politics.
It would change how we saw reality itself.
Now, when I said that, like, I didn't even get retweets.
Because absolutely nobody knew what I was talking about.
Because it just didn't make sense back then.
And then I kept repeating it.
So those of you who've been following me for a while, you can confirm that every, I don't know, X months or whatever, I would just repeat it and say that Trump was changing more than politics.
He was changing how we saw reality itself.
And then, here we are, and we understand that fake news is pervasive.
It's not just on the other side.
It's on your side, too.
And then fake news is actually the news that moves the dial.
And real news is actually often less important than the fake stuff.
That is a complete change of understanding of reality itself.
You thought you lived in at least a semi-believable, credible reality, and you didn't.
You didn't live in anything that was credible.
You lived in a total, fake, constructed...
Fake news reality.
And it took the Trump experience to understand that.
And now we do. I mean, the world is way more sophisticated in terms of understanding what's real and what's maybe not real than we were just a few short years ago.
So belief in God also is part of that same story.
If we're down six points, just during that brief sort of Trump period up till now, that is a fundamental change in how the United States views reality itself.
That is probably the freakiest prediction I've ever made, but I was quite sure when I made it, and here we are.
Alright, here's something that...
I'm going to put this in the category of stories I don't believe are true.
I want it to be true.
And if it's true, it's really going to be cool.
And it's really impressive.
But it falls into a category of things that everything that's been in that category so far hasn't been true.
For example, one category would be people who invented nuclear fusion and it runs in their garage.
That's never been true.
Not one time has anybody actually, in their garage, invented nuclear fusion.
So if you see something that's in the category of something that's never been true, you should be a little bit aware, right?
So what I'm going to tell you, to me, seems so clearly not true, but maybe it is.
Maybe. So we're going to pretend that we're going to suspend our credibility just so we can feel like it's true and just see if it makes you feel good.
There's an Israeli startup called Aquarius that has built a new kind of car engine that has one moving part and it can use any kind of fuel.
I mean, hydrogen, gas, ethanol, I guess, that sort of thing.
So that's the story.
It's actually being reported that it has one moving part, and it can burn multiple kinds of gas, and you can get hundreds and hundreds of miles per gallon, or no, between fill-ups, I guess.
So you can go, like, over 700 miles before needing a fill-up, because it's way more efficient as well.
Now, this is reported in the so-called news.
So you can see the retweet in my Twitter feed if you want to see it.
Now let me ask you.
Does this look even a little bit true?
It doesn't look true to me.
It doesn't even look slightly possibly true.
Not even worth considering true.
But on the other hand, it wouldn't be fun if it were.
Wouldn't it be fun? Can we hold both thoughts in our head?
I believe we could.
Because my live stream audience, not only are you the sexiest people in the whole world, but you're the most sophisticated thinkers.
The most capable thinkers.
And we can hold both of those thoughts at the same time.
Let's do it. The odds of that being true are really, really low.
Only because it's in the news.
And just on the surface, it's in the category of things that are never true.
Right? Am I right that it's in the category of things that's never true?
Uses all those fuels?
But, you know, I think it has more to do with that than the news is reporting it.
So, you know, maybe if you were to dig into what works and what doesn't work, and whether there are any flaws in the technology, and what does it really mean when they say they can burn any kind of fuel?
Does that mean hypothetically, but really there's only one kind you would use in reality, so it's really kind of one fuel?
I mean, if you dug in, it would probably look a little different.
Don't you think? So I'm going to say that at the very least the reporting's probably too simplified.
Too simplified. That's my guess.
But wouldn't it be awesome?
What if it's true? Wouldn't that be amazing?
Alright, so just hold both those thoughts.
You can do it. Alright.
So... What about the story, are you following the story that when Trump was calling the January, I guess after the election, when Trump was saying the election was rigged and he was raising money based on that to fight against the election outcome, I guess. And I guess they pulled in $250 million.
And apparently where it went is a little sketchy.
Do you all know that story?
So I'm interested how much the news bubble is preventing my livestream audience from even knowing that that's a story.
So some of you don't know that story.
So tell me if you haven't heard it yet.
Because it's a pretty big story.
Yeah. Now, here's what you should always know about these kinds of stories.
The first thing you should know is that it's in the category of stories that probably you're going to find out is different than the way it's being reported now.
Do you think that's fair?
That probably when we know more about this story, it won't look exactly the way it was first reported.
It could be worse.
It could be no jeopardy at all.
It could go either way.
Would you also agree that there have been numerous BS stories about Trump and banks and finances that have all turned out to be BS? And it turns out they were nothingness.
So it's in the category of things that often, but not always...
Turn out to be not real.
But you could say Trump University was real.
And that was sort of just the way it looked.
Whatever you thought about that, it was just what you thought it was.
So this could turn out that way, too.
On the surface...
It looks like Trump abused his donors, their emotional state, to raise a bunch of money that may or may not have gone to things that are good for Trump or the Trump businesses or the Trump family.
So I would say we don't know that.
We also don't know if any of it was illegal.
Because what's interesting is I even heard Bill Maher say, you know, he was wondering why Congress was not going to refer Trump to the Department of Justice for anything they found out about this January 6th business.
To which I said, what did anybody suggest Trump did that was a crime?
Because I haven't heard anybody say, this is what we say is a crime, and here's the evidence of that crime.
Have you? Or am I in such a bubble that I've missed the biggest story in the world?
That they have actual evidence of Trump in a crime?
I'm not aware of any.
I'm not even aware of the allegation.
Are you? So if you're asking the question why he's not being referred to the Justice Department, you're already thinking past the sale.
That's a sign that propaganda worked.
If you're asking yourself why isn't he being jailed, You've thought right past the question of, was there any alleged crime?
And you've not only thought past the question of, was there an alleged crime, to, is there any evidence?
Any? I haven't seen any.
I don't believe anybody's seen any, have they?
Now, I think it's just like Adam Schiff keeps saying, oh yeah, we got the goods and blah blah blah, but You don't think you would have seen it yet?
Are they hiding the good stuff for later?
Maybe. I mean, that's perfectly possible.
They might be keeping the good stuff for later.
We'll see. I'm open to everything.
All right. But I'm going to watch that story.
That's a scary one. So, given all the context of that story and everything else, here's the best thing I can do for the country.
Convince Trump...
To fix the news.
Because the news is the tail that wags the dog of politics.
The news has to get fixed.
Because until the news gets fixed, nothing's going to get fixed.
And the way he can fix the news is the way Bill Maher is trying to fix the news.
But even more powerfully.
I would say that Bill Maher is trying to fix the news.
Meaning he sees a big disconnect between what the news is saying and what people are understanding and how that's just all broken.
Trump needs to fix it.
And if he could fix the news, he would go down in history as not only the most powerful person in the country, more powerful than the politicians, but he would have fixed our biggest problem.
Because until you get a legitimate...
You know, a both sides news program that's also interesting and gets clicks, you don't have anything.
Let me tell you how Trump could fix everything.
Why is the news cycle broken such that people want to click on fake news instead of real news?
Why do people like fake news instead of real news?
Why? Why?
It's more interesting.
Now, it agrees with them and gives them a dopamine hit, but it's also just wildly more interesting.
So I would click on something that wasn't in my favor, like, you know, didn't support my point of view.
I would definitely click on it if it was really provocative.
Like, I'll click on anything provocative for the entertainment, for the, you know, just the wildness of it.
Now, what is it that Trump could do that nobody's ever done with straight, unbiased reporting?
Think about it. The reason that nobody wants straight, unbiased reporting is that nobody would watch it.
Am I right? If you gave me just the news, nobody would watch it.
So it's not a business model that can work.
What is the one thing that Trump alone among maybe anybody could fix?
He could make you watch the news.
And he could also make sure you heard both sides.
And he could also take his time.
Imagine if he took a Rush Limbaugh three or four hour block every day and had on experts from both sides and then just dusted them both up.
So basically, instead of having, let's say, one expert just give their opinion, which is the worst model in the world, that's how it's currently being done, it's mostly just one person says one thing, or there's a time limit, and the two experts say, you're wrong, you're wrong, we're out of time, so the public got nothing.
But you give me a three- or four-hour block, it doesn't have to be every day, it could be recorded and just when there's a good topic to do, and you have Trump beating up both sides and calling bullshit on both sides, I could not turn away from that.
That would be so provocative and interesting, especially if you allowed swearing.
If you allowed swearing...
And let Trump mediate and interrupt and just sort of control it so it would be maddeningly, frustratingly beautiful.
It would be maddening and frustrating and beautiful.
He could do, Trump could do with his specific set of talents, Including his talent stack of once being President of the United States.
You add that with his natural ability to provoke, his natural personality in the room, his desire to be in front of the public, his desire to make a difference, his desire to change things.
It works for everything.
The only way the Republicans can lose is if Trump runs.
Now, even if all the polls say Trump would win, maybe he would.
But is that really the victory that you want?
If you could have Trump fixing the news at the same time DeSantis was making sure that the garbage gets picked up, if you know what I mean?
Because a lot of the job of the president is just being competent and being present and having a lot of energy and making sure things don't fall between the cracks and As far as I can tell, DeSantis is really effective as an executive and as a leader.
But imagine there's not many fireworks.
I mean, maybe it's not going to be as much news.
But imagine Trump handling the opinion and news cycle.
Now, maybe he could make that a...
Here's how I would do it if I were Trump.
It's looking like truth social is going to have some issues, right?
It's not taking off the way you want it, but it could.
All you would have to do is have a Trump TV show, like, let's say, a foundational, what would you call it, a magnet business, and then have Truth Social the only way that he interacts with the public.
So it's a TV show, and, you know, Internet property, YouTube would be everywhere, but Streaming, maybe.
Probably streaming. Could be on a network, but maybe streaming.
Or both. And...
Do you love it yet?
Do you love the idea yet?
Because you can have everything.
What you want is to fix the news, and what you want is to have a Republican president if I read my audience right.
So I'm not endorsing DeSantis' policies.
That's not what I do.
But as a representative of his base, he's a good fit.
It's just obviously true at this point.
So why wouldn't you take the most competent executive and pair that with the one person who can save us, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Trump.
Trump is the only person who can save the news business.
I mean, it's so ironic, it's delicious, is it not?
Remember when Elon Musk tweeted that reality usually takes the path that's most entertaining to the observer, not necessarily to the people in the topic.
The most entertaining path for the observers, that's us, our most entertaining path...
Would be for Trump to save us by not running for president.
If he runs for president, we're going to fight more.
Are we not? But wouldn't you love to see Trump host a climate change debate and actually see Trump's own mind getting changed in the process?
I'm not saying it would or should.
But how much would you love to watch that?
How much would you love...
Somebody who was qualified and smart, who had a nice chunk of time, like a whole Joe Rogan three-hour block, wrestling with Trump and with somebody on the other side, until you actually watched Trump change his mind on a major topic right in front of you.
Because he could. I mean, Trump would be able to pull that off, especially if it had entertainment value.
If it had entertainment value, he could pull it off.
Michael Schellenberger would be the type of guest that would be perfect for that format.
So, alright.
So now you've heard the idea.
Trump becomes the Rush Limbaugh replacement, but way better.
Because he's got people on, and he's fighting with them, and he's really getting down to the good stuff.
That opens the path for a moderate Republican who could pretty much just walk in and take over everything at this point.
And it basically gives you everything.
And then the legitimate news would still be fighting with Trump, but when they're fighting with Trump, it's like CNN versus Fox News.
It's not really hurting anybody.
Just sort of entertaining.
So you tell me that's not the best thing for America.
Go. And here's my argument for Trump.
I told you I would persuade Trump himself.
All right, here's the part where I persuade Trump himself.
Everybody in America thinks this would be the best solution.
Some people might not like the part about a moderate Republican winning the presidency, but everyone wants Trump to be productive, and not everyone thinks that the presidency is how he's going to do it.
The second term. This is the best idea you've ever heard, and I think he would recognize it too.
Because it gives him not only a win, but one of the biggest wins of all time, and maybe in the most important topic.
Because remember, the news is the tail that wags the dog.
If he's the tail, if he becomes the tail, he gets to wag the dog.
He could control the presidency no matter who's in the seat.
You don't think that would be appealing.
Now, the only way he could control it is if the debates that he hosted produced something that was good.
But that would be the most productive, good kind of control you could ever have.
So just like we like Jimmy Carter better because he was such a good ex-president, I would argue that Trump was one of the best presidents for one term, and I would argue that he would be the best media, news, host personality.
I believe he would, you know, if he wants a final act, he's at that age where he's thinking, like, what's my final act?
If he wants a final act, Completely dominating the industry that he's been maligning, the news industry, would be an excellent way to do it.
You know, Trump criticized governments and then became the head of it.
He criticized the fake news business.
He could become his king.
The path is wide open.
He has all the skills, he has all the tools.
And then you don't have to worry about, did Trump do that bad thing that time?
Because you know what? You probably did.
I don't know which bad thing you're thinking about, but when Trump ran for office, he told us directly in his own words, I'm no angel.
I consider that transparent.
I heard it and said, oh, okay, you're no angel, so I'm going to hear stuff about you that I'm not going to like.
But in return for that, you're going to provide a set of services and That sounds attractive.
In my case, I wanted him to break everything.
Because I think everything needed to get broken.
So I wanted him to just change all of our assumptions about everything.
And that's what I mean by breaking it.
Changing all of our assumptions.
I think he did that.
So I got what I wanted.
To me, Trump delivered.
I'm no angel, but I'm going to break all of these things and make you think about them differently.
That's what I was buying.
That's what I got. I got a guy who's no angel, just like he said.
I mean, that's the most accurate thing anybody ever said.
And I got somebody who shook everything up very much like the way I would want.
Now, I think he was too provocative.
But, you know, he has a chance now to turn all of that energy that he created...
He has a chance to monetize it, first of all.
That's always good. And he has a chance to turn it into the most positive thing that's happened in this country in 100 years.
And he could own that.
And he could just be the George Washington who walked away, basically.
You know, one of the reasons that George Washington is always so hero-worshipped, and should be, and who knows how much of this is true, by the way, You know, the story goes, and let's be a little more sophisticated than just believing every historical story, but the story is that Washington walked away from what could have been a dictatorship if he wanted to, because he had the loyalty of the army and, you know, blah, blah, blah.
And so, therefore, he was the father of the country because that standard of peacefully transferring power became our standard.
Here's why I doubt that story.
Don't you think George Washington might have had his own reasons that were not necessarily the same reasons that he maybe said in public and got reported?
Maybe. Do you think that maybe he just wanted to go back to his slave farm and rape his slaves?
I'm not saying that's what was going on.
I'm saying that if you live in the real world, This guy had been off fighting wars for a long time.
He probably thought, okay, if I stay in Washington, I'll probably get assassinated.
You know, I'm not around all the, you know, my own plantation and stuff.
I think I'd rather just go back to my plantation and be the evil king and do anything I want with my slaves, no matter how horrible that sounds.
Maybe. Maybe.
I mean, it's possible that the historical story is exactly right.
He was the most awesome of people, very different from the people of his times in some ways, and knew that the standard of walking away would become the DNA of our republic forever.
Maybe. Maybe.
But could you imagine that happening today?
It's kind of hard to imagine.
And I think, did people become shitty just since then?
Were there truly awesome, unselfish people back then, and George Washington was one of them?
Or is our history as fake as our news?
Which is more likely?
Is it more likely that Washington was just as awesome as you've been told?
Or is it more likely that history is just as fake as our news?
It's a lot more likely that nothing about Washington is exactly true.
The most likely reality is that he didn't chop down a cherry tree.
There's things about him that we know are made up.
So I'm pretty sure it's all made up.
Meaning that there's always context left out.
That's what I think. So, there.
I have now just saved the country.
All it will take is for this coherent argument to gain ground with Trump supporters, and then for those Trump supporters to get that message to Trump himself, and then if he creates some kind of a platform, to go there and support it, if it's a good one.
I mean, it has to be a good product, but if it's a good product, and I believe he could create such a thing, With the George Washington crap?
Am I trying to provoke you with the George Washington crap?
I'm not trying to provoke you over George Washington.
Who exactly would get worked up over George Washington?
Is there somebody here who's going to get mad at me because of my George Washington opinions?
I think maybe we're a little...
Too serious about politics?
No. Damn his wooden teeth.
No. No.
Let it go. He's been gone for a while.
All right. You know, I think even though I woke up and today was a slow news day, I think you would agree that I delivered by doing the most important thing that needed to be done.
Talking Trump into creating a media product to fix the fake news.
Now, they say one person can't make a difference.
But clearly, clearly one can.
Now, I don't know if I will.
Will says it bored him.
Sorry. We bored that one guy.
You know, you shouldn't be listening to me for the excitement.
You should be listening to me because the sound of my voice is so calming.
