Episode 2058 Scott Adams: Looking For "Good" Trump Indictment, Race Grifter Democrats, TikTok
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Anti-Trumpers pick through the scat
Syria trouble
Green energy is racist
TikTok diversions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a finer or more valuable time.
And if you'd like to enjoy this moment at the maximum potential, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker chalice, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen now.
Go.
That was good.
Yeah.
Well done.
your simultaneity is better than ever?
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Well, In case you were wondering, some of you heard there were some technical problems on the Locals platform.
Here's the good news.
Apparently the cause of the technical problems is unprecedented traffic.
So the Locals and Rumble, now that Locals and Rumble are combined, apparently they're just getting crushed with new traffic.
Steven Crowder's a big part of that.
Probably has to do with Russell Brand probably has to do with, you know, this show got a lot more attention lately for obvious reasons.
So that's the good news.
Tons of traffic are flowing into the free speech parts of the world.
This is how the free market's supposed to work, right?
This is one of the most breathtaking examples of a free market correction I've ever seen.
Because it was maybe Three years ago, that if you got cancelled, you were just dead.
Cancelled meant cancelled.
You were just off the field.
And now cancelled means that you simply go to another ecosystem.
And the other ecosystem can be bigger than the one you left.
Or at least, you know, more interesting and more dynamic for you.
So, I mean, I feel like a standing ovation for, you know, Rick Rubin and You know, everybody who's... I'm sorry, Dave Rubin.
For Dave Rubin, I get my Rubins mixed up.
This is really an amazing thing that he did.
I'm not sure history will quite capture the size of what this is to freedom of speech.
I mean, it's just, it's impressive.
Yeah, all right.
Peggy Noonan, who you might know as one of the best writers, well just one of the best writers, but more noted for politics than other things.
And do you have the same feeling that when dumb people mock Trump, it's just sort of annoying and interesting?
But when really smart people get a bad case of TDS, it's much more interesting.
Because the smart people have to work harder to make sure that their cognitive distance is fitting in with their worldview.
So, as we're seeing the The Manhattan charges against Trump just disappear under the light.
As soon as you shine a light on... Well, what is it that this Alvin Bragg is trying to do?
Can you explain exactly the charge?
And as soon as you shine a light on it, it just goes... It just disappears.
There's just nothing there.
But here's what Peggy Noonan has retreated to.
Alright?
So that they still have hope.
And that you can always stay with your base assumption that Orange Man bad, and as long as that's true, that Orange Man is bad, you can change all of the interpretations and the filters around it, just as long as you don't change the base assumption that Orange Man is bad.
Here's how I'm seeing people doing it.
Peggy Doonan says in the Wall Street Journal, the question is, are we doing the wise thing?
In other words, chasing this Manhattan Elvin Bragg thing?
No.
Hold your fire.
Save the mugshot for Georgia.
The handcuffs for January 6th.
Those were real offenses against the country, not Stormy Daniels, which was an offense against his wife.
Now, as nobody mentioned to the Democrats, Including Peggy.
Well, I don't think she's a Democrat.
But has nobody mentioned to the anti-Trumpers that these other charges are even weaker?
Even weaker?
Do you think Trump is going to be blamed for violence on January 6th when the only evidence, only evidence, is he said protest peacefully?
Protest peacefully?
That's the only thing he said in public about the protests.
To do it peacefully.
How in the world is that going to be a crime?
They think that's a bigger crime than some money that went to Stormy Daniels?
They're both nothings.
They're complete nothings.
How about the Georgia case where he, quote, pressured people to rig the election?
There's nothing like that in the evidence.
There's only evidence he asked them to find votes, clearly suggesting that everything he said before then, everything he said after that, is the same page.
He believes that the votes were miscounted, or there were irregularities.
So given that his entire consistent theme, which he's never once let up on, is that it was rigged, find votes does not sound like cheat.
If you're a jury, are you possibly going to find that in his mind, he only meant to cheat?
When every bit of evidence in public suggests he really, really believes the election was rigged, and there might be some votes sitting around that haven't been counted.
Now, you could argue, but Scott, you don't know what he was thinking.
But that's my point.
That's my point.
If you don't know what he's thinking, he's not guilty of anything.
That's the way the system works.
You can't be guilty of thinking stuff.
Or you can't be guilty because people imagine you're thinking something.
There's no standard for that.
So you would have to say, what did he actually say, or do, that suggests that his state of mind was he wants you to cheat to make him win.
And there's no evidence of that.
There's not a single bit of evidence consistent with the theory that he wanted people to cheat.
And there's every evidence that he wanted them to find out if there had been cheating.
So, am I wrong?
Am I suffering for some kind of reverse TDS where I'm excusing or putting the best spin on things?
Because I don't think so.
I think if you asked any independent person, let's say if you asked Jonathan Turley or Alan Dershowitz, decide how independent they are.
But they typically are the ones who don't seem to Be affected by the politics of the legal opinions.
Their legal opinions always seem to me like just legal opinions.
Do you think that either of them think he's in trouble?
I mean, he might be in trouble because anything could go wrong, but the case is a nothing.
They're all nothings.
So we actually have this weird situation where the smartest anti-Trumpers have found three turds Yeah, the Stormy Daniels Payment, the Georgia Find the Votes, and the Protest Peacefully.
They've got three legal turds and they're trying to decide which is the good one.
Let's see.
These are three delicious looking turds here.
But let's... No.
Try this one.
Maybe.
Ah, there's the good one.
So, let me make a prediction.
You want to hear a prediction?
In whatever order the three turds are adjudicated, I don't know if one will start and finish before another one is done, but no matter what order they finish in, The Democrats will say that whatever is the third one that is not yet settled, that's the good one.
That's the good turd.
Oh, it looks like the January 6th thing will be the last thing decided, so.
Well, it's a good thing that's the good turd, because all the other ones, well, sure, we felt good about them for a while, but they weren't as good as we thought.
But that third turd?
Turd three?
Mmm, delicious.
We can live forever on this one.
Mmm.
Turd times a charm.
Somebody said.
All right.
The three illegal turds.
That's my... I would like to offer that as my reframing for the day.
So here's a, like, permanent headline.
I'm going to add this to my other permanent headline, which did not happen, but it could have.
This could have happened today.
So here's an imaginary headline that could have happened today.
The Pope speaks out against war.
Yeah, could have happened.
It could have happened, and it would have been a headline.
But here's another one like that.
There's fighting in Syria.
Of course there's fighting in Syria.
So some Iranian-backed forces struck some American forces, and then the American forces are striking back.
I guess we've got to show we're still the important force there.
Now, what gets interesting is Russia.
Because Russia's involved in Syria, but they don't really want Iran to control.
But yet, Russia needs Iran to give them drones.
So Russia needs to control Iran and Syria, but work with them.
It's getting pretty dicey to be cancelled on the world stage.
You don't have many people to work with.
Lots of bad choices.
And it also makes me wonder if part of our war strategy is not to make Iran look like they're already, like they're on the brink of war.
Now I haven't heard anybody say this strategy yet, so maybe you can correct me.
Is there anybody who's already on to this point?
So the point is this.
Wouldn't it make sense to put pressure on Iran so they thought there was going to be a war in which Iran would be fighting the war really soon?
Because that would make them keep all their weapons and not sell them to Russia.
Has anybody come up with that theory yet?
Now, the most likely thing is that we're just responding to their attack.
Probably just responding to attack.
That's all it is.
But on the other hand, from a military perspective, do you think they'd be less likely to sell all their drones if they thought they might need them for their own war?
I think we might be getting a twofer.
It's probably not a big plan, but I think the two-fer might be that we're responding to this Iran-backed entity, but we might want to make a bigger deal of it than we ordinarily would have.
Because if you make a bigger deal of it, Iran's going to think twice about giving away any of their weapons or selling any of their weapons.
They're going to need them.
So, it might be.
We might be cleverly playing that.
Can we now conclude, as the month of March is drawing to a close, are you all willing to conclude that Europe got through the winter without freezing?
Can you say that out loud now in full voice?
Yes, Scott, your prediction was the correct one.
Despite lots of challenges, Europe survived the winter such that we did not have to surrender to Russia.
I might be the only person who said that.
Can you think of anybody else who said we'll be fine?
Not fine, but that Europe would get through the winter.
There would be adjustments.
And I was just reading about some of the adjustments.
The Wall Street Journal is talking about one German company that managed to cut their, I think, gas use by 30% just by re-engineering their processes.
How many other European companies do you think did something like that?
Where they said, well, we weren't going to do this because energy was cheap, but we'll re-engineer things so we never use that much energy.
Probably a lot.
Probably a lot.
You know, it might be that there's something like, maybe there's a lasting 10% cut in In fuel usage, just because they're more efficient.
Because they had to be.
So I think it was a whole bunch of things.
They were getting sources from different places.
They were decreasing their use, but they were also optimizing their efficiency.
And they did that all in less than one year.
Would you say that one year was all the work?
Because they had about one year to know that there was a big risk, right?
So in one year they did, yeah, the Adams Law of Slow Moving Disasters, we're finding the edge case.
Remember I told you that was probably an edge situation?
I'm not sure if one year really is enough, but it was, for something gigantic.
Yeah, for something gigantic.
So that's good news.
And once again, I was the only one who guessed that right.
Despite my complete lack of information about it.
John Carroll, did I help you?
Oh, well that's very nice.
Apparently I've taken the time to help you and you're grateful.
Well I appreciate that.
I try to be helpful when I can, believe it or not.
So here's my take on everything is racist.
Have you noticed that race just went to the top of the headlines as just staying there?
More so than ever.
Have you noticed that?
Just this last week or so.
Last couple of weeks.
In fact, trending on Twitter has been whites.
The word whites.
And I think at one point black or blacks was trending.
So I mean things are getting really raw on Twitter.
The racial conversation is getting clarified shall we say.
And how much of that is because of me?
You tell me.
How much is this because when I blew up everything blew up?
Because it doesn't look like the normal conversation we were having one month ago.
It looks like it's up to a level of White X. In the comments, somebody's suggesting that white people change their label to White X. So it gets more... Just to be assholes.
Okay.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to take that suggestion.
I think white people should insist that people call them White X. Just insist.
And just really just be assholes about it.
Just every moment you go, wait, what did you call me?
White.
Oh my God.
That is pretty bigoted.
I'm White X.
Which includes all the intersectional white people.
I'm part of the people who are white and straight, white and gay, white and LGBTQ in every way.
I'm white X. Do not try to lump me with just white people.
Because you know what?
White people are racist.
I don't want any part of that.
I'm white X. All right, well, I ran a little poll to ask what was the main causes of systemic racism, or just racism, and the choices were Democrats, Republicans, climate change, and teachers unions.
And the winner was Democrats by such a large margin that the other ones don't matter.
And so I have a reframe for you.
You ready?
Here's your reframe, second one of the day.
Here's your reframe.
It's coming at you.
You know how a regulated industry ends up being captured?
That's the word they use.
It's captured.
And what they mean is that the people who are supposed to regulate the industry, let's say the FDA or something like that, if you know that they're getting either money from the people that they're regulated from, or they're going to have a nice job afterwards with the companies they're regulated with, Then the regulators are not really regulating.
They're sort of doing whatever the regulated industry wants them to do, because that's their personal interest to do that.
Now that would be called captured.
So they would be captured regulators.
So I just like that word captured, because it really tells a story, they're captured.
So I'm going to use that phrase in a slightly different sense.
In my opinion, the problem with the whole country, Is that the Democrat Party has been captured by race grifters.
The Democrats are not even free to be Democrats anymore.
I feel like it's unfair at this point to say Democrats are a basket case, because it's not all of them.
That's weird coming from me, but have I told you before that when you talk about a group of people, you never really mean all of them.
Nobody ever means all of them.
When you say black people like hip-hop music, it doesn't mean all of them.
It never means all of them.
When you say white people are racist, it never means all of them.
Ever.
I guess I'll say that too many times.
So, Democrats are mostly good people, in my opinion, as Republicans are mostly good people, but the Democrat Party is captured by race grifters.
And once you're captured, everybody has to act like a race grifter.
Here's the proof of it.
There's nothing more racist than climate policy.
Climate change policy.
There's nothing more racist.
Because it's the single biggest thing that would affect race throughout the world.
Which is you cut down on the fossil fuels and all the people who are less white have the worst time of it.
There's no question about it.
It's the single biggest racist thing we've ever considered in the history of humankind, including slavery.
Right?
Because as bad as slavery is, obviously, most people were not slaves.
Am I right?
Most people were not slaves.
But most people will be affected by climate policy.
Most people will have to buy gas.
Most people need electricity.
So, climate change is by far, at least the policy, not the climate change itself, but the policies about it that are anti-fossil fuel, are just death to developing countries.
Because they can't afford this fancy new green fuel that costs more.
All that.
So I feel like the Republicans would get some, they would get a lot of, I think, maybe traction is the right word.
By just continually labeling the Democrats as captured by race grifters, and not really even dealing with their arguments about race, everything's racist.
So whenever you get accused of being a racist because you're a Republican, you know you will, just say, you know, it's terrible that the Democrats party, the party, has been captured by race grifters.
They're not working for you.
If they were working to make things better for race, they would have a different opinion on everything from nuclear energy to teachers' unions and school choice and all that.
Because it's obvious where the biggest risks are.
The teachers' unions are the biggest form of systemic racism, by far.
And then climate change policies would be the 10x of all that, ten times that big.
But what we end up talking about is little stuff, right?
It's all little stuff.
Well, let's talk some more about that.
Have you noticed, if you're on Twitter, or maybe it's other social media too, have you noticed a huge uptick in, I'm part of the problem?
Let me say that clearly.
I'm part of the problem.
So the next thing that the NPCs will say, but Scott, you're part of the problem.
No, I'm part of the problem.
Can you hear that, NPCs?
I'm just trying to make everybody stop saying, but Scott, you're the cause of this problem.
Yes, I'm part of the problem.
So now I can tell you what it is so you settle down a little bit.
There's a ton of videos going around on Twitter every day now that seem to show black American citizens beating up on other people.
Often white, but not always.
They're all one way.
At least the ones that we're seeing.
The ones that are surfaced.
I'm not saying it only goes one way.
I'm only saying that the videos are just one way.
And does it give you the idea that it's worse than it's ever been?
How many of you have seen the videos?
You know there's an uptick in those videos, right?
There's like a sudden uptick.
Here's the thing you need to know.
They're mostly coming from just a few accounts.
That's where they originate.
Other people are retweeting them because they think they're current and that it looks like a pattern.
Many of them, if not most, are not current.
Some of them could be, you know, 15, 20 years ago.
But they're being surfaced all at the same time, almost one a day, almost as if it's programmed and there's some kind of a movement going on.
It doesn't, it's not organic, right?
So the fact you're seeing all those, Remind yourself that's not organic and they're not current.
They've lumped, you know, probably 20 years of possible videos and they're all coming forward at the same time through the same few accounts.
It's creating a very dangerous impression.
Very dangerous.
Now the reason I say I'm part of that is that I've tweeted a few of those before I started to sniff out a pattern.
Because I thought it might be organic.
I thought, oh, there just is more of this going on.
That's alarming.
Now there might be, there might be more of it going on, but you can't tell from the videos.
So don't be, don't be persuaded by the videos.
Those videos are intended to set your brain on fire and create a narrative that might actually be true.
But the videos aren't telling you if it's true or not true.
It's just not something you should base a worldview on.
Just be very aware they're coming from a few accounts that are up to something.
Those accounts very much have an agenda.
But then people like me get drawn in to my discredit.
Drawn into thinking that I'm seeing some kind of a modern current pattern.
There might be.
But you can't tell from the videos.
You cannot tell.
Now I do think that the race grifters in the Democrat Party have increased, let's say, the bad feelings that I would expect there's more.
But that's my bias.
I don't know.
I don't know if it's worse.
It could be just crime is worse.
Maybe just everything's worse since the pandemic.
But I wouldn't take too much of your worldview from those videos.
Just be very careful.
And the first thing you should ask the next time you see one is, when did it happen?
And you're going to find out they're not current.
So look for that, all right?
Let's see.
Let's talk about all the other racist stuff.
There are tornadoes in Mississippi.
23 dead.
I guess it's unclear whether there was one major tornado that got everybody or there are a bunch of little ones, but... It's hard for me to wrap my head around tornadoes.
Do you have that thing where... I kind of like earthquakes.
Because you know where the faults are for the most part.
And you kind of know if you're vulnerable to them.
So you can do something about it if at least you have resources you can.
But I feel like there's just nothing you can do if a tornado is coming your way.
Like it just jumps out of nowhere and if it hits your house, it hits your house.
So this is pretty grim.
23 dead.
I mean that's huge.
Isn't that more dead than we ever have with like a major hurricane?
When was the last time we had a hurricane that killed more than 20 people?
Katrina?
How many did Katrina kill?
Because I thought we got the deaths from the big hurricanes down to like the single digits.
Are we not, we're not in single digits from major hurricanes yet?
It's heading in that direction.
3,000?
What?
That can't be right.
How many people, you have to give me a number, how many died from Katrina?
Sandy was 233, somebody says.
1392.
Oh, okay.
Wow.
Hmm.
I thought we were doing way better than that.
1800 dead?
Interesting.
Okay.
Well, I got schooled on that, but 23 dead is pretty awful.
All right, let's talk about TikTok and the trick that is being played by TikTok, China.
Democrats who don't want to get rid of TikTok and the media.
They're all doing the same thing and no matter how much I complain about it, it doesn't seem to be making as much difference as I hoped.
And it goes like this.
TikTok is not one risk.
It is two separate disorder-related risks.
One is they could get all the data about the people using it.
But as people say, hey, other companies get your data.
So what's the difference?
The difference is one of them is our adversary.
It is not the same if Zuckerberg has your data.
You might not like what Zuckerberg does with it, but he's not China.
He's not trying to destroy the United States.
There's no comparison.
And yet, somehow, every single day, somebody says that on social media.
And even Republicans are saying it.
But Scott, other companies have data, your private data.
Why are you so worried about this one?
Are you a racist?
And I don't know how much less you could understand about a topic than not understanding that China is not the same as Facebook, or Meta.
How in the world is anybody making that argument?
Well, other?
You give bullets to your friends, so why wouldn't you give bullets to your sworn enemy who wants to kill you?
Explain your inconsistency, Scott.
Why would you arm your friends But you wouldn't arm your mortal enemies.
You're being inconsistent now.
How could you even explain yourself?
Is it a racist thing?
Are you being racist?
Because you want your friends to have weapons, but you don't... Let me see if I get this straight.
You want your friends to have weapons, but you don't want your enemies, your sworn enemies.
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
Try to explain that without sounding racist, will you, Scott?
Huh?
I actually have that conversation at least once a day with people who can find their way to work and get married and stuff.
They seem to be able to function in the world and yet can't tell the difference between giving bullets to your friends versus giving bullets to your mortal enemies.
I don't know what to do with that.
Just don't know what to do with it.
But here's the other part.
Everybody who tells you, but we can protect our data, That would be TikTok.
We can protect our data.
We have all these data protection things.
We'll keep it in America.
Other companies have data protection.
That's all a diversion, because data is only one part of the problem, and it's the smaller part.
They want you not to think about the fact that they literally have a button that they call the heat button.
TikTok does.
We know this.
I'm not speculating.
They admit this.
Where they can make anything viral.
Boop, one button.
It's viral.
With that kind of power, they can reprogram the brains of Americans because persuasion is attention plus, say it, persuasion is attention plus repetition.
Attention.
Get your attention.
TikTok does that better than anybody's ever done it.
They get your attention.
They keep your attention for hours.
And then they use repetition to make you believe anything they want you to believe.
That's all it takes.
Attention, they've got that nailed.
Repetition, that's what the algorithm does.
Gives you more of things that you click on.
So if they give you something and you click on it, you're going to see a lot more of it and you're going to hypnotize yourself just like they might want you.
Now, I don't have any evidence they've ever pushed that button, the heat button, to make politics change.
But would you notice if something wasn't viral that maybe could have been?
No, you wouldn't notice.
You don't notice what they suppress.
So, do you think they only have a heat button?
Or do you think it's like Twitter, where they had ten different buttons for suppressing things?
I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.
Of course they have a button for suppressing things!
Yeah, except they would use reasons such as, it was inappropriate, They'd say, oh, that violated our terms of service.
Or they might say advertisers don't want to associate it with it.
Yeah.
So we're going to suppress this one because advertisers don't want to associate with it.
Yeah.
So of course they're already programming us.
Of course they are.
They don't have to do it with making something viral.
They just make something that could have been viral not viral.
That's all it takes.
Whatever you see the most of is what you're going to think is true.
So every time, and I'm saying this because China, somebody in the CCP said, oh, we would never ask a company for their private data.
Now, first of all, that's a ridiculous and stupid claim, because they're adversaries of the United States, and they could.
All they'd have to do is have a reason.
They just need a reason, and then they can just ask for it.
That's the way their system works.
It's also the way ours works.
Do you think Twitter can say no if the government says show us your data?
No.
No, the government just has to have some warrant or whatever they need, which they can get easily.
So no, every company is beholden to the government of that country.
There's no way around that.
It works the same way in our system.
When China or the media or anybody else is talking at all about the data risk, they are misleading you.
Because they're trying to make you not think about the persuasion risk, which is maybe a hundred times more scary.
It's not even close.
The data risk is, well, there's a risk.
Do you think China doesn't have a way to hack our personal data other ways?
Of course they do.
Of course they do.
They probably have hundreds of ways to get our personal data.
But they don't have hundreds of ways to program us with one button.
TikTok is sort of unique in that.
It's more powerful than any other tool they have, other than military.
And money, I suppose.
All right, so the people who get this right, the people who understand that the persuasion risk is bigger than the data risk, is Dan Crenshaw.
All right, so here's my heroes list.
People who actually understand the complicated topic.
It turns out the bar should not be this low.
I'm just looking for somebody who understands the complicated topic.
That's it.
Dan Crenshaw, and again, you can keep your opinions of anything else you don't like about him.
We're not talking about that.
On this topic, he is right on.
He's dialed in.
He's exactly right on this.
Tom Cotton, exactly right on TikTok and China.
And Vivek Ramaswamy, he seems to be right about everything lately.
I disagreed with him a little bit on the bank stuff, but he always shows his work, so I appreciate that.
All right.
Apparently there's a Silicon Valley Bank connection with China, Because I guess, I didn't realize this, but Silicon Valley Bank, at least in some ways, was like almost a Chinese sister bank set up to do lots of loans for, not exclusively, but with a focus on Chinese startups.
So now some Republicans are saying, how much are we backing up Chinese companies?
I'm not sure that's the right button to push.
In my opinion, if you're going to save a bank, you just have to save the bank.
To me, even though I don't think you can be more hawkish about China than I am, but even I don't think a Chinese company just trying to do business in the United States in a legal way, I don't think that they should get left out of whatever happens.
Now, I don't know if anybody's being bailed out.
Are they being bailed out?
I guess they are.
Or is it just the insurance discovery?
Well, I guess I don't have that big of a problem with it.
It's not ideal, and I certainly wish we were not bailing out any Chinese entities.
But I just, I don't know, I think it was because I was a banker for so long.
I just don't like treating some of the depositors different than the others.
I'm just not comfortable with it.
I understand the argument.
Totally understand the argument.
I'm just not comfortable with that in this context.
All right.
Today is what you call a slow news day.
So there wasn't much happening today.
And so I would like to offer you only the reframes of the day.
That the Democrats are just captured by race grifters, and I'm not sure you should listen to anything they say.
Because as soon as they mention racism, you should just back out of the conversation.
Or, alternately, now I don't think Trump would ever do this, but imagine Trump saying that everything the Democrats are doing is racist.
Not just against white people, that would be a bad attack, but racist against black Americans in particular.
I think he can sell that, actually.
Yeah, we talked about Syria.
If Trump embraced, or if the Democrats embraced and amplified, they would say, look, you can't even talk to us about race unless you stop with your getting rid of fossil fuels.
As long as you're trying to get rid of fossil fuels, you're the biggest racist on the planet, and there's no argument there, that's just math.
I don't think anybody would argue it.
All you have to do is put it in the conversation and people are like, okay, I kind of agree with that point.
It's just leaving it out of the conversation that allows the Democrats to avoid it.
Just put it in the conversation.
Yeah, let's do something about climate policy.
You really want to do something for low-income people, which too often are black.
What's the argument against protecting U.S. banks and companies first versus foreign?
I don't think there should be a first, is the argument.
That the banking system requires everybody to think that it's stable.
And if you said, well, we'll save Americans money, but if you foreign companies put your money in our bank, we won't protect you the same way.
It's not going to be the most credible banking system.
So here's a decision I make on a lot of these gnarly things.
Whenever you have a gnarly decision, that there's no right decision, this is an example where there's no right decision.
If you help the foreign companies, well that's wrong, because why weren't we spending that money on Americans?
But if you don't help them, if you don't help them, then you make the entire banking system weaker, because it has less protection, or it would seem like it.
So, in those cases I usually default to the strongest system, as opposed to the best initial outcome.
The best initial outcome might be protecting American companies first and not protecting foreign depositors.
That might be the best short-term thing.
But your system is more important.
Your system is the entire banking credibility.
If the U.S.
always took the position of strongest support, whatever that looked like, That's a whole different feel and look from, well, we're going to take a look at each situation separately, and maybe we'll protect you, maybe we won't.
Now, in reality, it's always that way.
In reality, we're always going to look at it separately and make every decision individually.
But if you start a pattern that you're going to be picking and choosing who wins and loses, that's not nearly as credible as, well, it's a bank in America.
Here's the framing I like.
Is it a bank in America?
We're going to protect it.
Now, you can't protect every bank, right?
But as a general statement of credibility for both the country and the banking system, if the government came down on, hey, if it's in the United States and it's a bank, yeah, we're going to do what we can.
Everything we can.
We'll take the extreme protection position, whatever that is.
Extreme Socialist Governance.
You know, the attack that Republicans use on the left, that they're socialists and Marxists, has no bite whatsoever.
Do you know that?
There's no bite.
Because it's just Republicans talking to each other, and it's not even all Republicans, it's just the ones who are into politics.
The average person doesn't even know what Marxism is.
How many How many, what percentage of the general public could even give you a good working definition of fascism, Marxism, or socialism?
Yeah, maybe 5 to 15 percent, that's it.
It's just not persuasive.
It's not.
But it's more persuasive to say the Democrats can't be taken seriously because they're wholly owned by the race grifters.
Everybody understands that, right?
That's the easiest thing you could possibly understand.
Oh, there's nothing wrong with Democrats, except the party is taken over by the race grifters, and now everything that they say has to conform to the race grifter narrative, and it makes them completely useless.
It makes the party completely useless.
I mean, I would sell the Democrats as a problem that they need to fix.
I wouldn't say, you know, just don't vote for him.
I'd say, Democrats, you've got this huge problem.
Your party's been taken over by race grifters, and they don't care about anything else, and you've got this one note.
You're trying to play a symphony with one note.
Well, how about that?
Democrats are trying to play a symphony with one note.
That's pretty good, isn't it?
Yeah.
They're trying to play a symphony with one note.
Because the race grifters have taken control of the party.
Yeah.
Pretty good.
Now that's good framing.
Now compare that to, there are too many trained Marxists.
That's a nothing.
That's just nothing.
Or, there are too many socialists.
That's nothing.
There's no persuasive power there whatsoever.
You know...
All right.
They'll listen to race grifters?
Yeah, I think they will.
Because I think the Democrats also feel it.
So you're challenging the right assumption.
The assumption behind it is that the only persuasion that works is when the person you're trying to persuade feels that your point is a true one.
Do you think the Democrats are not aware that the race grifters have taken over their party?
They're not all aware.
But the ones in the middle are.
The ones in the middle who are not into pronouns and, you know, unlimited children transitioning, that's a lot of Democrats.
There'd be a lot of people there.
And, yeah, Marxism versus you're being conned.
Everybody is primed to believe they're being conned.
Everybody's primed to believe that.
You know why it doesn't work when the Democrats use it about Trump?
Because the Democrats are continually coming after me, and probably some of you, and they'll say stuff like, well, what did you expect?
You know, once you knew about Trump University, and once you knew about the allegations from women, what did you expect from Trump?
And the reason that doesn't work is that that was what I expected from Trump.
I don't know about you.
But I got exactly what I expected.
The good, the bad, the annoying, the amazing.
I got everything I expected.
So when the Democrats tried to get me to change my mind by saying, don't you know that there were some glaring issues with Trump?
I think, yes.
Do you have any other dumb questions?
Yes, I was aware of that.
Yes, that was fully, fully considered in my opinion.
Uh-huh.
It's all right there.
But if you tell the Democrats that they've been captured by race grifters, nobody wants to feel captured.
That's a good persuasion word.
Nobody wants to feel captured.
And I think that they would see it.
And maybe see it in a way that they had not You know, maybe vocalized it or heard it before.
But they would feel it.
I think they would feel it is true.
Magpie?
That's not THE magpie, is it?
Just saw a name going by on YouTube.
Is that my friend the magpie?
Or is there more than one magpie?
Well, we'll have to get into that later.
All right.
Captured by Trump?
No.
You know, they try to make a thing about the Maggots, you know, the people who are just cultists.
But the thing is that that doesn't work, because the cultists know exactly what they are.
They know why they're supporting him.
They know his rough edges.
They know it all.
Good try.
But my critics have just become so weak lately.
I have the weakest critics lately.
All right.
Like to think we're friends?
Well, good.
Well, we're friends whether we were before or not.
The last 10 Dr. Drew shows were pretty rogue.
That's interesting.
Alright, I don't have much else today so I'm going to say bye to the YouTubers and I'm going to talk a little bit more to the locals.
Folks, by the way, hit your notification button and subscribe if you'd like to boost my message.
Even just boosting you to yourself, I suppose.
And join the scottadams.locals.com community if you want to see the new edgier Dilbert stuff.
I'll give you this one tease.
So Dilbert Reborn is my comic that goes forward and has been going forward in the Locals platform subscription.
But I have one week coming up, I think in a few weeks, I have one week coming up That every single comic that week would have been banned from newspapers.
Every one of them would have been banned from newspapers.
It's going to be an entire week of all uncomfortable stuff.
Now, I will promise you this.
None of it is mean-spirited, and none of it targets any group.
Right?
Because I don't do that.
Believe it or not, I don't do that.
It is simply topics that you just couldn't mention before.
