Episode 338 Scott Adams - Imaginary Presidential Risk, LBGTQ Under Trump, Inauguration Expenses

how about bum bum yes it's time for what what is it time for that's right it's time for coffee with Scott Adams and you are here to enjoy it hello everybody hello Brian hello Sam hello ray and everybody else whose names are not real names hello Michelle Tyler Marcus JP get in here and it's time we have a thousand people it's time to raise your class your cup your mug your Chellis your stein your container of beverages lift it to your lips I hope it's filled with coffee but it doesn't need to be to enjoy the simultaneous sip it happens now oh that's good simultaneous seven so we've got a number of stories in the news most of them are minor but because the news has to sell product they are being treated as major so the president has a new temporary whatever that means chief of staff Mulvaney the initial reports are good so the people who seem to know this Mulvaney guys say he's smart and he's the real deal and he could be good so there's not much to say about that it sounds like you may have picked a good person next there's a judge who who seems to have a judge in Texas seems to have said that Obamacare is unconstitutional like the whole Obama care I don't know what that means yet my first guess is to ignore it like my first instinct is that okay that's a big nothing it'll be appealed it'll get turned over an appeal so the Obamacare story is probably closer to nothing than something but we'll wait and see on that there is another story in CNN who is always looking for trouble they're always looking for trouble if it's anything about Trump and the latest is that the Trump Hotel in Washington where I have stayed I actually stayed at the Trump Hotel when I went to Washington last night that apparently they charged way more than normal for the campaign so in other words the Trump campaign paid the Trump Hotel this is what CNN is reporting and they're saying that Ivanka may have been involved in some part of the negotiations for the price and they talked about the price and they say I guess somebody wanted to pay eighty five thousand a night but the ho Trump was right the hotel was tried to trade to charge one hundred and seventy something a night so here's what's missing from the story do you see anything missing from the story so for a big inauguration party the Trump campaign wanted to use the Trump Hotel and the price was about double what the campaign wanted to want it to pay and therefore it's a scandal is there is there something missing with this story yes there's something missing here's what's missing it's what every Hotel does he has someone somebody just said do you know a hotel charges for their facilities here's the exact price that every Hotel charges for everything they do yeah and I'll be very precise this is exactly what every Hotel charges for everything they do whatever they can get all hotels charge as much as they can get and that varies based of the season the day the occupancy varies on a lot of things now if your name was the Trump Hotel and your location was Washington DC and somebody named Trump just won the presidency unexpectedly what is the market value of space in the Trump Hotel in Washington DC answer about double the market rate about double right because there is no there was no place in Washington that would have been cooler more appropriate more perfect for that event for that group where was the second place they were gonna go well wherever that second place was going to go probably it was busy probably they were gonna overcharge and if you were there you are not in a Trump property which would have made it twice as cool when I when I visited the president in August the only reason I went to to Washington was to visit the president and for me there was no there was no decision about where to stay I didn't even price any other hotels because if you're gonna go visit president Trump you stay at the trough Hotel right it's just it just makes the whole trip a little bit more complete in some way so when I watched CNN cover this story I watched to see okay somebody's going to tell them that all hotels raise the price as high as possible for the market conditions and that this ad that this particular case was the ultimate market condition so was it true that a trump hotel property and I'm not sure exactly what the ownership is the hotel if it's a more of a licensing deal where they're using the name Rafi owns it doesn't matter really but should they have negotiated as hard as possible with the campaign yes they should the Trump Hotel should negotiate as hard as possible with the campaign do you know why they should do that look let me put that out there if the hook if the Trump Hotel had not charged as much as they thought they could get what would we be talking about today it's a trick question what would we be talking about in the news today if the Trump Hotel had given the campaign a good price right it would have been in the illegal campaign contributions the one and only way this was this was legal the only way it was legal as if the Trump Hotel tried as hard as possible to screw the Trump campaign and if the Trump campaign tried as hard as possible to screw the Trump Hotel and according to the story that's exactly what happened the Trump campaign negotiated as hard as it could against the Trump hotel and they they ended up on a price I don't know what the price was but if you can tell me tell me with a straight face that that's not the way it's supposed to work tell me how that what's the other way it's supposed to work the other way is illegal we live in a capitalist country they're both supposed to screw each other as hard as possible that's what they tried to do no story there's no story there all right I want to read you something that's funny to me when I read when I read CNN's homepage on their website I'm not joking about this I read it for the for the jokes and when I say the jokes I mean the things that just strike me as funny when I read CNN so here's the top left story meaning the most important story in CNN's opinion because they put it on the top and the left that's where you put the good stuff it says Trump's worst nightmare that's the big headline and I'm thinking my goodness this is going to be some bad stuff whatever is under the headline Trump's worst nightmare in the top position in the news that's some bad stuff let's see what it is and it says weeks of devastating revelations of oh my god devastating revelations these are not normal revelations these are devastating go on have left the president's political career clouded by criminality ah and his life under a legal microscope wait what that what did that say clouded by criminality that means other people's criminality do you know who else's life is crowded is clouded with criminality CNN you me were all clouded with criminality if clouded with criminality means that people you know well or have worked with have been criminals well I'm pretty guilty of that I have known people who I've even had friends I've had friends who were total criminals I didn't know about it and then until they went to jail so clouded with criminality yes so if you noticed the CNN they must have a whole department whose only job is to come up with new ways to say that the president is a criminal without actually saying he's a criminal so you want to say things like the evidence indicates or the evidence implicates the President or he's under a cloud of criminality or there's a swarming turd parade around him you know they're just coming up with more and more clever ways to say he's not doing anything he hasn't done anything himself but they're yeah the walls are closing in the walls are closing in that's one of my favorite ones and worse than Watergate worse than Watergate compared to Watergate this would make people tremble it'll make people tremble and then you actually look at the news and you say if everything about the Cohan story is actually the way it's reported there's no problem let me let me tell you something that you're gonna be mad you haven't heard on television if you're watching the news all right I'm gonna tell you something that's insanely obvious insanely obvious but only after I say it and watch how this watch how this hits you true or false and I believe everyone on all sides of Trump related things would acknowledge that the next things I say are true so I don't think there would be any dispute on what I'm going to say next there are very highly qualified lawyers who say that the president the United States has broken laws and that he's in serious legal jeopardy over this Cowen's situation true we'd all agree that's true right there are a number of highly qualified lawyers who say that this president has broken laws and that the coen situation is a dangerous legal jeopardy for him true everybody else would also agree that there's another set of lawyers more pro-trump lawyers who are also highly qualified highly paid highly accomplished who say there's no problem here at all right now I'm not I'm not saying which one's right I'm saying that as an observer it is objectively true that there are highly qualified lawyers on opposite sides some say he's guilty as hell and in a lot of trouble some say there's that literally nothing here right now can you remember what is the standard for conviction is the standard for a conviction some people say he's guilty and some people say he's not no that's not the standard the standard for conviction is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt did I just describe guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if I can fill a stadium if I can fill a stadium with high qualified lawyers who say in my opinion there's not even a law here that's been violated is that guilty beyond a reasonable doubt not even close not even close now do you feel angry that nobody put it to you the way I just did if you take into consideration the size and the quality and the experience of the lawyers to say there's no real problem here it doesn't matter if they're only ten percent and there are ninety percent saying the other thing that doesn't matter ten percent of highly qualified lawyers who are not even involved in the case who say I don't see it looks to me like it's confusing the laws ambiguous it's not being applied evenly there's nothing to see here that's a hundred percent good enough to guarantee this president's not in trouble legally politically yes Baliga Lee now so now that I've said that how do you feel about the president's legal jeopardy from just the Cowen stuff we're just limiting it to the code stuff but so so somebody's saying Judge Napolitano on Fox News said the president's in trouble I I didn't see that but I saw the headlines does that matter does it matter how many lawyers say he's in legal trouble it doesn't matter it only matters that there is a substantial number of you know legitimate well trained lawyers who say I know it looks vague to me it looks this the standard is not useful there isn't the slightest chance they'd given all of those lawyers who say it's not even illegal that he's going to get convicted now keep in mind the lawyers who say it's not even illegal are not saying that didn't do it everybody's looking at exactly the same facts we're not even arguing the truth of the facts even the people who say there's no law assume that all the facts that had been in evidence are the facts right that there was a payment bla bla what logical fallacy is stacking the deck with all those lawyers what I'm saying is that there is no stacking the deck as long as there are plenty of lawyers who say we don't even we can't even determine that there's a real client crime here you can guarantee that no jury is going to be a hundred percent on one side if you can't even get the lawyer's degree if it's illegal because because that's not the case with anything else right if you said somebody murdered somebody could you find a lawyer to argue that murder isn't actually even illegal I don't think so anyway that was a bad analogy the CNN also has an article on here called impeachment 101 it says here's how it would work and then in parentheses if it actually happened what what persuasion technique you see and then using when they you when they write an article says impeachment 101 here's how it would work if it actually happened alright that's not news that is persuasion they're making you think past the sale so they're making you think past the the impeachment as if we're just accepting that as sort of a routine thing and now we're thinking about the details of it yeah so that is just persuasion now it's not and it's not an unreasonable article but it would be better to say here's how impeachment works just as a reminder that would be a little more objective than to say it happens here's how it would work all right they're taking your mind into the future where you're thinking about a specific president having a specific income they could have made this objective and said it's very unlikely there would be an impeachment because the Senate is never going to go for it anyway so it's wasted time and it's politically unwise but wouldn't you like a refresher about what an impeachment is all right that would be an objective way to say it this still makes you think a little bit past the sale but it because it's framed differently you know you start by saying there's no way it's gonna happen but since we're talking about Italy here's a refresher course on what impeachment is and how it works all right that would have been fair this is just persuasion okay now here's my most fun topic of the day I sent out a let's say a poorly conceived to tweet day before yesterday in which I was saying that President Trump was the most Pro LGBTQ president ever now of course I knew when I said it that it would be provocative and would get people chattering which was part of the fun I mean why use Twitter if you can't can't be interesting but I got some pushback I wanted to talk about the pushback because I thought it was pretty good though since it's such a rarity in this world to see anybody incorporate new information and then revise their opinion I thought it would be useful to see me do it in public right now I will confess that I was under informed on this topic and if you tweet something that's under informed you will get informed very quickly so I got quite informed but there's still some big holes here maybe some of you can help me fill it in all right so I'm going to give you the president Trump Pro argument and then I'll give you the pushback I so the pro is that this is president Trump is the first president to come into office in favor of gay marriage or at least not having a problem with it it's not so much in favor it's just he didn't care one way or the other so on that on that narrow point he's he was more advanced than every president before him because even President Obama came in you know a little anti gay marriage so that's one thing all right we'll talk about the negatives in a moment so I'm not ignoring them we're just going to get to them second secondly he is appointed the first openly gay diplomat to a major country ambassador at Cornell to Germany so that I think you have to give them that right now I'm sure there have been plenty of you know openly gay people of service in government so I'm not sure that's the biggest deal in the world it just it must be it must be just specific to diplomats so I wouldn't say that's the biggest thing in the world but the fact that he did it at all you know goes in his column all right now let's talk about the negatives so so here's the pushback I got number one his vice president is Mike Pence and Mike Pence could be arguably the most anti-gay politician that we've known or you know he's in the top top 10% probably so how could the president be pro while his vice president he picked is so anti good point except let's put it in context he hired Trump I'm sorry Trump brought on pence not because they agreed on that stuff he brought him on to win because he needed a certain constituency to be on his side and so pence for the next four to eight years let's say was safe the not the next but for a period of four or eight years of the Trump presidency what did Trump do to the most anti-gay voice in America pence he completely silenced them because the vice president doesn't have the option of having his own opinion on this at least not one that he can say in public so which which Democratic president never silenced the most anti-gay political voice in the country I have never heard of any Democratic president silencing a Republican anti-gay voice a president Trump did he took the most anti gay guy and completely silenced him right do you remember at the I guess was at the the Republican convention and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the president president Trump candidate Trump that held up a dandy he'll hold up a rainbow flag the wood that was pro-lgbt and I believe he had a a full-throated endorsement of him taking care of that community I said this the other day and and this next part is completely invisible to the entire left and and that is this this since since Trump became elected I have never heard even I can't think of one anti-gay thing coming out of a Republican it feels as if Trump changed the Republican I don't know priorities maybe if not their minds because he paced the Republicans for so long that when he gets in office oh yeah and then Peter Thiel spoke at the GOP convention I thought that was important so it seems to me that Trump has done something that no Democrat has ever done he he completely it seems and again I'm gonna I'm gonna put this out to your opinion and or fact-checking but it seems to me that Trump has changed the GOP platform and entire attitude about the gay lesbian population in a way that no Democrat ever did and no Republican ever did am I wrong about that I believe that Trump's sort of live-and-let-live attitude especially and here's the weird part the weirdest thing about Trump is that his own personal life is let's say complicated and therefore he he takes a Republican group that was judgy about personal stuff right wouldn't you say that the GOP has traditionally been pretty judgmental about what you did in your personal life and am I correct that that's gone what it wasn't that long ago everybody was saying hey get the GOP and in my bedroom it's not even an issue anymore it feels to me that Trump has completely taken the the anti-gay at least on the surface of the GOP it just made a go away i I hear no anti-gay stuff from any GOP person period no but I'm not done because as I said the my my critics on this point were not without their good points here's the next one somebody said that Trump has nominated more anti-gay judges than anybody before I don't know if that's true he I don't know if there are more anti-gay judges or if every time a Republican appointed judges they seem to anti-gay but here's the thing what is an anti-gay judge is it a thing because the Republicans are more about just picking judges that will interpret the Constitution and not favor anybody so I'm going to take my critics comment that there are such things as anti-gay judges and I'm going to give them at least a little more than partial credit I'm not going to discount that one because we do it live in a world where judges are not really unbiased entirely you have judges are biased because they're human beings and so that might be a real thing I would say that doesn't matter until they actually rule on something that matters so if they never rule on something probably doesn't matter there was another comment I didn't quite follow about dropping protections in the workplace but I don't remember what the details of that were I don't know how many people it affects but that probably was a good point too I just don't know the details all right so the next one is the interesting one it's about trans transgenders trans and gender folks in the military and on that point absolutely true that the president is not the most Pro transgender president we've ever had that would have been Obama and Obama was more permissive of transgender in military the president's orders or his administration apparently is less so I think the current situation the current situation is that if you're already in the military you can stay which is not really a very friendly policy so that's that sort of anti now sort of that's anti-transgender just to say all right you can stay if you're already here but we can't let anymore like you in all right so I would say that the critics are correct when they say that's more anti transgender but I would add this context the military is the one place where discrimination is expressly allowed if not encouraged so if you try to take the military use situations and lump it in with any civilian situations it just becomes nonsense it's sort of nonsense to say that the way we treat the military tells us something about the way we treat the rest of life because the military is a discrimination organization by design and by universal preference let me give you an example if I went to join the military would they let me in no they'd say you're a certain age we cannot let you in when my when my father went to join the military before World War two or I guess the word just started my father was not allowed to join because he had a he had an unusual deformity in his chest something he was born with and the doctor said no we can't let you in the military because you've got this chest deformity thing and we don't know how that will affect your health now it turns out he lived - I know 86 or something whatever he was 83 86 so it didn't really affect his health in any way that we ever determined but they discriminated against them for a medical condition so the military is where we ask people to discriminate we don't stop it we just make sure that they don't discriminate for stupid reasons right so discriminating against black folks would be a bad reason because there's you know all the evidence suggests that everybody's fine in the military it doesn't matter what your ethnicity is that doesn't make any difference yeah we want the best fighters now so the question on transgenders is whether they fall into the category that I do or my father did which is that there's something about us that from a standpoint of looking at the averages that you don't want people like me you don't want people who are you know too short too heavy unhealthy etc because it's expensive and they might affect the readiness now my understanding of transgender in the military is that if you're if let's say if you've had if you've had your surgeries and you're all good and your health is good it probably doesn't make much difference at all but there must be people who are in different stages where they have greater military risks and costs I think that's the argument but I would not claim that to be true because I'm not the expert on the medical conditions of transgender but here's the point if the decision about whether they can serve or not is based on medical expense even if it's just the average meaning that there could be plenty of transgender who just don't have that problem they're they're stable they don't have a medical problem they're fit for service they're a plus that could be true and still it would be OK for the military to discriminate because they discriminate against all kinds of classes old people short people etc and surely there are short people who could be good soldiers surely there are old people who could you know operate a drone or do some paperwork or you know shoot you two or be a pilot suppose so so the question is on any fact abases is the military discriminating in a way that's similar to the other ways they're allowed to discriminate if they are then then then they're doing the right thing if they're discriminating without the benefit of fact well then it's just wrong and that should be changed but I don't know which is which is the case so to my critics who said hey the president is not the most Pro LGBTQ president because transgenders don't have as much rights as they do for the military as they did under Obama I rank that criticism true absolutely true good pushback and an accurate correction and I have to admit that when I when I sent the tweet I often forget about the T in LGBTQ but I also have to ask myself why are they lumped in there right why why do you throw transgender in with gay and lesbian like who decided that that's where they belong isn't that by itself a little discriminate E if you were transgender would you be delighted that you are thrown in with the gay and lesbians who you might love I'm not saying that you would dislike that but from a political perspective if you're transgender D is that your team is your team the people who are not transgender because you do you know what gay people are not transgender do you know what straight people are often transgender right so I don't know how LGBTQ makes sense I kept gay and lesbian that makes perfect sense why you would lump them you know in a politically active group but I don't know how how T belongs in there but that said my my tweet that this president was the best to all the LGBTQ is false false in the transgender category and then with the judges and when the selection depends you definitely have some eyebrows going up and that's fair I would say Pence is irrelevant he's been silenced I'd say the entire Republican Party has been silenced on at least gay and lesbian stuff the transgender stuff ends up being a little bit or about the budget and we could be wrong about that or we could be right about that and it would be terrible to be wrong about it but it's not the wrong question because the military does get to discriminate all right then there's one other issue in the same topic which is there's some problem or there's some issue with this administration has reduced access for HIV testing of some kind because of access to I know stem cells or something like that and if that makes a difference then I would say that would also be a good criticism for something that would look you know anti LGBTQ in this case anti gay and lesbian anti yeah yes I again let's been praying primarily anti gay mostly so if that's true I don't say that's a good point and but here's my question a lot of what the Trump administration does is get rid of regulations and and things that just weren't helping so it could be true for example that climate change is a problem Wallet could be also true that getting rid of getting out of the Paris Accord agreement was still the right thing to do so you have to distinguish between the problem and and what we're doing about it because if what we're doing about the problem doesn't help getting added that doesn't mean you don't believe in the problem anymore all right likewise if whatever the government was doing before and that know the details was really helping and then we stopped doing it that would be bad but I don't know that's the case it could be the case that whatever we were doing with allowing people access to stuff they have another way to get it so the government doesn't need to be involved etc so I don't know the details of that but I'm open to the criticism alright so I take my I take my criticism seriously when it's actually fact-based so the criticism I got in this were all fact-based and I take them all seriously so I appreciate the correction and I'm getting beat up all day on Twitter about this so maybe I'll send them to this periscope hey thanks for the super heart Herbert by the way any of those who like to reward me for the fun you have during the simultaneous up and coffee with Scott Adams you can send the super are there's a little icon at the bottom of your screen if you click it you'll you'll see what that's all about Google still has me as a Nazi you say well so giving you an update on that let's see what I'm gonna Google myself and see what comes up doo doo alright so here will be a test to see if they're still calling me a Nazi now on the top page all good so the the first search results that come up it looks like they've been scrubbed of the Nazi the Nazi Photoshop job that somebody did on me but that's probably because probably because at least some of those pictures or at least one of them went to a Twitter account that got killed by Twitter so fair is fair let's give credit where credit is due I had a problem with Twitter because it was a Twitter account pretending to be me in the Nazi uniform I reported it using Twitter's own process and within one day the account was taking that so if I'm being if being objective twitter did everything I would ask of Twitter on this topic I've know nothing but positive to say about this topic about Twitter Google however is another question because if I were to click the images how far down would I have to go before I see a picture of me in a Nazi uniform photoshopped of course I would never put on a Nazi uniform and then right below that a second level so Google still has me listed in the top ten which you would see in your first you know if you clicked Google Images and so all my images it would be in the top ten now I don't know how to score this because the fact that so many of you went and clicked on it because I'm talking about it might be the reason that there surfaced so high it could be that I've just talked about it too much so there's no way to really know if the algorithm is driving it up at this point because so many of you clicked on it because I know I drew attention to it so I'm gonna have to wait a few weeks to see if the algorithm lowers them naturally if it doesn't I would still conclude that Google is a the Google is a racist basically there's no other way to say that right if if Google either allows or is behind the demonization of me in a Nazi uniform let me ask you this would they ever put a non white male in a Nazi uniform well you might see a meme somewhere about that but generally speaking it's an anti white male thing it's racist so Google right now I don't know if does Google have other racist images that they leave up is that a thing okay it does Google allow any image that's a real picture to stay up in their images if it's obviously and unambiguously just a racist image because they've got two completely racist images so if if those images don't go down in the rankings or disappear it's not reverse racism it's just plain old racism I let's let's stop saying reverse there's no reverse to it it's not reversed it's just racism there's there's no other way to paint that all right Google is allowing the racist images I'm on the top search now if that's who they want to be now I'll wait a week or so but if that's who Google wants to be then I will I will certainly help their brand if Google wants to be racist I will I will be the first one to help them brand that hashtag racist Google or hashtag Google racist now racist Google is better because I'd like Google to come up as a autofill whenever you're typing racists if they keep it but you know let's wait a week for that no I don't think lawsuit lawsuit is not really the way to go on any of this because it's impossible to win lawsuits like this did you know Johnny Hart I met him once are the new free speech platforms doomed well it's a the trouble is that the the big social networks have what's called the network effect if you don't invest in in startups and tech companies you don't know what the the network effect is and the network effect is that once all of your friends are in one place you know such as on Twitter or Facebook you're just not gonna leave because everybody you know is on the other platform so now I would say there's no real chance that the big social networks will have a free-speech competitor let me tell you why the day a new free-speech competitor opens up let's say gab they have one really really big problem who are the first people who go to a free speech app who goes first well who goes first other people who got kicked off the other ones yeah racists so real racists real racists end up being your your base users and then people who are not racist they say oh I like free speech too so I think I'll go over there and the first thing they realize is that there are a lot of racists over there so they have a business model that the free speech apps have a business model that almost can't work they need to figure out how to tweak that business model to prevent that problem and and what one of the ways that I'm I'm wondering I don't I don't think anybody's done this yet but suppose suppose you had an app that allowed you to post to the social media entities but when it did it also posted automatically to a free-speech place so let's say nobody can join the free-speech site use it's impossible to join it you can only join the other sites but every post also shows up as a mirror on the sort of a mirror free-speech site and and if you've Arbit and already been kicked off a twitter then your your your message just goes wherever wherever it's allowed if you had that wouldn't you be able over time to build a an audience for this free speech one because it wouldn't be any comments on how would you like to have a social media platform that showed all the tweets but none of the comments and if you wanted to see the comments you'd have to go back to the site it came from so I I'm just brainstorming here but listen so let's say you've got an app that posts all of your tweets to multiple platforms puts it on Twitter but it also puts it on gab maybe it puts it somewhere else and then if you want to read them if you want to read tweets you just go to the free-speech one do you'll see everything but the one thing it doesn't have is no comments because aren't the comments the bad part if you had a choice of just not reading any dumbass troll comments would that be a plus or a negative somebody saying Hoot.

Suite and Hoot.

Suite is designed for a different purpose and that's important because Hoot.

Suite is optimized for business users we're trying to you know schedule things and time things and measure things and hit all the social media stuff but it's a little awkward and hard to use so I tried to use Hoot.

Suite a few years ago and it was just so hard that I just stopped using it so if you had an app it would have to be as easy to use as just posting a tweet if it's not as easy to use as just posting a tweet nobody's gonna freaking use it and and Hoot.

Suite is harder to use than posting a tweet somebody says they like the comments the most well you you would still have access to the comments if you clicked on the tweet and you wanted to see the comments you would just go over to the platform where it where they show the comments your tweets appear on gab my tweets appear on gab do that somebody says my tweets appear on gab is that true somebody is somebody mirroring them somehow magazine you're proposing a magazine I guess I am you know what suppose you took all the alright so here's a model so right now if I read my Twitter feed or any social media feed it's in chronological order suppose you created a social media site that organized it like a magazine so you would send your your one message it would go to Twitter in its normal way and people could comment on it and everything go to goes to Facebook goes to Instagram if it's if it's Instagram Abul but it also goes to a magazine and what the magazine does is it organizes the tweets by topic so you would see all the you see all the tweets on this hashtag all the trees on that now of course you can always click on a hashtag and do that within the social media networks but it's a little extra step it's not edited and work right or somebody saying Flipboard the Flipboard is sort of what I'm talking about except that there's no app that sends one content to all those things including two Flipboard as far as I know not me too complicated so suppose you have an app that lay your post to all those media sites including this magazine e1 and from the app you could then go read your comments on any one of those sites so it just lets you go back and forth from Facebook Instagram Twitter or whatever the other is anyway that's the idea enough on that the basic idea is that the current free speech platforms have a problem with their business model that I don't know you can solve and I will talk to you later

how about bum bum yes it's time for what

what is it time for that's right it's

time for coffee with Scott Adams and you

are here to enjoy it

hello everybody hello Brian

hello Sam hello ray and everybody else

whose names are not real names hello

Michelle

Tyler Marcus JP get in here and it's

time we have a thousand people it's time

to raise your class your cup your mug

your Chellis your stein your container

of beverages lift it to your lips

I hope it's filled with coffee but it

doesn't need to be to enjoy the

simultaneous sip it happens now oh

that's good simultaneous seven so we've

got a number of stories in the news most

of them are minor but because the news

has to sell product they are being

treated as major so the president has a

new temporary whatever that means chief

of staff Mulvaney the initial reports

are good so the people who seem to know

this

Mulvaney guys say he's smart and he's

the real deal and he could be good so

there's not much to say about that

it sounds like you may have picked a

good person next there's a judge who who

seems to have a judge in Texas seems to

have said that Obamacare is

unconstitutional

like the whole Obama care I don't know

what that means yet my first guess is to

ignore it like my first instinct is that

okay that's a big nothing

it'll be appealed it'll get turned over

an appeal so the Obamacare story is

probably closer to nothing than

something but we'll wait and see on that

there is another story in CNN who is

always looking for trouble they're

always looking for trouble if it's

anything about Trump and the latest is

that the Trump Hotel in Washington where

I have stayed I actually stayed at the

Trump Hotel when I went to Washington

last night that apparently they charged

way more than normal for the campaign so

in other words the Trump campaign paid

the Trump Hotel this is what CNN is

reporting and they're saying that Ivanka

may have been involved in some part of

the negotiations for the price and they

talked about the price and they say I

guess somebody wanted to pay eighty five

thousand a night but the ho Trump was

right the hotel was tried to trade to

charge one hundred and seventy something

a night so here's what's missing from

the story do you see anything missing

from the story so for a big inauguration

party

the Trump campaign wanted to use the

Trump Hotel and the price was about

double what the campaign wanted to want

it to pay and therefore it's a scandal

is there is there something missing with

this story yes there's something missing

here's what's missing it's what every

Hotel does he has someone somebody just

said do you know a hotel charges for

their facilities here's the exact price

that every Hotel charges for everything

they do yeah and I'll be very precise

this is exactly what every Hotel charges

for everything they do whatever they can

get all hotels charge as much as they

can get and that varies based of the

season the day the occupancy varies on a

lot of things now if your name was the

Trump Hotel and your location was

Washington DC and somebody named Trump

just won the presidency unexpectedly

what is the market value of space in the

Trump Hotel in Washington DC answer

about double the market rate about

double right because there is no there

was no place in Washington that would

have been cooler more appropriate more

perfect for that event for that group

where was the second place they were

gonna go well wherever that second place

was going to go probably it was busy

probably they were gonna overcharge and

if you were there you are not in a Trump

property which would have made it twice

as cool when I when I visited the

president in August the only reason I

went to to Washington was to visit the

president and for me there was no there

was no decision about where to stay I

didn't even price any other hotels

because if you're gonna go visit

president Trump you stay at the trough

Hotel right it's just it just makes the

whole trip a little bit more complete in

some way so when I watched CNN cover

this story I watched to see okay

somebody's going to tell them that all

hotels raise the price as high as

possible for the market conditions and

that this ad that this particular case

was the ultimate market condition so was

it true that a trump hotel property and

I'm not sure exactly what the ownership

is the hotel if it's a more of a

licensing deal where they're using the

name Rafi owns it doesn't matter really

but should they have negotiated as hard

as possible with the campaign yes they

should the Trump Hotel should negotiate

as hard as possible with the campaign do

you know why they should do that look

let me put that out there if the hook if

the Trump Hotel had not charged

as much as they thought they could get

what would we be talking about today

it's a trick question what would we be

talking about in the news today

if the Trump Hotel had given the

campaign a good price right it would

have been in the illegal campaign

contributions the one and only way this

was this was legal the only way it was

legal as if the Trump Hotel tried as

hard as possible to screw the Trump

campaign and if the Trump campaign tried

as hard as possible to screw the Trump

Hotel and according to the story that's

exactly what happened the Trump campaign

negotiated as hard as it could

against the Trump hotel and they they

ended up on a price I don't know what

the price was but if you can tell me

tell me with a straight face that that's

not the way it's supposed to work tell

me how that what's the other way it's

supposed to work the other way is

illegal we live in a capitalist country

they're both supposed to screw each

other as hard as possible that's what

they tried to do no story there's no

story there all right I want to read you

something that's funny to me when I read

when I read CNN's homepage on their

website I'm not joking about this I read

it for the for the jokes and when I say

the jokes I mean the things that just

strike me as funny when I read CNN so

here's the top left story meaning the

most important story in CNN's opinion

because they put it on the top and the

left that's where you put the good stuff

it says Trump's worst nightmare that's

the big headline and I'm thinking my

goodness this is going to be some bad

stuff whatever is under the headline

Trump's worst nightmare in the top

position in the news that's some bad

stuff let's see what it is and it says

weeks of devastating revelations of

oh my god devastating revelations these

are not normal revelations these are

devastating

go on have left the president's

political career clouded by criminality

ah and his life under a legal microscope

wait what that what did that say clouded

by criminality that means other people's

criminality do you know who else's life

is crowded is clouded with criminality

CNN you me were all clouded with

criminality

if clouded with criminality means that

people you know well or have worked with

have been criminals well I'm pretty

guilty of that I have known people who

I've even had friends I've had friends

who were total criminals I didn't know

about it and then until they went to

jail so clouded with criminality

yes so if you noticed the CNN they must

have a whole department whose only job

is to come up with new ways to say that

the president is a criminal without

actually saying he's a criminal so you

want to say things like the evidence

indicates or the evidence implicates the

President or he's under a cloud of

criminality or there's a swarming turd

parade around him you know they're just

coming up with more and more clever ways

to say he's not doing anything he hasn't

done anything himself but they're yeah

the walls are closing in the walls are

closing in that's one of my favorite

ones and worse than Watergate worse than

Watergate compared to Watergate this

would make people tremble it'll make

people tremble and then you actually

look at the news and you say if

everything about the Cohan story is

actually the way it's reported there's

no problem let me let me tell you

something that you're gonna be mad you

haven't heard on television if you're

watching the news all right I'm gonna

tell you something that's insanely

obvious insanely obvious but only after

I say it and watch how this watch how

this hits you true or false and I

believe everyone on all sides of Trump

related things would acknowledge that

the next things I say are true so I

don't think there would be any dispute

on what I'm going to say next there are

very highly qualified lawyers who say

that the president the United States has

broken laws and that he's in serious

legal jeopardy over this

Cowen's situation true we'd all agree

that's true right there are a number of

highly qualified lawyers who say that

this president has broken laws and that

the coen situation is a dangerous legal

jeopardy for him true everybody else

would also agree that there's another

set of lawyers more pro-trump lawyers

who are also highly qualified highly

paid highly accomplished who say there's

no problem here at all

right now I'm not I'm not saying which

one's right I'm saying that as an

observer it is objectively true that

there are highly qualified lawyers on

opposite sides some say he's guilty as

hell and in a lot of trouble some say

there's that literally nothing here

right now can you remember what is the

standard for conviction is the standard

for a conviction some people say he's

guilty and some people say he's not no

that's not the standard the standard for

conviction is guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt did I just describe guilty beyond

a reasonable doubt

if I can fill a stadium if I can fill a

stadium with high qualified lawyers who

say in my opinion there's not even a law

here that's been violated is that guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt not even close

not even close now do you feel angry

that nobody put it to you the way I just

did if you take into consideration the

size and the quality and the experience

of the lawyers to say there's no real

problem here it doesn't matter if

they're only ten percent and there are

ninety percent saying the other thing

that doesn't matter ten percent of

highly qualified lawyers who are not

even involved in the case who say I

don't see it looks to me like it's

confusing the laws ambiguous it's not

being applied evenly there's nothing to

see here that's a hundred percent good

enough to guarantee this president's not

in trouble legally politically yes

Baliga Lee now so now that I've said

that how do you feel about the

president's legal jeopardy from just the

Cowen stuff we're just limiting it to

the code stuff but so so somebody's

saying Judge Napolitano on Fox News said

the president's in trouble I I didn't

see that but I saw the headlines does

that matter

does it matter how many lawyers say he's

in legal trouble it doesn't matter it

only matters that there is a substantial

number of you know legitimate well

trained lawyers who say I know it looks

vague to me it looks this the standard

is not useful there isn't the slightest

chance they'd given all of those lawyers

who say it's not even illegal that he's

going to get convicted now keep in mind

the lawyers who say it's not even

illegal are not saying that

didn't do it everybody's looking at

exactly the same facts

we're not even arguing the truth of the

facts even the people who say there's no

law assume that all the facts that had

been in evidence are the facts right

that there was a payment bla bla what

logical fallacy is stacking the deck

with all those lawyers what I'm saying

is that there is no stacking the deck as

long as there are plenty of lawyers who

say we don't even we can't even

determine that there's a real client

crime here you can guarantee that no

jury is going to be a hundred percent on

one side if you can't even get the

lawyer's degree if it's illegal because

because that's not the case with

anything else right if you said somebody

murdered somebody could you find a

lawyer to argue that murder isn't

actually even illegal I don't think so

anyway that was a bad analogy the CNN

also has an article on here called

impeachment 101 it says here's how it

would work and then in parentheses if it

actually happened what what persuasion

technique you see and then using when

they you when they write an article says

impeachment 101 here's how it would work

if it actually happened alright that's

not news that is persuasion they're

making you think past the sale so

they're making you think past the the

impeachment as if we're just accepting

that as sort of a routine thing and now

we're thinking about the details of it

yeah so that is just persuasion now it's

not and it's not an unreasonable article

but it would be better to say here's how

impeachment works just as a reminder

that would be a little more objective

than to say

it happens here's how it would work all

right they're taking your mind into the

future where you're thinking about a

specific president having a specific

income they could have made this

objective and said it's very unlikely

there would be an impeachment because

the Senate is never going to go for it

anyway so it's wasted time and it's

politically unwise but wouldn't you like

a refresher about what an impeachment is

all right that would be an objective way

to say it this still makes you think a

little bit past the sale but it because

it's framed differently you know you

start by saying there's no way it's

gonna happen but since we're talking

about Italy here's a refresher course on

what impeachment is and how it works

all right that would have been fair this

is just persuasion okay now here's my

most fun topic of the day I sent out a

let's say a poorly conceived to tweet

day before yesterday in which I was

saying that President Trump was the most

Pro LGBTQ president ever now of course I

knew when I said it that it would be

provocative and would get people

chattering which was part of the fun

I mean why use Twitter if you can't

can't be interesting but I got some

pushback I wanted to talk about the

pushback because I thought it was pretty

good though since it's such a rarity in

this world to see anybody incorporate

new information and then revise their

opinion I thought it would be useful to

see me do it in public right now I will

confess that I was under informed on

this topic and if you tweet something

that's under informed you will get

informed very quickly so I got quite

informed but there's still some big

holes here maybe some of you can help me

fill it in all right so I'm going to

give you the president Trump Pro

argument and then I'll give you the

pushback I

so the pro is that this is president

Trump is the first president to come

into office in favor of gay marriage or

at least not having a problem with it

it's not so much in favor it's just he

didn't care one way or the other so on

that on that narrow point he's he was

more advanced than every president

before him because even President Obama

came in you know a little anti gay

marriage so that's one thing all right

we'll talk about the negatives in a

moment so I'm not ignoring them we're

just going to get to them second

secondly he is appointed the first

openly gay diplomat to a major country

ambassador at Cornell to Germany so that

I think you have to give them that right

now I'm sure there have been plenty of

you know openly gay people of service in

government so I'm not sure that's the

biggest deal in the world it just it

must be it must be just specific to

diplomats so I wouldn't say that's the

biggest thing in the world but the fact

that he did it at all you know goes in

his column all right now let's talk

about the negatives so so here's the

pushback I got number one his vice

president is Mike Pence and Mike Pence

could be arguably the most anti-gay

politician that we've known or you know

he's in the top top 10% probably so how

could the president be pro while his

vice president he picked is so anti good

point except let's put it in context he

hired Trump I'm sorry

Trump brought on pence not because they

agreed on that stuff he brought him on

to win because he needed a certain

constituency to be on his side

and so pence for the next four to eight

years let's say was safe the

not the next but for a period of four or

eight years of the Trump presidency what

did Trump do to the most anti-gay voice

in America pence he completely silenced

them because the vice president doesn't

have the option of having his own

opinion on this at least not one that he

can say in public so which which

Democratic president never silenced the

most anti-gay political voice in the

country I have never heard of any

Democratic president silencing a

Republican anti-gay voice a president

Trump did he took the most anti gay guy

and completely silenced him right do you

remember at the I guess was at the the

Republican convention and correct me if

I'm wrong but I believe the president

president Trump candidate Trump that

held up a dandy he'll hold up a rainbow

flag the wood that was pro-lgbt

and I believe he had a a full-throated

endorsement of him taking care of that

community I said this the other day and

and this next part is completely

invisible to the entire left and and

that is this this since since Trump

became elected I have never heard even I

can't think of one anti-gay thing coming

out of a Republican it feels as if Trump

changed the Republican I don't know

priorities

maybe if not their minds because he

paced the Republicans for so long that

when he gets in office oh yeah and then

Peter Thiel spoke at the GOP convention

I thought that was important so it seems

to me that Trump has done something that

no Democrat has ever done he he

completely it seems and again I'm gonna

I'm gonna put this out to your opinion

and or fact-checking but it seems to me

that Trump has changed the GOP platform

and entire attitude about the gay

lesbian population in a way that no

Democrat ever did and no Republican ever

did am I wrong about that

I believe that Trump's sort of

live-and-let-live attitude especially

and here's the weird part the weirdest

thing about Trump is that his own

personal life is let's say complicated

and therefore he he takes a Republican

group that was judgy about personal

stuff right wouldn't you say that the

GOP has traditionally been pretty

judgmental about what you did in your

personal life and am I correct that

that's gone what it wasn't that long ago

everybody was saying hey get the GOP and

in my bedroom it's not even an issue

anymore it feels to me that Trump has

completely taken the the anti-gay at

least on the surface of the GOP it just

made a go away i I hear no anti-gay

stuff from any GOP person period no but

I'm not done because as I said the my my

critics on this point were not without

their good points here's the next one

somebody said that Trump has nominated

more anti-gay judges than anybody before

I don't know if that's true he I don't

know if there are more anti-gay judges

or if every time a Republican appointed

judges they seem to anti-gay but here's

the thing what is an anti-gay judge

is it a thing because the Republicans

are more about just picking judges that

will interpret the Constitution and not

favor anybody so I'm going to take my

critics comment that there are such

things as anti-gay judges and I'm going

to give them at least a little more than

partial credit

I'm not going to discount that one

because we do it live in a world where

judges are not really unbiased entirely

you have judges are biased because

they're human beings

and so that might be a real thing I

would say that doesn't matter until they

actually rule on something that matters

so if they never rule on something

probably doesn't matter there was

another comment I didn't quite follow

about dropping protections in the

workplace but I don't remember what the

details of that were I don't know how

many people it affects but that probably

was a good point too I just don't know

the details all right so the next one is

the interesting one

it's about trans transgenders trans and

gender folks in the military and on that

point absolutely true that the president

is not the most Pro transgender

president we've ever had

that would have been Obama and Obama was

more permissive of transgender in

military the president's orders or his

administration apparently is less so I

think the current situation the current

situation is that if you're already in

the military you can stay which is not

really a very friendly policy so that's

that sort of anti now sort of that's

anti-transgender just to say all right

you can stay if you're already here but

we can't let anymore like you in all

right so I would say that the critics

are correct when they say that's more

anti transgender but I would add this

context

the military is the one place where

discrimination is expressly allowed if

not encouraged so if you try to take the

military use situations and lump it in

with any civilian situations it just

becomes nonsense

it's sort of nonsense to say that the

way we treat the military tells us

something about the way we treat the

rest of life because the military is a

discrimination organization by design

and by universal preference let me give

you an example if I went to join the

military would they let me in no they'd

say you're a certain age we cannot let

you in when my when my father went to

join the military before World War two

or I guess the word just started my

father was not allowed to join because

he had a he had an unusual deformity in

his chest something he was born with and

the doctor said no we can't let you in

the military because you've got this

chest deformity thing and we don't know

how that will affect your health now it

turns out he lived - I know 86 or

something whatever he was 83 86 so it

didn't really affect his health in any

way that we ever determined but they

discriminated against them for a medical

condition so the military is where we

ask people to discriminate we don't stop

it we just make sure that they don't

discriminate for stupid reasons right so

discriminating against black folks would

be a bad reason because there's you know

all the evidence suggests that

everybody's fine in the military it

doesn't matter what your ethnicity is

that doesn't make any difference yeah we

want the best fighters now so the

question on transgenders is whether they

fall into the category that I do or my

father did which is that there's

something about us that from a

standpoint of looking at the averages

that you don't want people like me you

don't want people who are you know too

short too heavy

unhealthy etc because it's expensive and

they might affect the readiness now my

understanding of transgender in the

military is that if you're if let's say

if you've had if you've had your

surgeries and you're all good and your

health is good it probably doesn't make

much difference at all but there must be

people who are in different stages where

they have greater military risks and

costs I think that's the argument but I

would not claim that to be true because

I'm not the expert on the medical

conditions of transgender but here's the

point if the decision about whether they

can serve or not is based on medical

expense even if it's just the average

meaning that there could be plenty of

transgender who just don't have that

problem they're they're stable they

don't have a medical problem they're fit

for service they're a plus that could be

true and still it would be OK for the

military to discriminate because they

discriminate against all kinds of

classes old people short people etc and

surely there are short people who could

be good soldiers surely there are old

people who could you know operate a

drone or do some paperwork or you know

shoot you two or be a pilot suppose so

so the question is on any fact abases is

the military discriminating in a way

that's similar to the other ways they're

allowed to discriminate if they are then

then then they're doing the right thing

if they're discriminating without the

benefit of fact well then it's just

wrong and that should be changed but I

don't know which is which is the case

so to my critics who said hey the

president is not the most Pro LGBTQ

president because transgenders don't

have as much rights as they do for the

military as they did under Obama I rank

that criticism true absolutely true

good pushback and an accurate correction

and I have to admit that when I when I

sent the tweet I often forget about the

T in LGBTQ but I also have to ask myself

why are they lumped in there right why

why do you throw transgender in with gay

and lesbian like who decided that that's

where they belong isn't that by itself a

little discriminate E if you were

transgender would you be delighted that

you are thrown in with the gay and

lesbians who you might love I'm not

saying that you would dislike that but

from a political perspective if you're

transgender D is that your team is your

team the people who are not transgender

because you do you know what gay people

are not transgender do you know what

straight people are often transgender

right so I don't know how LGBTQ makes

sense

I kept gay and lesbian that makes

perfect sense why you would lump them

you know in a politically active group

but I don't know how how T belongs in

there but that said my my tweet that

this president was the best to all the

LGBTQ is false false in the transgender

category and then with the judges and

when the selection depends you

definitely have some eyebrows going up

and that's fair I would say Pence is

irrelevant

he's been silenced I'd say the entire

Republican Party has been silenced on at

least gay and lesbian stuff the

transgender stuff ends up being a little

bit

or about the budget and we could be

wrong about that or we could be right

about that and it would be terrible to

be wrong about it but it's not the wrong

question because the military does get

to discriminate

all right then there's one other issue

in the same topic which is there's some

problem or there's some issue with this

administration has reduced access for

HIV testing of some kind because of

access to

I know stem cells or something like that

and if that makes a difference then I

would say that would also be a good

criticism for something that would look

you know anti LGBTQ in this case anti

gay and lesbian anti yeah yes I again

let's been praying primarily anti gay

mostly so if that's true I don't say

that's a good point and but here's my

question a lot of what the Trump

administration does is get rid of

regulations and and things that just

weren't helping so it could be true for

example that climate change is a problem

Wallet could be also true that getting

rid of getting out of the Paris Accord

agreement was still the right thing to

do so you have to distinguish between

the problem and and what we're doing

about it because if what we're doing

about the problem doesn't help getting

added that doesn't mean you don't

believe in the problem anymore all right

likewise if whatever the government was

doing before and that know the details

was really helping and then we stopped

doing it that would be bad but I don't

know that's the case it could be the

case that whatever we were doing with

allowing people access to stuff they

have another way to get it so the

government doesn't need to be involved

etc so I don't know the details of that

but I'm open to the

criticism alright so I take my I take my

criticism seriously when it's actually

fact-based so the criticism I got in

this were all fact-based

and I take them all seriously so I

appreciate the correction and I'm

getting beat up all day on Twitter about

this so maybe I'll send them to this

periscope hey thanks for the super heart

Herbert by the way any of those who like

to reward me for the fun you have during

the simultaneous up and coffee with

Scott Adams you can send the super are

there's a little icon at the bottom of

your screen if you click it you'll

you'll see what that's all about Google

still has me as a Nazi you say well so

giving you an update on that let's see

what I'm gonna Google myself and see

what comes up doo doo

alright so here will be a test to see if

they're still calling me a Nazi now on

the top page all good so the the first

search results that come up it looks

like they've been scrubbed of the Nazi

the Nazi Photoshop job that somebody did

on me but that's probably because

probably because at least some of those

pictures or at least one of them went to

a Twitter account that got killed by

Twitter so fair is fair let's give

credit where credit is due I had a

problem with Twitter because it was a

Twitter account pretending to be me in

the Nazi uniform I reported it using

Twitter's own process and within one day

the account was taking that so if I'm

being if

being objective twitter did everything I

would ask of Twitter on this topic I've

know nothing but positive to say about

this topic about Twitter Google however

is another question because if I were to

click the images

how far down would I have to go before I

see a picture of me in a Nazi uniform

photoshopped of course I would never put

on a Nazi uniform and then right below

that a second level so Google still has

me listed in the top ten which you would

see in your first you know if you

clicked Google Images and so all my

images it would be in the top ten now I

don't know how to score this because the

fact that so many of you went and

clicked on it because I'm talking about

it might be the reason that there

surfaced so high it could be that I've

just talked about it too much so there's

no way to really know if the algorithm

is driving it up at this point because

so many of you clicked on it because I

know I drew attention to it so I'm gonna

have to wait a few weeks to see if the

algorithm lowers them naturally if it

doesn't I would still conclude that

Google is a the Google is a racist

basically there's no other way to say

that right if if Google either allows or

is behind the demonization of me in a

Nazi uniform let me ask you this would

they ever put a non white male in a Nazi

uniform

well you might see a meme somewhere

about that but generally speaking it's

an anti white male thing it's racist so

Google right now I don't know if does

Google have other racist images that

they leave up is that a thing okay it

does Google allow any image that's a

real picture to stay up in their images

if it's obviously and unambiguously just

a racist image because they've got two

completely racist images so if if those

images don't go down in the rankings or

disappear it's not reverse racism it's

just plain old racism I let's let's stop

saying reverse there's no reverse to it

it's not reversed

it's just racism there's there's no

other way to paint that all right Google

is allowing the racist images I'm on the

top search now if that's who they want

to be now I'll wait a week or so but if

that's who Google wants to be then I

will I will certainly help their brand

if Google wants to be racist I will I

will be the first one to help them brand

that hashtag racist Google or hashtag

Google racist now racist Google is

better because I'd like Google to come

up as a autofill whenever you're typing

racists if they keep it but you know

let's wait a week for that

no I don't think lawsuit lawsuit is not

really the way to go on any of this

because it's impossible to win lawsuits

like this

did you know Johnny Hart I met him once

are the new free speech platforms doomed

well it's a the trouble is that the the

big social networks have what's called

the network effect if you don't invest

in in startups and tech companies you

don't know what the the network effect

is and the network effect is that once

all of your friends are in one place you

know such as on Twitter or Facebook

you're just not gonna leave because

everybody you know is on the other

platform so now I would say there's no

real chance that the big social networks

will have a free-speech competitor let

me tell you why the day a new

free-speech competitor opens up let's

say gab they have one really really big

problem

who are the first people who go to a

free speech app who goes first well who

goes first other people who got kicked

off the other ones

yeah racists so real racists real

racists end up being your your base

users and then people who are not racist

they say oh I like free speech too so I

think I'll go over there and the first

thing they realize is that there are a

lot of racists over there so they have a

business model that the free speech apps

have a business model that almost can't

work they need to figure out how to

tweak that business model to prevent

that problem

and and what one of the ways that I'm

I'm wondering I don't I don't think

anybody's done this yet but suppose

suppose you had an app that allowed you

to post to the social media entities but

when it did it also posted automatically

to a free-speech place so let's say

nobody can join the free-speech site use

it's impossible to join it you can only

join the other sites but every post also

shows up as a mirror on the sort of a

mirror free-speech site and and if

you've Arbit and already been kicked off

a twitter then your your your message

just goes wherever wherever it's allowed

if you had that wouldn't you be able

over time to build a an audience for

this free speech one because it wouldn't

be any comments on how would you like to

have a social media platform that showed

all the tweets but none of the comments

and if you wanted to see the comments

you'd have to go back to the site it

came from so I I'm just brainstorming

here but listen so let's say you've got

an app that posts all of your tweets to

multiple platforms puts it on Twitter

but it also puts it on gab maybe it puts

it somewhere else and then if you want

to read them if you want to read tweets

you just go to the free-speech one do

you'll see everything but the one thing

it doesn't have is no comments because

aren't the comments the bad part if you

had a choice of just not reading any

dumbass troll comments would that be a

plus or a negative somebody saying

HootSuite and HootSuite is designed for

a different purpose and that's important

because HootSuite is optimized for

business users we're trying to you know

schedule things and time things and

measure things and

hit all the social media stuff but it's

a little awkward and hard to use so I

tried to use HootSuite a few years ago

and it was just so hard that I just

stopped using it so if you had an app it

would have to be as easy to use as just

posting a tweet if it's not as easy to

use as just posting a tweet

nobody's gonna freaking use it and and

HootSuite is harder to use than posting

a tweet somebody says they like the

comments the most well you you would

still have access to the comments if you

clicked on the tweet and you wanted to

see the comments you would just go over

to the platform where it where they show

the comments your tweets appear on gab

my tweets appear on gab do that somebody

says my tweets appear on gab is that

true somebody is somebody mirroring them

somehow magazine you're proposing a

magazine I guess I am

you know what suppose you took all the

alright so here's a model so right now

if I read my Twitter feed or any social

media feed it's in chronological order

suppose you created a social media site

that organized it like a magazine so you

would send your your one message it

would go to Twitter in its normal way

and people could comment on it and

everything go to goes to Facebook goes

to Instagram if it's if it's Instagram

Abul but it also goes to a magazine and

what the magazine does is it organizes

the tweets by topic so you would see all

the you see all the tweets on this

hashtag all the trees on that now of

course you can always click on a hashtag

and do that within the social media

networks but it's a little extra step

it's not edited and work

right or somebody saying Flipboard the

Flipboard is sort of what I'm talking

about except that there's no app that

sends one content to all those things

including two Flipboard as far as I know

not me too complicated so suppose you

have an app that lay your post to all

those media sites including this

magazine e1 and from the app you could

then go read your comments on any one of

those sites so it just lets you go back

and forth from Facebook Instagram

Twitter or whatever the other is anyway

that's the idea enough on that the basic

idea is that the current free speech

platforms have a problem with their

business model that I don't know you can

solve and I will talk to you later