Episode 342 Scott Adams - Flynn, The Wence, Trump Charity, Sargon and Patreon, Climate
Climate change debate that wasn’t a debate Michael Mann vs. climate change skeptic Judith Curry Both sides IGNORE the best arguments of the other Bill Gates and Harvard test: Put particles in the air to cool earth The sketchy trial of General Flynn and all its “buts” The judge used incorrect facts to chastise Flynn Was General Flynn forced to lie in court by our government? Sargon of Akkad used the language of racism to mock racism Anti-Trump glee over President Trump wall vs. fence talk Israel’s “wall” is actually mostly a fence, did you know that? 10.6 Billion for Mexico and South American aid…and no Wence? What if President Trump resigns rather than being pecked endlessly? The Dems are willing to take out an elected President Dangerous precedent, Presidential nullification Endless investigations for the purpose of Presidential nullification Anti-Trump media CREATED the problem they complain about Press business model is assassinating the President slowly The press regularly ruins and assassinates famous people for profit Is Google putting me in danger of death? Top results of image search, Photoshopped into Nazi uniform What Google is doing is hate speech, isn’t it? Please retweet #RacistGoogle to help me get image removed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that. See all of my Periscope videos here… https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL Find my WhenHub Interface app here… https://interface.whenhub.com
Pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom. And welcome. Hello, get on in here. Nice of you to join. And the rest of you, where are you? Jeremy, okay, you're in there. Getting in there quickly. Oh, I love it when the first few people are insulting my looks. It is amazing to see all of you. You're some of m…
View segment →strate that with the simultaneous sip. Grab your mug, your cup, your coffee, your stein, your chalice, and bring it to your lips. It's time for the simultaneous sip. So I watched a YouTube video the
View segment →other day of a climate debate. It was a debate between Michael Mann, who's author of the famous hockey stick graph that shows temperatures going up steeply with CO2, and Judith Curry was there on the other side. And there were two other people, one on each side. And because I had said that I've neve…
View segment →s nothing about chemtrails that's real. You're just reading down some conspiracy theory rabbit hole. It's not real. Not real. So anyway, I'm not so afraid of the Bill Gates test. Well, the thing is, funding, because I'm sure that if it's just the same chemistry that a volcano puts in the air, there…
View segment →needed three months to do what? Can you tell me there's any good reason for a three-month delay? What we needed was a one-week delay to get a new judge because that judge does not have what it takes. Now as Mike Cernovich, I'm sure accurately, pointed out on Twitter, I'm watching the news and all t…
View segment →ds. And it doesn't matter that his internal process was pure. So that's probably why I'm differing with you. Because I don't think you can judge him by his internal process. You can only judge him by what he did. And those are generally universally considered hate words. So I've got a little bit o…
View segment →o affect me, that's not a stretch. All right, let's talk about the wall. So what we don't know about this wall situation is what the president's strategy is. Now if his strategy is to get as much wall as he can and turn it over to the engineers, I would say that he's sort of ahead of the curve in t…
View segment →using us and they're gonna come over anyway. Because I don't know how much money it takes to stop immigration but I'm feeling like ten point six billion spread across several countries probably not enough. Yeah it feels like a drop in the bucket. So the optics of it are horrible for Trump's base I…
View segment →o question about it. I think any objective person who watched CNN, if there is such a thing as an objective person, an objective person looking at CNN and MSNBC would say oh it's clear that you're just making news about things that your viewers want to watch. And they like Russia. They like Trump le…
View segment →u this. How is this not hate speech? In what world is branding a white guy as a Nazi not hate speech? This is absolutely hate speech. It's hate speech that gets people killed. In this case it may be me. And by the way if I ever get killed, which I think is a pretty high likelihood, I'd put the odds…
View segment →n make this. Now I do think the odds of me being assassinated because of stuff like this about 30 percent between now and the time I would have naturally died. All right that's all I have for now. I'm going to go do something else and let's see if #RacistGoogle fixes this hate speech. And I'll talk…
View segment →Pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom. And welcome. Hello, get on in here. Nice of you to join. And the rest of you, where are you? Jeremy, okay, you're in there. Getting in there quickly. Oh, I love it when the first few people are insulting my looks. It is amazing to see all of you. You're some of my favorite people in the world. Did you know that? Yes, you are.
And now it's time to demonstrate that with the simultaneous sip. Grab your mug, your cup, your coffee, your stein, your chalice, and bring it to your lips. It's time for the simultaneous sip.
So I watched a YouTube video the other day of a climate debate. It was a debate between Michael Mann, who's author of the famous hockey stick graph that shows temperatures going up steeply with CO2, and Judith Curry was there on the other side. And there were two other people, one on each side. And because I had said that I've never seen a debate with the skeptics and the climate alarmists in the same place, somebody pointed me to that fairly recent video. I think it was in the last few months.
And I thought to myself, oh, this would be good. This is the first time I will see the skeptics and the climate scientists on the same stage, and they'll talk about what they disagree with each other. And man, I'm gonna really move ahead. And then I saw the format. So the format was they each get a few minutes to talk and that's that. And then there are a few questions that were sort of off point.
But here's the big takeaway. The primary claim of Michael Mann is that the temperature is not just going up but going up at a super fast rate that coincides exactly, he would say, with CO2 created by humans. So the central claim is not that it's getting warmer. That's not the claim. The claim is that the rate of warming has increased.
So Michael Mann gets up there. He has his five minutes. He shows his graphs and he says, there, the world is getting warmer and it matches CO2. And then he says the odds of this graph, the actual heat matching the CO2 rise, the odds of that being a coincidence are astronomically small. Therefore it must be meaningful.
And then the skeptics get up and they don't talk about the central claim of climate science. The skeptics don't even mention the central claim. And I thought to myself, what the hell? How could they completely ignore the central claim that the rate is going up fast and there's no other explanation?
Now I'm not going to say I'm siding with the climate alarmists because, you know, I'm not a scientist. How would I know? But I'm a little bit worried when the skeptics ignore the central claim. You know, they talked about, you know, it doesn't look like it's getting so warm and some other stuff. There were actually really good points.
Now there's sort of a related point here, which is, yeah, the related point is that both sides were persuasive. So when you listen to Michael Mann before any of the skeptics have talked, you look at that and you say, man, that looks totally persuasive. Totally. And then the skeptics talk. Judith Curry talks and you listen to that and you think that is completely persuasive. And it really was.
So both the pro and the anti sides are completely persuasive. But the way that they stay that way is they don't talk about the arguments of the other. The only way that those two sides can remain persuasive is by ignoring the argument on the other side. And until I saw it myself, I didn't think that was true.
I assumed that somebody would say A is true and then the skeptics would say, no, let's talk about A. A is not true and here are my reasons. And then the scientist would say, well, your reasons are outdated or we have a reason, you know, we don't think your reasons are true. That would look like a debate.
What I saw was definitely not a debate. It was two people talking about whatever they wanted to talk about, sort of never really connecting.
Now the best argument that I've heard for why the skeptics do not address the rate of change, Michael Mann's central claim not addressed, is that when you look at the historical record we don't have the fine detail to know if it ever did that before. So I'm kind of open to that argument but it wasn't made by any of the skeptics on the stage.
Instead one of the most persuasive skeptics was the guy who had been a founder of Greenpeace who's turned into a climate skeptic. And he points out through the historical record that CO2 and temperature have been moving in a non-aligned way for eons and therefore it's not the lever that's moving the world. You know, it's a very persuasive argument except that it doesn't address the primary claim of climate science that the rate is...
So that's all I'm going to say about that. I will say again that what is needed is an actual debate about climate science. If it's the biggest problem in the world, talk me into it. Please, please convince me it's really the biggest problem in the world by being on the same stage and interacting with somebody who will disagree with you, because those people exist.
And people saying it's not the biggest thing in the world, well let me suggest, if you think you have a settled opinion on climate change, what would that be based on, given that nobody has ever debated it as far as I can tell, at least in public? So from the perspective of the public, you and I, you and I have never seen this debated. You have never seen this debated. You've only seen people talking completely different.
So until it's debated I'm going to say I don't think you should have a firm opinion on any of this.
Now yeah, so there's the separate question of whether the worst case scenario is a big deal. And the evidence we have suggests it's not even the worst case scenario. But that's, and that has been debated by the way. So I would say that's the case where Bjorn Lomborg did directly address something specific coming out of the climate science world, specifically the economic part of it. So he said you're saying this about the economics. I'm talking about exactly your point and I'm showing you how you've exaggerated its importance. That is what a debate looks like.
But what's missing is where do the climate people get to address what Bjorn Lomborg said? It's not quite a debate until you get a little counterpoint going on, right? Saying something and then hearing somebody's projection gets you halfway there. Then you have to hear the original person's objection to the objection like a court.
Separately, it seems that there's a project that Bill Gates is funding through Harvard, I guess, in which they're going to put some kind of particles in the air with a big blimp. They're gonna launch a blimp and seed the atmosphere with some particles that are similar to what volcanoes spew to see if it will cool the world.
Now as you might imagine there are people saying, my God, my God, don't do that, because if you do that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. You might overcool the world, etc. Well, maybe. Maybe. But here's what seems far more likely. What seems far more likely is that since Bill Gates and Harvard are behind it, there are smart people doing this and there's probably little to no risk of putting some of that stuff into the air to just see if it works.
So I would not object to a test if it's possible to test it where they could do a little bit of a test. And let's say one county, and then maybe it only lasts for a month because, you know, they're not going to put that many particles in the air. Eventually they'll dissolve. So you do one little area and you do it for about a month. You see if it makes any difference. Just in case.
Because what happens if, let's say, twenty years from now, well it's a super critical problem. It's worse than we thought, etc.
I keep seeing people talk about chemtrails in the comments. Chemtrails are not real. That's tinfoil hat time. There's nothing about chemtrails that's real. You're just reading down some conspiracy theory rabbit hole. It's not real. Not real.
So anyway, I'm not so afraid of the Bill Gates test. Well, the thing is, funding, because I'm sure that if it's just the same chemistry that a volcano puts in the air, there's lots of it here already. They can test it small. What's the main thing I tell you? If you can test something small you don't have to ask if it's a good idea. This apparently can be tested small, so they are. That's exactly the way you'd want to do it.
This is one of the reasons I think Bill Gates is one of the most important characters in the history of the planet, not just for Microsoft but because he's bringing a logical, scientific kind of a mindset to charity and to fixing these big problems. And it's good stuff.
Let's talk about Flynn. All right, this whole Flynn trial stuff is the sketchiest looking situation you've ever seen in your life. And the entire conversation uses the word "but" a lot and goes like this: General Flynn is a patriot who served the country for 30 years, but he may have lied to the FBI. But he may not have known he lied. But if he did lie we don't know why he would do it. But that's not really the big problem because the larger crime seemed to be this, you know, foreign agent registration thing that he was working for Turkey, the government of Turkey, prior to the election but right up to it.
So that's bad, right? But Turkey is actually a NATO ally. But he should have told somebody. But the guy he was advocating about probably wasn't anybody who was our friend either. But he shouldn't have been doing it. But it was legal. Yes, but if it was illegal had he registered, why didn't they charge him with that?
And so the whole story is all of these buts. Like, well, but it's terrible, but... And then you've got the judge. The judge is apparently... Now you normally wouldn't say that about a judge because you'd say, well, maybe he knows something I don't know. But it's pretty clear that this judge was not prepared for this case. He didn't even know that Flynn had stopped advocating on behalf of Turkey by election time.
So the most critical point in that whole situation caused the judge to call a defendant possibly treasonous or a traitor to the country in public on incorrect facts. Now how in the world do you not get that judge kicked off the case? Isn't that lawyer 101? If your judge has accused your client incorrectly of a major traitorous behavior, you have to get rid of that judge, don't you?
And then what's up with the three-month delay? Who needed three months to do what? Can you tell me there's any good reason for a three-month delay? What we needed was a one-week delay to get a new judge because that judge does not have what it takes.
Now as Mike Cernovich, I'm sure accurately, pointed out on Twitter, I'm watching the news and all the lawyers and everything and they act like they're surprised about why it is that Flynn may have pleaded guilty to something he doesn't necessarily think he did even though he says he did that in court. And otherwise at the same time there was this more serious charge, the foreign agent registration thing.
And it assumes to me the obvious answer, and the one that Mike surmises as well, is that Flynn worked a deal with prosecutors with the government to plead guilty to the lesser charge. Now that doesn't necessarily mean he thinks he's guilty or that he wasn't entrapped.
So you have this weird situation where he may have, wait for it, Flynn may have been forced to lie in court by the government as the only way to avoid jail time. Do you see that? The government may have created a situation where the only way he can avoid jail is to lie the way they want him to. Because if he doesn't lie they've made it pretty clear that they're gonna untap this foreign agent registration thing and get him on a far more serious crime.
So the judge was saying, are you sure you want to plead guilty? Because even the judge, who was apparently... even that thinks that maybe Flynn should not have been pleading guilty because they were sort of hinting that he had been entrapped, etc.
So Flynn is in this weird situation where he's trying to get it both ways. He wants to plead guilty to the lesser charge, which is the only way he can get no jail time, but he also wants that lesser charge not to be necessarily binding. Wouldn't it be great if they just threw it out? But if they throw it out, isn't the government going to come after him for the greater charge? So they can't really throw it out. He can't really say he didn't lie because apparently there were some lying going on even if it was just... it just depends. But we don't know why he would lie. We're all still confused about that.
So none of this story makes any sense. So everybody in the story is sketchy. The judge is sketchy. We don't have a real understanding of why Flynn was doing what he was doing. But the Turkey consulting is problematic. And the government, the government looks pretty sketchy in this deal. It's like I'm not sure who to root for anymore. Everybody looks a little bit dirty in this situation.
That said, if Flynn gets any jail time I believe he will be pardoned just automatically.
There's a big story today about the Trump charity that got closed down apparently, and lots of accusations of irregularities and Trump using it as his personal piggy bank, etc.
I'm not going to defend anything with anybody's charity. I'm not going to defend the Clinton charity. I'm not going to defend the Trump charity. I'm not going to defend anybody's charity, right? If rich people have charities I'm not going to defend that. If a rich person has a charity and it's anything except their own money, somebody wants something. And maybe it should just be illegal. Maybe it should just be illegal to have a charity if you have any influence in the world because it becomes just a way to... well it's just this huge opportunity for all kinds of shenanigans.
So I'm watching this Trump charity thing and I can't judge whether that's a big problem or a small problem. Is it his problem or is it somebody else's problem? Is it whoever ran it? Is it a civil problem? Is it a federal problem? Is it a state problem? I don't know what that is. I can't wrap my head around how big a problem that is. But it's out there.
Let's talk about the wall funding in a minute. Let's talk about Sargon of Akkad again. So he's the guy who got kicked off of Patreon, the funding platform, for saying some things. He used the n-word but he used it in the sense of insulting people who use the n-word. So the context was, I believe his interpretation is he was insulting all the alt-right racist type people by using the n-word in an ironic way the way they use the n-word. And so really it was the opposite of racism. But because he used the language of racism he was unfairly kicked off the platform. Something like that. I think that's close to what happened.
And here's why I was trying to figure out why I'm not quite on board with the free speech part of this. And I think it comes down to this. And you've heard me say this a lot. That you are not what you think. So your inner thoughts are not who you are. Who you are in this world is what you do. So your actions are what define you.
And if your actions are bad but your intentions are good, you're still the actions. If your actions are good but maybe you're evil on the inside, you're still the actions. You're not the evil on the inside. Because if you do the evil then you're the evil person.
And what Sargon did was he used the n-word a number of times in public in an insulting fashion. Now again, the technical reason he used it had to do with his inner thoughts. So his inner thoughts seemed to be allegedly pure, meaning that he was against racism. Everybody's happy about that, right? But those were his inner thoughts. We're not judging him on his inner thoughts. He's being judged for doing something, for actions. In other words, the things he said using the n-word. Anybody should have known would get you kicked off a platform no matter what context you use it in.
So if somebody uses the n-word several times as an insult, even if that insult is not directed at a black person, that is sort of hate speech. The defense that his internal thinking was non-racist seems to be true as far as I can tell, right? I'm not a mind reader. But let's say it is true. It kind of doesn't matter because what he did was unambiguously hate speech. In other words, the words were... his internal intentions and even the way you internally processed it, many of you, were not bad. But it probably doesn't matter.
It's hard to give an analogy of how this would be a good thing. But you know, if you steal food because you're hungry it's still a crime, right? If you steal food because you're hungry it's still a crime, right? He did a bad thing. In other words, he used words that everybody in society knows are bad words. And it doesn't matter that his internal process was pure.
So that's probably why I'm differing with you. Because I don't think you can judge him by his internal process. You can only judge him by what he did. And those are generally universally considered hate words.
So I've got a little bit of... let's see, I've got disavowal fatigue because I feel like I need to disavow people all the time. I had to disavow this person for this. I kind of disavow people with that. And I'm a little disappointed. But in any event it doesn't matter what his internal thoughts were. We can't judge them for that.
Let's talk about the wall. So we're seeing reports in the news, the highly non-credible fake news, that President Trump is backing down on wall funding. Backing down, they say. And he's giving up. He's surrendering. He's capitulating. And it looks like the anti-Trumpers are gonna have a good time with that. But somebody says, come on, lol. So whoever just said come on lol, someday they will come after you.
Well if they come after me wouldn't they have to come after me for something I did? Well let me put it this way. If I said what Sargon said, no matter what I meant, would I expect to be kicked off platforms? And the answer is yes. I would expect to be kicked off social media platforms if I use the words he said, even if my thoughts were the opposite, even if I was thinking in pure ways. I would definitely expect to be kicked off.
So making an analogy between what he did or anybody else did and what might come back to affect me, that's not a stretch.
All right, let's talk about the wall. So what we don't know about this wall situation is what the president's strategy is. Now if his strategy is to get as much wall as he can and turn it over to the engineers, I would say that he's sort of ahead of the curve in the sense that there was only one way this wall was ever going to happen. The only way the wall was ever going to happen was if we handed it over to the engineers and the engineers decide how much is wall, how much is fence, how much is other. That's the only way this ever could have gone. There was no situation in which the politicians were going to decide every inch of the wall.
So it looks like the president is, if I had to guess it's just a guess, but it looks like he's prepping to go the only way this effort was going to go. To kind of climb down for a moment from it's a wall, wall, wall, all I want is a wall, to I'm not an engineer, neither is Nancy Pelosi. So why are the two of us discussing how much is wall and how much is fence? Because we don't know.
Why don't we let the experts do it? We'll have a pile of money and we'll try to negotiate something. Maybe we test a little bit wall. Maybe we build a little wall, a little fence, to see which one works best. Because it turns out you can't spend 25 billion in one year anyway. So you don't really need to make that decision. Just make a decision about what you're going to test and then just get on it. And then make another decision after you see how that goes.
So I would say we might be very close to something that looks like a creative funding plan for border security that will get you better border security.
Now it would be interesting to see if the engineers could come up with an estimate such as if you take a section and we put a wall there or if we put a fence, you should assume that there's probably a different degree of violation of a fence than there would be for a wall. Fewer people will get over the wall than will get over the fence if it's a good wall. And you should be able to measure that. So you should be able to make an estimate that says, okay, if we have a wall it stops ninety percent of the people who try to get through. If we have a fence it stops 75% of the people. Something like that. Something you could measure. You can measure it.
And then you could take that further and you could say, all right, with this amount of extra people getting in with a fence we estimate that 25 illegal American citizens will be murdered in the next five years. So just put your estimates in terms of money and then murder. So what is the cost-benefit analysis of letting that many extra people get over a fence versus a wall? And then you know the different costs of a wall versus a fence. So figure out how many extra people get murdered on estimates. Implying that is racist. It is. But it's also based on statistics. And how much it costs. And then agree to build a little of each and measure. Measure it.
You all say measure wrong. How can you measure the effectiveness if they can go around a small wall? Well you would only put the wall in the places where people have already for whatever reason decided it's easy to get there and it's a good place for a crossing. So people might leave there and go to where there are more coyotes, where it's more dangerous, where it's a desert. And if they cross there there's no human facilities for miles and they die in the desert. So it's not that easy to go around a wall if the wall is big enough. So you would definitely have to pick your parts.
But let's say there is no way to ever know if a fence or a wall works better. Let's say you put up a little of both and you just can't tell because as somebody said people just go to other places and you never really know what's happened. Well I think that tells you that all you need is a fence. So you found out everything you needed to know.
Yes, the Israelis. Now a lot of people don't know this and I didn't know this until recently. Did you know that Israel's wall is actually mostly a fence? How many of you knew that? How many of you know that Israel's wall is mostly a fence? Because the only things you ever see a picture of are the wall, right? You see pictures of the sections that are walls. Most of it's a fence.
So why would we do something different from what Israel did? Yeah they have sensors, they have blah blah. Yeah, I also heard on I guess it was Tucker Carlson's show that where Israel does have a solid wall I believe is on the border with Egypt. And I believe that they have taken down the illegal crossings to basically zero. So at least in the case of the Egypt-Israel wall the wall worked 100%. And where they have the longer stretch there they have a lot of fence and that seems to be working too.
So I don't think we have to wonder if walls and fences work.
Now the other news which is very damning of course for the president, politically damning, is that the government approved what, ten point six billion dollars for Central America and Mexico to build up their economies I guess so that fewer people will want to come here in a caravan. And I think not just the caravan but will want to illegally immigrate.
And I think to myself that is a very inconvenient number for a president who doesn't have a wall. If you had a wall you might be able to justify that because you'd say well we've got our priorities straight. We got the wall but we're also working on developing the things so they don't want to come across. That would sound strong. But without the wall it sounds like we're just giving money to the people who are abusing us and they're gonna come over anyway.
Because I don't know how much money it takes to stop immigration but I'm feeling like ten point six billion spread across several countries probably not enough. Yeah it feels like a drop in the bucket. So the optics of it are horrible for Trump's base I would think. Which is different from saying it won't work because I'd like to see an argument for it. But it just doesn't feel like a lot of money. Doesn't seem like it's clearly not the whole solution. But maybe we're just testing to see if any of it makes a difference. Sounds like bribes to politicians. That might be it. Might be partly bribes.
The wall is immediate. Somebody says that's not true. It would take ten years to build the wall at least.
Yeah. So let me ask you this. Let's say you're President Trump and you're looking at endless investigations once the new Congress gets in place. What would you do if you were President Trump and you had nothing to look forward to but endless investigations, just you know endless being picked to death by the other side? I would at least consider resigning. Yeah, I would consider resigning. And I mean that seriously by the way. So this is not a mental game.
Because here's what would happen if he resigned. He would be replaced with Pence and that would activate sort of a mutually assured destruction. Meaning that it would look like a bad idea to force out a president because you would get something you liked less. It wouldn't hurt, probably wouldn't hurt Republicans that much because they'd still get their judges, right? So they'd still get their judges.
And here's the weird part. President Trump may have already solved all the hard parts. You know North Korea's going pretty well, probably would keep going that way. The economy and jobs are looking good. The stock market you know is gonna do its thing one way or the other. But as long as jobs are good we're probably in pretty good shape.
It might be the best thing for him and for the country is to just resign. And suppose he doesn't. Suppose that they just hound him into ineffectiveness, which there's a good chance that that would happen. What's going to happen to the next Democrat who becomes president? Is there any doubt that the next president will be hounded out of office?
The only thing that stops people from hounding anybody out of office is that they don't want to. That's the only thing that stops it. Because if you have unlimited money to initiate unlimited investigations about anybody who makes it to the presidency you can pretty much take out any president. You just have to be willing to do it. And until now nobody's been willing to do it.
So we see the Democrats absolutely willing to take out the president. And I would argue that if we don't see some good bipartisan stuff happening in the next few months, and by the way the prison bill is good, looks like the prison bill may be a positive step. But if all that happens is we're just bombarded with more Cohen Russia stuff, I don't know. I'd be tempted to quit.
He would be the most successful president of all time in two years. And then he wouldn't have to put up with it. But he'd have to make some kind of a deal for Pence to pardon him for all actual and future crimes or something. He will need to do some pardons first. Yeah, maybe so. Pardon everybody and then leave.
It would be even funnier if he pardoned, I've said this before, the best way that Trump could pardon himself or pardon anybody on his team if he thought he had all the pardons that he's ever gonna need is to pardon Hillary Clinton at the same time. Just pardon her. Because if he throws her in the mix it's just gonna complicate the whole thing. It would be hard to disagree with it.
Somebody reminded me that there's apparently gonna be a ban on bump stocks. And that feels like a fair thing to do. Bump stocks were not really useful for self-defense. Bump stocks are not useful for hunting. They didn't really have much of a value. So might as well get rid of them.
Yeah, I'm keep in mind, we should all keep in mind that we're in the crazy holiday season when all of this legal jeopardy stuff for the president is all we have to talk about because there's not much happening. So if the only thing we have to talk about is this legal jeopardy stuff it looks like it's more than it is. But it could be that when we hit the new Congress it will be ten times bigger than it is now. And if that's the case, well maybe it's just time to quit and give you President Pence.
You need another cup of coffee, Scott? I probably do.
You know there's the thing they say about dogs that chase cars. You know what if the dog catches the car? If the dog catches the car the dog doesn't know what to do with it. It's all about the chasing.
If Trump were to resign, and I'm not recommending this by the way, this is not a recommendation, but if he were to resign what would the Democrats do? They would have effectively ruined the government by forcing a president out of office over, right? They would have effectively ruined the government of the United States. They would have to live with that. But they would also have to figure out how to govern. And Trump would be leaving them with the biggest federal debt, the biggest federal deficit in the history of humanity. Maybe not as a percentage.
He would never resign. How about this? What if the president said if you give me 25 billion for a wall I'll quit? He's not going to say that but wouldn't that be interesting? Suppose the president said for 25 billion dollars, if you believe what you're saying, suppose you made this offer to any Democrats. If you believe what you're saying about me that all these bad things are my fault, I'm ruining the world, if you believe those things, 25 billion dollars is cheap to get rid of me. Build the wall and I'll quit today. What would they say? Think about it. Would they take the deal?
Because if they don't take the deal it shows that they don't think he's that much of a problem. And it's just... if they do take the deal he gets his wall. He has the most successful presidency of any president in two years. In two years he will have done more than any president. Pence will keep the momentum going without maybe changing much because everything's kind of going in the right direction right now. Maybe get China wrapped up, that sort of thing. They'll rescind after he's gone. Yeah, maybe so.
Him about Trump switches parties? No I don't think so.
Scott you are a leaf. Somebody says I'm a leaf. I don't know what that means.
All right. Now I saw somebody who's trying to raise money to show that the government has brainwashed us all with trigger words and now we're getting all excited about words and we pick up moist robots. That's all true except I don't think it's the government planning it. I think it's just the effect of the business model of the press.
You know, I think the greatest magic trick of the past couple years is that the anti-Trump media has created the problem and then they complain about the problem they created. Let me put it in some context. Roughly I don't know 15 years ago or so I wrote a book called *The Dilbert Future*. And in that book I said that the news media's business model would cause them to kill people, actually murder people, to create news so that it would be good for business. So that was my prediction 15 years ago. The news media would start killing people to create news because it would be good for business.
Now you could argue that they killed Princess Di because they chased her into a dangerous situation and she died in a car accident. But look at this situation with Trump. It seems to me that everything the press is chasing could have just as easily been minimized or largely ignored. Likewise the Democrats are behind it but the Democrats' power depends entirely on the media. If the Democrats were just complaining about Trump no matter what they complained about and the press ignored them it just wouldn't mean anything. They need the press to do the heavy lifting.
And so the press had, because of their business model, is effectively assassinating the president in slow motion. And we're all watching it and there's no question about it. I think any objective person who watched CNN, if there is such a thing as an objective person, an objective person looking at CNN and MSNBC would say oh it's clear that you're just making news about things that your viewers want to watch. And they like Russia. They like Trump legal jeopardy porn. So they're giving it to them.
The net effect of that is that Trump is essentially assassinated by the media because it's good for business. So this is what I predicted 15 years ago, that the press would assassinate famous people for news. And how many times have you seen in the news drag somebody out and assassinate them in public, ruining their career in public by talking about whatever thing they said, the outrage that they did, etc. It's the press. The press is literally taking American citizens out one at a time and assassinating them in front of the other citizens because it's good for business.
Stop saying resigning and assassinating. Somebody says why? Because I'm giving people ideas. I don't think there's, you know, in my view there's no real chance that President Trump will resign. You know the odds of that are really really small because as far as I can tell he's not in any serious legal jeopardy. It's just what the news is talking about. But they are ruining him and they're trying as hard as they can to assassinate him. And they're trying to take out his family. They're trying to, you know, and if Pence becomes president they'll just take him out because they need to assassinate famous people for ratings.
I'm a little surprised they haven't come after me yet. Are you surprised about that? Have you noticed that at least the top level of the news hasn't really come after me? Bloomberg did. Bloomberg came after me with a hit piece during, was it during the election or after the election? So I guess Bloomberg has long had these... I think BuzzFeed has. Gawker did before they went out of business. Yeah there have been quite a few second-tier media companies that have tried to assassinate me with fake news of course. But the top tier has not. Jezebel, yeah the lower-level people.
Why hasn't your press assassination idea picked up? I don't know. Yeah Bloomberg interviewed me before the election and then released after the election I think that's right.
Who made that photo of a uniformed Scott? Yeah oh that's true. Well do you count Google as the press? They sort of are, aren't they? I think you can count Google as the press.
All right good point. So Google's image search shows Photoshopped pictures of me in a Nazi uniform. So that would be an example of the media, because Google really is the media. That would be an example of the media trying to assassinate me. And in that case actually literally death. So I would say that Google is actually trying to kill me. At least that's the indication right now. It could be accidental. It could be. But since it's been called to their attention and the picture is still up there... The pictures did disappear from the first search page but they're still in the top ten on the images page. But that may be a fake out because since I called attention to it people are clicking on those images so it's probably keeping them up there artificially.
So I've said let's wait a little while and stop clicking on those pictures. Which I guess I have to wait a few more weeks now because I mentioned it again.
Google can't delete it? They certainly can. They can do anything they want.
There's a health insurance plan in India. Send me that link if you have one. Yeah then the Nazi picture is still... Well let me look. I'll look right now while you're here. I'll do Google myself. All right top page doesn't have that image but if I click images it is the top image. Oops yeah so it's the fourth one and it's right on the top.
So let me ask you this. And it's right after it says "Scott Adams dissecting Donald Trump" so they make sure that it's clear that I'm associated with Trump. And then the picture next to it is me in a Nazi uniform that's been photoshopped on. Now don't you think that's trying to literally kill me? You know that would be an interesting lawsuit. I wish I liked lawsuits. I avoid them at all costs. But isn't it obviously true that Google is putting me in danger of death by branding me a Nazi? Intentionally. Intentionally in the sense that they could stop it but don't. Obviously they know about it by now.
And now I suppose they could argue free speech but this is hate speech. Let me ask you this. How is this not hate speech? In what world is branding a white guy as a Nazi not hate speech? This is absolutely hate speech. It's hate speech that gets people killed. In this case it may be me.
And by the way if I ever get killed, which I think is a pretty high likelihood, I'd put the odds of maybe 30%. I'd say the odds of me being killed by a citizen for something that was in the fake news before I would die naturally are roughly thirty percent I would say. And it's stuff like this.
So how does Google get away with hate speech? You know I've decided to go harder at this. I was kind of letting this whole Google trying to kill me situation, I was trying to not let it get to me. You know just let it run a little bit, see if it peters out. But the more I think about it and the more I look at, let's say, Sargon of Akkad being kicked off Patreon for hate speech, which I think we agree probably was not what he had in his mind. He wasn't actually hating on anybody. In fact he was the opposite.
But this Google example is unambiguous. You don't have to wonder if it's hate speech. Drawing somebody in a Nazi outfit is clearly hate speech. And Google is running this on their platform. Now how does Google get away with racism? Because that's what it is, right? I mean have you ever seen one of those? The last time you saw like a woman or a black guy photoshopped into a Nazi outfit? You don't see that. It's white adult males. It's racism. There's no other name for it.
So let's just call it out. I'm going to start a new hashtag. What's a good hashtag? Racist Google. How about #RacistGoogle. Let's see if that one's on there yet. Well I think I'll tweet this out while you're watching. I'll take the picture of it. Here you can be part of history. Well we'll make our hashtag right now. I got a tweet out. Hashtag racist Google won't take down the photoshopped image of me in a Nazi uniform. Why? Why not? Why not?
What's the name of their CEO? Pichai. Pichai. How do you pronounce that? Sundar. There it is. I'll put him in there. All right. Hashtag #RacistGoogle won't take down the photoshopped image of me in a Nazi uniform. Why not? Now I'm pretty sure people have complained about it so it's not a question of whether they know about it or not. So let me include that so people can see the picture. There we go.
Yeah so I'm including Sundar Pichai. Is that how you pronounce it? I don't know how to pronounce it. #RacistGoogle won't take down the photoshopped image of me in a Nazi uniform. Why not? This marks me for death. Tweet.
All right so why don't you do me a favor and retweet #RacistGoogle. Let's see where is that tweet. I want to make sure I got it posted. And by the way you know I like to be fair. When I reported this to Twitter it was down in less than a day. So Twitter actually understands what hate speech looks like you know in this context and they did their job. So I have no complaint with Twitter on this topic. But Google, it's still there. Still there.
So we've got 11 retweets. Let's see how big we can make this. Now I do think the odds of me being assassinated because of stuff like this about 30 percent between now and the time I would have naturally died.
All right that's all I have for now. I'm going to go do something else and let's see if #RacistGoogle fixes this hate speech. And I'll talk to you later.
pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom and Murray hello get on in here nice of you to join and the rest of you where are you Jeremy okay you're in there getting in there quickly oh I love it when the first few people are insulting my looks it is amazing to see all of you you're some of my favorite people in the world did you know that yes you are and now it's time to demonstrate that with the simultaneous up grab your mug your cup your coffee your stein your chalice and bring it to your lips it's time for the simultaneous M so I watched a youtube video the other day of a climate debate so is a debate between Michael Mann whose author of the famous hockey stick graph that shows temperature's going up steeply with co2 and Judith Curry was there on the other side and there were two other people one on each side and because I had said that I've never seen a debate with the sceptics and the climate alarmist in the same place somebody pointed me to that fairly recent video I think it was last few months and I thought to myself all this would be good this is the first time I will see the skeptics and the climate scientists on the same stage and they'll talk about what they disagree with each other and man I'm gonna really move ahead and then I saw the format so the format was they each get a few minutes to talk and and that's that and then there are a few questions that were sort of off point but here's the the big takeaway the primary claim of Michael Mann is that the the temperature is not just going up but going up at a super fast rate that coincides exactly he would say with co2 created by humans now the so the central claim is not that it's getting warmer that's not the claim the claim is that the rate of warming has increased so Michael Mann gets up there he has his five minutes he shows his graphs and he says there the world is getting warmer and it matches co2 and then he says the odds of this graph the the actual heat matching the co2 rise the odds of that being a coincidence are you know astronomically small therefore it must be meaningful and then the skeptics get up and they don't talk about the central claim of climate science the skeptics don't even mention the central claim and I thought to myself what the hell how could they completely ignore the central claim that the rate is going up fast and there's no other explanation now I'm not going to say I'm siding with the climate alarmists because you know I'm not a scientist how would I know but I'm a little bit worried when the skeptics ignore the central claim you know they talked about you know it doesn't look like it's getting so warm and with some other stuff there were actually really good points now there's sort of a related point here which is yeah the related point is that both sides were persuasive so when you listen to Michael Mann before any of the skeptics have talked you look at that and you say man that looks totally persuasive totally and then the skeptics talk Judith curry talks and listen to that and I think that is completely persuasive and it really was so both the pro and the anti sides are completely persuasive but the way that they stay that way is they don't talk about the arguments of the other the only way that those two sides can remain persuasive is by ignoring the argument on the other side and until I saw it myself I didn't think that was true I assumed that somebody would say a is true and then the skeptics would say no let's talk about a a is not true and here are my reasons and then the scientist would say well your reasons are outdated or we have a reason you know we don't think your reasons are true that would look like a debate what I saw was definitely not a debate it was two people talking about whatever they wanted to talk about sort of never really connecting now the best argument that I've heard for why the skeptics do not address the rate of change michael mann's central claim not addressed is that when you look at the historical record we don't have the fine detail to know if it ever did that before so I'm I'm kind of open to that argument but it wasn't made by that any of the skeptics on the stage instead one of the most persuasive skeptics was the guy who had been a founder of Greenpeace who's turned into a climate skeptic and he points out through the historical record that co2 and temperature have been moving in a non-aligned way for eons and therefore it's not the lever that's moving the world you know it's a very persuasive argument except that it doesn't address the primary claim of climate science that the rate is I so that's all I'm going to say about that I will say again that what is needed is an actual debate about climate science if it's the biggest problem in the world talk me into it please please convince me is really the biggest problem in the world by being on the same stage and interacting with somebody who will disagree with you because those people exist and people saying it's not the biggest thing in the world well let me suggest if you think you have a settled opinion on climate change what would that be based on given that nobody has ever debated it as far as I can tell at least in public so from the perspective of the public you and I you and I have never seen this debated you have never seen this debated you've only seen people talking completely different so until it's debated I'm going to say I don't think I don't think you should have a firm opinion on any of this now yeah so there's the separate question of whether the worst case scenario is a big deal and the evidence we have suggests it's not even the worst case scenario but that's and that has been debated by the way so I would say that's the case where Bjorn Lomborg did directly address something specific coming out of the climate science world specifically the economic part of it so he said you're saying this about the economics I'm talking about exactly your point and I'm showing you how you've you know exaggerated its importance that is what a debate looks like but what's missing is where do the climate people get to address what Bjorn Lomborg sent it's not quite a debate until you get a little counterpoint going on right saying something and then hearing somebody's projection - it gets you halfway there then you have to hear the original person's objection to the objection like a court separately it seems that there's a project that Bill Gates is funding through Harvard I guess in which they're going to put some kind of particles in the air with a big blimp they're gonna launch a blimp and see the atmosphere with some particles that are similar to what volcanoes spew to see if it will cool the world now as you might imagine there are people saying my god my god don't do that because if you do that if you do that you can't you know can't put the genie back in the bottle you might over cool the world etc well maybe maybe but here's what seems far more likely what seems far more likely is that since Bill Gates and Harvard are behind it there are smart people doing this and there's probably little to no risk of putting some of that stuff into the air to just see if it works so I would not object to a test if it's possible to test it where they could do a little bit of a test and let's say one county and then maybe it only lasts for a month because you know they're not going to put that many particles in the air eventually a dissolve so you do one little area and you do it for about a month you see if it makes any difference just in case because what happens if let's say twenty years from now well it's it's a super critical problem it's worse than we thought etc.
I keep seeing people to talk about chemtrails and the comments chemtrails are not real that's tinfoil hat time you there's nothing about chemtrails is real you're just you're you're just reading down some conspiracy theory rabbit hole it's not real not real so anyway I'm not so afraid of the Bill Gates test well the thing is funding because I'm sure that if it's just the same chemistry that a volcano puts in the air there's lots of it here already they can test it small what's the main thing I tell you if you can test something small you don't have to ask if it's a good good idea this apparently can be tested small so they are that's exactly the way you'd want to do it this is one of the reasons I think Bill Gates is one of the most important characters in the history of the planet not just for Microsoft but because he's bringing a a logical scientific kind of a mindset to charity and to fixing these big problems and it's good stuff let's talk about a Flynn all right this whole Flynn trial stuff is the sketchiest looking situation you've ever seen in your life and the entire conversation uses the word but a lot and goes like this general Flynn is a patriot who serves the country for 30 years but he may have lied to the FBI but he may not have known he lied but if he did lie we don't know why he would do it but that's not really the big problem because the larger crime seemed to be this you know for an agent registration thing that he was working for Turkey the government of Turkey prior to the election but right up to it so that's bad right but Turkey is actually a NATO ally but he should have told somebody but the guy he was advocating about probably probably wasn't anybody who was our friend either but he shouldn't have been doing it but it was legal yes but if it was illegal it had he registered why didn't they charge him with that and so the the whole story is all of these butts like well but it's terrible but and then you've got the judge the judge is apparently a now you normally you wouldn't say that about a judge because you'd say well maybe he knows something I don't know but it's pretty clear that this judge was not prepared for this case he didn't even know that Flynn had stopped advocating on behalf of Turkey by election time so the most critical point in that whole situation caused the judge to call a defendant possibly treasonous or a traitor to the country in public on incorrect facts now how in the world do you not get that judge kicked off the case isn't that lawyer 101 if your judge has accused your client incorrectly of a major of a major traitorous behavior you can't have to get rid of that judge don't you and then and what's up with the three-month delay who needed three months to do what can you tell me there's any good reason for a three-month delay what we needed was a you know a one-week delay to get a new judge because that judge does not have what it takes now as Mike sort of itch I'm sure accurately pointed out on Twitter I'm watching the news and all the lawyers and everything and and they they act like they're surprised about why why it is that Flynn may have pleaded guilty to something he doesn't necessarily think he did even though he says he did that in court and otherwise at the same time there was this more serious charge the foreign agent registration thing about and the assumes to me the obvious answer and the one that Mike's arises as well is that Flynn worked at and deal with prosecutors with the government to take the to plead guilty to the lesser charge now that doesn't necessarily mean he thinks he's guilty or that he wasn't entrapped so you have this weird situation where he may have to wait for it des Flynn may have been forced to lie in court by the government as the only way to avoid jail time do you see that the government may have created a situation where the only way he can avoid jail is to lie the way they want him to because if he doesn't lie they've made it pretty clear that they're gonna untap this for an agent registration thing and get him on a far more serious crime so the judge was saying are you sure you want to plead guilty because even the judge who was apparently a even that thinks that maybe Flynn should not have been pleading guilty because they were sort of hinting that he had been entrapped etc so Flynn is in this weird situation where he's trying to get it both ways he wants to plead guilty to the lesser charge which is the only way he can get in no jail time but he also wants that lesser charge not to be necessarily binding wouldn't it be great if they just threw it out but if they throw it out isn't the government going to come after him for the greater charge so they can't really throw it out he can't really say he didn't lie because apparently there were some lying going on even if it was just just depends but we don't know why he would lie we're all still confused about that so none of this story makes any sense so everybody in the story is sketchy the judge is sketchy we don't have a real understanding of why Flynn was doing what he was doing but the the turkey consulting is problematic and the government the government looks pretty sketchy in this deal it's like I'm not sure who to root for anymore everybody looks a little bit dirty in this situation that said if if Flynn gets any jail time I believe he will be pardoned just automatically there's a big story today about the Trump charity that got closed down apparently and lots of accusations of irregularities and Trump using it as his personal piggy bank etc.
I'm not going to defend anything with anybody's charity I'm not going to defend the Clinton charity I'm not going to defend the Trump charity I'm not going to defend anybody's charity right if rich people have charities I'm not going to defend that if a rich person has a charity and it's anything except their own money somebody wants something and maybe it should just be illegal maybe it should just be illegal to have a charity if you have any influence in the world because it becomes just a way to well it's just this huge opportunity for all kinds of shenanigans so so I'm watching this Trump charity thing and I can't judge whether that's a big problem or a small problem is it his problem or is it somebody else's problem is it whoever ran it is it a civil problem is it a federal problem is it a stay provide oh no what that's I I can't wrap my head around how big a problem that is but it's out there let's talk about we're going to talk about the wall funding in a minute let's talk about sargon of akkad again so he's the guy who got kicked off of a patreon the funding platform for saying some things use the n-word but he used it in the sense of insulting people who use the n-word so the context was I believe his interpretation is he was insulting all the right racist type people by using the n-word in an ironic way the way they use the n-word and so really it was the opposite of racism but because he used the language of racism he was unfairly kicked off the platform something like that I think that's close to what happened and here's why I was trying to figure out why I'm not quite on board with the free speech part of this and I think it comes down to this and you've heard me say this a lot that you are not what you think so your inner thoughts are not who you are who you are in this world is what you do so your actions are what define you and if your actions are bad but your intentions are good you're still the actions if your actions are good but maybe you're evil on the inside you're still the actions you're not the evil on the inside because if you do the evil that near the evil person and what's our gun did was he used the n-word a number of times in public in an insulting fashion now again the technical reason he used it had to do with his inner thoughts so his inner thoughts seemed to be allegedly pure meaning that he was against racism everybody's happy about that right but those were his inner thoughts we're not judging him on his inner thoughts he's being judged for doing something for actions in other words the things he said using the n-word anybody should have known would get you kicked off a platform no matter what context you use it in so if somebody uses the n-word several times as an insult even if that insult is not directed at a black person that is sort of hate speech the defense that he's internal thinking was non racist seems to be true as far as I can tell right I'm not a I'm not a mind reader but let's say it is true it kind of doesn't matter because what he did was unambiguously hate speech in other words the words were his internal intentions and even the way you internally processed it many of you were not bad but it probably doesn't matter it's hard to give an analogy of how this would be a good thing but you know if if you steal food because you're hungry it's still a crime right if you steal if you steal food because you're hungry still a crime right he he did a bad thing in other words he used words that everybody in society knows are bad words and it doesn't matter that his internal process was pure so that's probably why I'm differing with you because I don't think you can judge him by his internal process you can only judge in what he did and those are generally universally considered hate words so I've got a little bit of let's see I've got disavowal of fatigue because I feel like I need to disavow people all the time I had a disavow this person for this I kind of disappeared people with that and I'm a little disappointed but in any in any event it doesn't matter what his internal thoughts were we can't judge them for that let's talk about the wall so we're seeing reports in the news the highly non credible fake news that President Trump is backing down on a wall funding backing down they say and they he's giving up he's surrendering he's capitulating and it looks like the anti Trump errs are gonna have a good time with that but somebody says come on lol so whoever just said come on lol someday they will come after you well if they come after me wouldn't they have to come after me for something I did well let me put it this way if I said what sargon said no matter what I meant would I expect to be kicked off platforms and the answer is yes I would expect to be kicked off social media platforms if I use the words he said even if my thoughts were the opposite even if I was thinking in pure ways I would definitely expect to be kicked off so making an analogy between what he did or anybody else did and what might it might come back to affect me is that's not a stretch all right let's talk about the wall so what we don't know about this wall situation is what the president's strategy is what the president's strategy is now if his strategy is to get as much wall as he can and turn it over to the engineers I would say that he's sort of ahead of the curve in the sense that there was only one way this wall was ever going to happen the only way the wall was ever going to happen was if we handed over to the engineers and the engineers decide how much his wall how much his fence how much his other that's the only way this ever could have gone there was no situation in which the politicians were going to decide every inch of the wall so it looks like the president is if I had to guess it's just the gas but it looks like he's prepping to go the only way this effort was going to go to to kind of climb down for a moment from it's a wall wall wall all I want as a wall to I'm not an engineer neither is Nancy Pelosi so why are the two of us discussing how much is wall and how much is fence because we don't know why don't we let the experts do it we'll have a you know a pile of money and we'll try to negotiate something maybe we test a little bit wall maybe we build a little wall a little fence to see which one works best because it turns out you can't spend 25 billion in one year anyway so you don't really need to make that decision just make a decision about what you're going to test and then just get on it and then make another decision after you see how that goes so I would say we might be very close to something that looks like you know a creative funding plan for border security that will get you better border security now it would be interesting to see if the engineers could come up with an estimate such as if you take a section and we put a wall there or if we put a fence you should assume that there's probably a different degree of violation of a fence than there would be for a wall fewer people will get over the wall then we'll get over the fence if it's a good wall and you should be able to measure that so you should be able to make an estimate that says okay if we have a wall it stops ninety percent of the people would try to get through if we have a fence it stops 75% of the people something like that something you could measure measure you can measure it and then you could take that further and you could say all right with this this amount of extra people getting in with a fence we estimate that 25 legal American citizens will be murdered in the next five years so just put your estimates in terms of money and then murder so what does you know what is the cost-benefit analysis of letting that many extra people get over a fence versus a wall and then you know that do the different costs costs of a wall versus a fence so figure out how many extra people get murdered you know on estimates implying that is racist it is but it's also based on statistics and and how much of cost and then agree to build a little of each of measure measure it you all say measure wrong how can you measure the effectiveness if they can go around a small wall well you would only put the wall in the places where people have already for whatever reason decided it's easy to get there and it's a good place for a crossing so people might leave there and go to where there are more coyotes where it's more dangerous where it's a desert and if they cross there there's no no human facilities for miles and they die in the desert so it's not that easy to go around a wall if the wall is big enough so you would have to you would definitely have to pick your parts but let's say let's say there is no way to ever know if a fence or a wall works better let's say you put up a little of both and you just can't tell because as somebody said people just go to other places and you never really know what's happened well I think that tells you that all you need is a fence so you found out everything you needed to know yes the Israelis now a lot of people don't know this and I didn't know this until recently did you know that the the Israel's wall is actually mostly a fence how many of you knew that how many of you know the Israel's wall is mostly a fence because the only things you ever see a picture of are the wall right you see pictures of the sections that are walls most of its offense so why would we do something different from what Israel did yeah they have sensors they have blah blah yeah I also heard on I guess was Tucker Carlton's show that where Israel does have a solid wall I believe is on the border with Egypt and I believe that they have taken down the illegal crossings to basically zero so at least in the case of the Egypt Israeli wall the wall worked 100% and where they have the longer stretch there they have a lot of fence and that seems to be working too so I don't think we have to have wonder if walls and fences work now that the other news which is very damning of course for the president politically damning is that the government approved what ten point six billion dollars for Central America and Mexico to build up their economies I guess so that fewer people will want to come here in a caravan and I think they'll not just the caravan but will want to illegally immigrate and I think to myself that is a very inconvenient number for a president who doesn't have a wall if you had a wall you might be able to justify that because you'd say well we've got our priorities straight we got the wall but we're also working on developing the things so they don't want to come across that would sound strong but without the wall it sounds like we're we're just giving money to the people who are abusing us and they're gonna come over anyway because I don't know how much money it takes to stop immigration but I'm feeling like ten point six billion spread across several countries probably not enough yeah it feels like a drop in the bucket so the optics of it are horrible for Trump's pace I would think which is different from saying it won't work because I'd like to see an argument for it but it just doesn't feel like a lot of money doesn't seem like it's the clearly is not the whole solution but maybe we're just testing to see if any of it makes a difference sounds like bribes to politicians that might be it might be partly bribes the wall is immediate somebody says that's not true it would take ten years to build the wall at least yeah so let me ask you this let's say you're President Trump and you're looking at endless investigations once the once the new Congress gets in place what would you do if you were President Trump and you had nothing to look forward to but analysts just you know endless being picked to death by the other side I would at least consider resigning yeah I would consider resigning and I mean that seriously by the way so this is not a this is not a mental game because here's what would happen if he resigned he would be replaced with pence and that would activate sort of a mutually assured destruction meaning that it would look like a bad idea to force out a president because you would get a something you liked less it wouldn't hurt probably wouldn't hurt Republicans that much because they'd still get their judges right so they still get their judges and here's the weird part President Trump may have already solved all the hard parts you know North Korea's going pretty well probably would keep going that way the economy and jobs are looking good the stock market you know is gonna do its thing one way or the other but as long as jobs are good we're probably in pretty good shape it might be the best thing for him and for the country is to just resign and suppose he doesn't suppose that they just hound him into ineffectiveness which there's a good chance that that would happen what's going to happen to the next Democrat who becomes president is there any doubt that the next president will be hounded out of office the only thing that stops people from hounding anybody out of office is that they don't want to that's the only thing that stops it because if you have unlimited money to to initiate unlimited investigations about anybody who who makes it to the presidency you can pretty much take out any president you just have to be willing to do it and until now nobody's been willing to do it so we see the Democrats absolutely willing to take out the president and I would argue that if we don't see some good bipartisan stuff happening in the next few months and by the way the prison bill is good looks like the prison bill may be a positive step but if if all that happens is we're just bombarded with more Cohen Russia stuff I don't know I'd be tempted to quit he would be the most successful president of all time in two years and then he wouldn't have to put up with it but he'd have to he'd have to make some kind of a deal for I know for pens to pardon him for all actual and future crimes or something he will need to do some pardons first yeah maybe so pardon everybody and then leave it would be even funnier if he pardoned I've said this before the best way that that trump could pardon himself or pardon anybody on his team is if he thought he had all the pardons that he's ever gonna need is to pardon Hillary Clinton at the same time just pardon her because if he throws her in the mix it's just gonna complicate the whole thing it would be hard to disagree with it somebody reminded me that there's apparently the there's gonna be a ban on bump of stocks and that feels like a fair thing to do bump stocks were not useful for not really useful for self defense bump stocks are not useful for hunting they didn't really have much of a value so might as well get rid of them to do to - that is no legacy yeah yeah I'm keep in mind we should all keep in mind that we're in the crazy holiday season when all of this legal jeopardy stuff for the president is all we have to talk about because there's not much happening so if the only thing we have to talk about is this legal jeopardy stuff it looks like it's more than it is but it could be that when we hit the new Congress it will be ten times bigger than it is now and if that's if that's the case well maybe it's just time to quit and give you president pence mm-hmm you need another cup of coffee Scott I probably do you know there's the thing they say about dogs that chase cars you know what if the dog catches the car if the dog catches the car the dog doesn't want to do with it it's all about the chasing if Trump were to resign and I'm not recommending this by the way this is not a recommendation but if he were to resign what would the Democrats do they would have effectively ruined the government by forcing a president out of office over right they would have effectively ruined the government of the United States they would have to live with that but they would also have to figure out how to govern and and Trump would be leaving them with the biggest federal debt the biggest federal deficit debt in the history of humanity maybe not as a percentage he would never resign how about this what if the president said if you give me 25 billion for a wall I'll quit he's not going to say that but wouldn't that be interesting suppose the president said for 25 billion dollars if you believe what you're saying suppose you made this offer any Democrats if you believe what you're saying about me that all these bad things are my fault I'm ruining the world if you believe those things 25 billion dollars is cheap to get rid of me build the wall and I'll quit today what would they say think about it would they take the deal because if they don't take the deal it shows that they don't think use that much of a problem and it's just if they do take the deal he gets his wall he has the most successful presidency of any president in two years in two years he will have done more than any president Pence will keep the momentum going without maybe changing much because everything's kind of going in the right direction right now maybe get China wrapped up that sort of thing they'll rescind after he's gone yeah maybe so him about Trump switches parties no I don't think so Scott you are a leaf somebody says I'm a leaf I don't know what that means all right now I saw somebody who's trying to raise money to show that the government has brainwashed us all with trigger words and now we're getting all excited about words and we pick up emotional robots that's all true except I don't think it's the government planning it I think it's just the effect of the business model of the press yeah you know the I think the greatest magic trick of the past couple years is that the the anti-trump media has created the problem and then they complain about the problem they created let me let me put it in some context roughly I don't know 15 years ago or so I wrote a book called the Dilbert of future and in that book I said that the news media's business model would cause them to kill people actually murder people to create news so that was my prediction 15 years ago the news media would start killing people to create news because it would be good for business now you could argue that they killed princess died because they chased her into a dangerous situation and she died in a car accident but look at this situation with Trump it seems to me that everything the press is chasing could have just as easily been minimized or largely ignored likewise the you know obviously the the Democrats are behind it but the Democrats power depends entirely on the media if the Democrats were just complaining about Trump no matter what they complained about and the press ignored them just wouldn't mean anything they need the press to do the heavy lifting and and so the press had because of their business model is effectively assassinating the president in slow motion and we're all watching it and there's no question about it is it because you know I think any objective person who watched CNN if there is such a thing as an objective person an objective person look you see a 10 and MSNBC would say oh it's clear that you're just making news about things that your viewers want to watch and they like they like Russia they like Trump legal jeopardy youporn so they're giving it to him the the net effect of that is that Trump would is essentially assassinated by the media because it's good for a business so this is what I predicted 15 years ago that the the press would assassinate famous people for news and how many times have you see in the news drag somebody out and assassinate them in public ruining their career in public by talking about whatever thing they said the the outrage that they did it's our etc it's the press yeah the press is literally taking American citizens out one at a time and assassinating them in front of the other citizens because it's good for business stop saying resigning and assassinating somebody says why cuz I'm giving people ideas I don't think there's you know in my view there's no real chance that President Trump will resign you know the odds of that are really really small because as far as I can tell he's not in any serious legal jeopardy it's just what the news is talking about but they are ruining him and they're trying as hard as they can to assassinate him and they're trying to take out his family they're trying to do you know and if if pence becomes president they'll just take him out because they need to assassinate famous people for ratings I'm a little a little surprised they haven't come after me yet are you surprised about that have you noticed that the at least the the top level of the news hasn't really come after me Bloomberg did Bloomberg came after me with a hip piece during was it during the election or after the election so I guess Bloomberg has long has these are I think Buzz.
Feed has Gawker did before they went out of business yeah they're they're been quite quite a few second-tier media companies that have tried to assassinate me with you know fake news of course but the top tier has not yeah Jezebel yeah the the lower-level people why hasn't your press assassination idea picked up I don't know yeah Bloomberg interviewed me before the election and then released after the election I think that's right who made that photo of a uniformed Scot yeah oh that's that's true yeah well do you count Google as the press they sort of are aren't they I think you could can Google as the press all right good point so Google's image search shows Photoshop two pictures of me in a Nazi uniform so that would be an example of the media because Google really is the media that would be an example of the media trying to assassinate me and in that case actually literally death so I would say that Google is actually trying to kill me at least that's the indication right now it could be accidental it could be but since it's been called to their attention and the picture is still up there the pictures did disappear from the the first search page but they're still in the top ten on the images page but that may be a fake out because since I called attention to it people are clicking on those images so it's probably keeping them up there artificially so I've said let's let's wait a little while and stop clicking on those pictures which I guess I have to wait a few more weeks now because I mentioned it again Google can't delete it they certainly can they can do anything they want there's a health insurance plan in India send me that link if you have one yeah then the Nazi picture is thief well let me look I'll look right now while you're here I'll do Google myself all right top page doesn't have that image but if I click images it is the top image oops yeah so it's the it's the fourth one and it's right on the top so let me ask you this and it's right after it says Scott Adams dissecting Donald Trump so they make sure that it's clear that I'm associated with Trump and then the neck the picture next to it is me in a Nazi uniform that's been photoshopped on now now don't you think that's trying to literally kill me is you know that would that be an interesting lawsuit I wish I liked lawsuits I avoid them at all costs but isn't it obviously true that Google is putting me in danger of death by branding me a Nazi intentionally intentionally in the sense that they could stop it but don't obviously they know about it by now and now I suppose they could argue free speech but this is hate speech let me ask you this how is this not hate speech in what world is branding a white guy as a Nazi not hate speech this is absolutely hate speech it's hate speech that gets people killed in this case it may be me and by the way if I ever get killed which I which I think is a pretty high likelihood I'd put the odds of maybe 30% I'd say the odds of me being killed by a citizen for something that was in the fake news before I would die naturally are roughly thirty percent I would say and it's stuff like this so how does Google get away with hate speech you know I've decided I've decided to go harder at this I was kind of letting this whole Google trying to kill me situation I was trying to not let it get to me you know just let it run a little bit see if it Peters out but the more I think about it and the more I look at let's say sargon of akkad being kicked off a patreon for hate speech which I think we agree probably was not what he had in his mind he wasn't actually hating on anybody in fact he was the opposite but but this Google example is unambiguous you don't have to wonder if it's hate speech drawing somebody in a Nazi outfit is clearly hate speech and Google is running this on their platform now how does Google get away with racism because that's what it is right I mean have you ever seen one of those the last time you saw like a a woman or you know a black guy photoshopped into a Nazi elephant you don't see that it's white adult males it's racism there's no other name for it so let's just call it out I'm going to start a new hashtag what's the good hashtag racist Google how about racist google let's see if that one's on there yet well I think I'll tweet this out while you're watching I'll take the picture of it here you can be part of history well we'll make your hashtag right now I get a tweet out hashtag racist Google won't take down the photoshopped image of me in a Nazi uniform why why not why not what's the name of their CEO pitch pitch pitch pitch a how do you pronounce that and yeah sundar there it is I'll put him in there all right hashtag racist Google won't take down the photoshopped image of me in Nazi uniform why not now I'm pretty sure people have complained about it so it's not a question of whether they know about it or not so let me include that so people can see the picture there we go yeah so I'm including sundar pshhh pshhh eh eh is that how you pronounce it I don't know how to pronounce it racist Google won't take down the photoshopped image of me and not say uniform why not this marks me for death tweet all right so why don't you do me a favor and retweet racist Google let's see where is that tweet I want to make sure I got posted and by the way you know I like to be fair when I when I reported this to Twitter it was down in less than a day so Twitter actually understands what hey speech looks like you know in this context and they did their job so I have no complaint with Twitter on this topic but Google it's still there still there so we've got 11 retweets let's see how big we can make this now I I do think the odds of me being assassinated because of stuff like this about 30 percent between now and the time I would have naturally died all right that's all I have for now I'm going to go do something else and let's see if racist Google fixes this hate speech and I'll talk to you later
pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom and
Murray hello
get on in here nice of you to join and
the rest of you where are you
Jeremy okay you're in there getting in
there quickly oh I love it when the
first few people are insulting my looks
it is amazing to see all of you you're
some of my favorite people in the world
did you know that yes you are and now
it's time to demonstrate that with the
simultaneous up grab your mug your cup
your coffee your stein your chalice and
bring it to your lips it's time for the
simultaneous M so I watched a youtube
video the other day of a climate debate
so is a debate between Michael Mann
whose author of the famous hockey stick
graph that shows temperature's going up
steeply with co2 and Judith Curry was
there on the other side and there were
two other people one on each side and
because I had said that I've never seen
a debate with the sceptics and the
climate alarmist in the same place
somebody pointed me to that fairly
recent video I think it was last few
months
and I thought to myself all this would
be good this is the first time I will
see the skeptics and the climate
scientists on the same stage and they'll
talk about what they disagree with each
other and man I'm gonna really move
ahead and then I saw the format so the
format was they each get a few minutes
to talk and and that's that and then
there are a few questions that were sort
of off point but here's the the big
takeaway the primary claim of Michael
Mann
is that the the temperature is not just
going up but going up at a super fast
rate that coincides exactly he would say
with co2 created by humans now the so
the central claim is not that it's
getting warmer that's not the claim the
claim is that the rate of warming has
increased so Michael Mann gets up there
he has his five minutes he shows his
graphs and he says there the world is
getting warmer and it matches co2 and
then he says the odds of this graph the
the actual heat matching the co2 rise
the odds of that being a coincidence are
you know astronomically small therefore
it must be meaningful and then the
skeptics get up and they don't talk
about the central claim of climate
science the skeptics don't even mention
the central claim and I thought to
myself what the hell how could they
completely ignore the central claim that
the rate is going up fast and there's no
other explanation now I'm not going to
say I'm siding with the climate
alarmists
because you know I'm not a scientist how
would I know but I'm a little bit
worried when the skeptics ignore the
central claim you know they talked about
you know it doesn't look like it's
getting so warm and with some other
stuff there were actually really good
points now there's sort of a related
point here which is yeah the related
point is that both sides were persuasive
so when you listen to Michael Mann
before any of the skeptics have talked
you look at that and you say man that
looks totally persuasive
totally and then the skeptics talk
Judith curry talks and listen to that
and I think
that is completely persuasive and it
really was so both the pro and the anti
sides are completely persuasive but the
way that they stay that way is they
don't talk about the arguments of the
other the only way that those two sides
can remain persuasive is by ignoring the
argument on the other side and until I
saw it myself I didn't think that was
true I assumed that somebody would say a
is true and then the skeptics would say
no let's talk about a a is not true and
here are my reasons and then the
scientist would say well your reasons
are outdated or we have a reason you
know we don't think your reasons are
true that would look like a debate what
I saw was definitely not a debate it was
two people talking about whatever they
wanted to talk about sort of never
really connecting now the best argument
that I've heard for why the skeptics do
not address the rate of change michael
mann's central claim not addressed is
that when you look at the historical
record we don't have the fine detail to
know if it ever did that before so I'm
I'm kind of open to that argument but it
wasn't made by that any of the skeptics
on the stage instead one of the most
persuasive skeptics was the guy who had
been a founder of Greenpeace who's
turned into a climate skeptic and he
points out through the historical record
that co2 and temperature have been
moving in a non-aligned way for eons and
therefore it's not the lever that's
moving the world you know it's a very
persuasive argument except that it
doesn't address the primary claim of
climate science that the rate is I
so that's all I'm going to say about
that I will say again that what is
needed is an actual debate about climate
science if it's the biggest problem in
the world talk me into it please please
convince me is really the biggest
problem in the world by being on the
same stage and interacting with somebody
who will disagree with you because those
people exist and people saying it's not
the biggest thing in the world well let
me suggest if you think you have a
settled opinion on climate change what
would that be based on given that nobody
has ever debated it as far as I can tell
at least in public so from the
perspective of the public you and I you
and I have never seen this debated you
have never seen this debated you've only
seen people talking completely different
so until it's debated I'm going to say I
don't think I don't think you should
have a firm opinion on any of this now
yeah so there's the separate question of
whether the worst case scenario is a big
deal and the evidence we have suggests
it's not even the worst case scenario
but that's and that has been debated by
the way so I would say that's the case
where Bjorn Lomborg did directly address
something specific coming out of the
climate science world specifically the
economic part of it
so he said you're saying this about the
economics I'm talking about exactly your
point and I'm showing you how you've you
know exaggerated its importance that is
what a debate looks like but what's
missing is where do the climate people
get to address what Bjorn Lomborg sent
it's not quite a debate until you get a
little counterpoint going on right
saying something and then hearing
somebody's projection - it gets you
halfway there then you have to hear the
original person's objection to the
objection like a court
separately it seems that there's a
project that Bill Gates is funding
through Harvard I guess in which they're
going to put some kind of particles in
the air with a big blimp they're gonna
launch a blimp and see the atmosphere
with some particles that are similar to
what volcanoes spew to see if it will
cool the world now as you might imagine
there are people saying my god my god
don't do that because if you do that if
you do that you can't you know can't put
the genie back in the bottle you might
over cool the world etc well maybe maybe
but here's what seems far more likely
what seems far more likely is that since
Bill Gates and Harvard are behind it
there are smart people doing this and
there's probably little to no risk of
putting some of that stuff into the air
to just see if it works
so I would not object to a test if it's
possible to test it where they could do
a little bit of a test and let's say one
county and then maybe it only lasts for
a month because you know they're not
going to put that many particles in the
air eventually a dissolve so you do one
little area and you do it for about a
month
you see if it makes any difference just
in case because what happens if let's
say twenty years from now well it's it's
a super critical problem it's worse than
we thought
etc I keep seeing people to talk about
chemtrails and the comments chemtrails
are not real that's tinfoil hat time you
there's nothing about chemtrails is real
you're just you're you're just reading
down some conspiracy theory rabbit hole
it's not real not real so anyway I'm not
so afraid of the Bill Gates test well
the thing is
funding because I'm sure that if it's
just the same chemistry that a volcano
puts in the air there's lots of it here
already they can test it small what's
the main thing I tell you if you can
test something small you don't have to
ask if it's a good good idea this
apparently can be tested small so they
are that's exactly the way you'd want to
do it this is one of the reasons I think
Bill Gates is one of the most important
characters in the history of the planet
not just for Microsoft but because he's
bringing a a logical scientific kind of
a mindset to charity and to fixing these
big problems and it's good stuff let's
talk about a Flynn
all right this whole Flynn trial stuff
is the sketchiest looking situation
you've ever seen in your life and the
entire conversation uses the word but a
lot and goes like this
general Flynn is a patriot who serves
the country for 30 years but he may have
lied to the FBI but he may not have
known he lied but if he did lie we don't
know why he would do it but that's not
really the big problem because the
larger crime seemed to be this you know
for an agent registration thing that he
was working for Turkey
the government of Turkey prior to the
election but right up to it so that's
bad right
but Turkey is actually a NATO ally but
he should have told somebody but the guy
he was advocating about probably
probably wasn't anybody who was our
friend either but he shouldn't have been
doing it but it was legal yes
but if it was illegal it had he
registered why didn't they charge him
with that and so the the whole story is
all of these butts like well but it's
terrible but and then you've got the
judge the judge is apparently a
now you normally you wouldn't say that
about a judge because you'd say well
maybe he knows something I don't know
but it's pretty clear that this judge
was not prepared for this case he didn't
even know that Flynn had stopped
advocating on behalf of Turkey by
election time so the most critical point
in that whole situation caused the judge
to call a defendant possibly treasonous
or a traitor to the country in public on
incorrect facts now how in the world do
you not get that judge kicked off the
case isn't that lawyer 101 if your judge
has accused your client incorrectly of a
major of a major traitorous behavior you
can't have to get rid of that judge
don't you and then and what's up with
the three-month delay who needed three
months to do what can you tell me
there's any good reason for a
three-month delay what we needed was a
you know a one-week delay to get a new
judge because that judge does not have
what it takes
now as Mike sort of itch I'm sure
accurately pointed out on Twitter I'm
watching the news and all the lawyers
and everything and and they they act
like they're surprised about why why it
is that Flynn may have pleaded guilty to
something he doesn't necessarily think
he did even though he says he did that
in court and otherwise at the same time
there was this more serious charge the
foreign agent registration thing about
and the assumes to me the obvious answer
and the one that Mike's arises as well
is that Flynn worked at and deal with
prosecutors with the government to take
the to plead guilty to the lesser charge
now that doesn't necessarily mean he
thinks he's guilty or that he wasn't
entrapped so you have this weird
situation where he may have to wait for
it
des Flynn may have been forced to lie in
court by the government as the only way
to avoid jail time do you see that the
government may have created a situation
where the only way he can avoid jail is
to lie the way they want him to because
if he doesn't lie they've made it pretty
clear that they're gonna untap this for
an agent registration thing and get him
on a far more serious crime so the judge
was saying are you sure you want to
plead guilty because even the judge who
was apparently a even that
thinks that maybe Flynn should not have
been pleading guilty because they were
sort of hinting that he had been
entrapped etc so Flynn is in this weird
situation where he's trying to get it
both ways he wants to plead guilty to
the lesser charge which is the only way
he can get in no jail time but he also
wants that lesser charge not to be
necessarily binding wouldn't it be great
if they just threw it out but if they
throw it out isn't the government going
to come after him for the greater charge
so they can't really throw it out he
can't really say he didn't lie because
apparently there were some lying going
on even if it was just just depends but
we don't know why he would lie we're all
still confused about that so none of
this story makes any sense so
everybody in the story is sketchy the
judge is sketchy we don't have a real
understanding of why Flynn was doing
what he was doing but the the turkey
consulting is problematic and the
government the government looks pretty
sketchy in this deal it's like I'm not
sure who to root for anymore everybody
looks a little bit dirty in this
situation that said if if Flynn gets any
jail time I believe he will be pardoned
just automatically there's a big story
today about the Trump charity that got
closed down apparently and lots of
accusations of irregularities and Trump
using it as his personal piggy bank etc
I'm not going to defend anything with
anybody's charity I'm not going to
defend the Clinton charity I'm not going
to defend the Trump charity I'm not
going to defend anybody's charity right
if rich people have charities I'm not
going to defend that if a rich person
has a charity and it's anything except
their own money somebody wants something
and maybe it should just be illegal
maybe it should just be illegal to have
a charity if you have any influence in
the world because it becomes just a way
to well it's just this huge opportunity
for all kinds of shenanigans
so so I'm watching this Trump charity
thing and I can't judge whether that's a
big problem or a small problem is it his
problem or is it somebody else's problem
is it whoever ran it is it a civil
problem is it a federal problem is it a
stay provide oh no what that's I I can't
wrap my head around how big a problem
that is but it's out there let's talk
about we're going to talk about the wall
funding in a minute let's talk about
sargon of akkad
again so he's the guy who got kicked off
of a patreon the funding platform
for saying some things use the n-word
but he used it in the sense of insulting
people who use the n-word so the context
was I believe his interpretation is he
was insulting all the right racist type
people by using the n-word in an ironic
way the way they use the n-word and so
really it was the opposite of racism but
because he used the language of racism
he was unfairly kicked off the platform
something like that
I think that's close to what happened
and here's why I was trying to figure
out why I'm not quite on board with the
free speech part of this and I think it
comes down to this and you've heard me
say this a lot that you are not what you
think
so your inner thoughts are not who you
are who you are in this world is what
you do so your actions are what define
you and if your actions are bad but your
intentions are good
you're still the actions if your actions
are good but maybe you're evil on the
inside you're still the actions you're
not the evil on the inside because if
you do the evil that near the evil
person and what's our gun did was he
used the n-word a number of times in
public in an insulting fashion now again
the technical reason he used it had to
do with his inner thoughts
so his inner thoughts seemed to be
allegedly pure meaning that he was
against racism
everybody's happy about that right but
those were his inner thoughts we're not
judging him on his inner thoughts he's
being judged for doing something for
actions in other words the things he
said using the n-word anybody should
have known would get you kicked off a
platform no matter what context you use
it in so if somebody uses the n-word
several times as an insult even if that
insult is not directed at a black person
that is sort of hate speech the defense
that he's internal thinking was non
racist seems to be true as far as I can
tell right I'm not a I'm not a mind
reader but let's say it is true it kind
of doesn't matter because what he did
was unambiguously hate speech in other
words the words were his internal
intentions and even the way you
internally processed it many of you were
not bad but it probably doesn't matter
it's hard to give an analogy of how this
would be a good thing but you know if if
you steal food because you're hungry
it's still a crime right if you steal if
you steal food because you're hungry
still a crime right he he did a bad
thing
in other words he used words that
everybody in society knows are bad words
and it doesn't matter that his internal
process was pure so that's probably why
I'm differing with you because I don't
think you can judge him by his internal
process you can only judge in what he
did and those are generally universally
considered hate words so I've got a
little bit of let's see I've got
disavowal of fatigue because I feel like
I need to disavow people all the time I
had a disavow this person for this I
kind of disappeared people with that and
I'm a little disappointed
but in any in any event it doesn't
matter what his internal thoughts were
we can't judge them for that let's talk
about the wall so we're seeing reports
in the news the highly non credible fake
news that President Trump is backing
down on a wall funding backing down they
say and they he's giving up he's
surrendering
he's capitulating and it looks like the
anti Trump errs are gonna have a good
time with that
but somebody says come on lol so whoever
just said come on
lol someday they will come after you
well if they come after me wouldn't they
have to come after me for something I
did well let me put it this way if I
said what sargon said no matter what I
meant would I expect to be kicked off
platforms and the answer is yes I would
expect to be kicked off social media
platforms if I use the words he said
even if my thoughts were the opposite
even if I was thinking in pure ways
I would definitely expect to be kicked
off so making an analogy between what he
did or anybody else did and what might
it might come back to affect me is
that's not a stretch all right let's
talk about the wall so what we don't
know about this wall situation is what
the president's strategy is what the
president's strategy is now if his
strategy is to get as much wall as he
can
and turn it over to the engineers I
would say that he's sort of ahead of the
curve in the sense that there was only
one way this wall was ever going to
happen the only way the wall was ever
going to happen was if we handed over to
the engineers and the engineers decide
how much his wall how much his fence how
much his other that's the only way this
ever could have gone there was no
situation in which the politicians were
going to decide every inch of the wall
so it looks like the president is if I
had to guess it's just the gas but it
looks like he's prepping to go the only
way this effort was going to go to to
kind of climb down for a moment from
it's a wall wall wall all I want as a
wall to I'm not an engineer neither is
Nancy Pelosi so why are the two of us
discussing how much is wall and how much
is fence because we don't know why don't
we let the experts do it we'll have a
you know a pile of money and we'll try
to negotiate something maybe we test a
little bit wall maybe we build a little
wall a little fence to see which one
works best because it turns out you
can't spend 25 billion in one year
anyway so you don't really need to make
that decision just make a decision about
what you're going to test and then just
get on it and then make another decision
after you see how that goes so I would
say we might be very close to something
that looks like you know a creative
funding plan for border security that
will get you better border security now
it would be interesting to see if the
engineers could come up with an estimate
such as if you take a section and we put
a wall there or if we put a fence you
should assume that there's probably a
different degree of violation of a fence
than there would be for a wall fewer
people will get over the wall then we'll
get over the fence if it's a good wall
and you should be able to measure that
so you should be able to make an
estimate that says okay if we have a
wall it stops ninety percent of the
people would try to get through
if we have a fence it stops 75% of the
people something like that something you
could measure measure you can measure it
and then you could take that further and
you could say all right with this this
amount of extra people getting in with a
fence we estimate that 25 legal American
citizens will be murdered in the next
five years so just put your estimates in
terms of money and then murder so what
does you know what is the cost-benefit
analysis of letting that many extra
people get over a fence versus a wall
and then you know that do the different
costs costs of a wall versus a fence so
figure out how many extra people get
murdered you know on estimates implying
that is racist it is but it's also based
on statistics and and how much of cost
and then agree to build a little of each
of measure measure it you all say
measure wrong how can you measure the
effectiveness if they can go around a
small wall well you would only put the
wall in the places where people have
already for whatever reason decided it's
easy to get there and it's a good place
for a crossing so people might leave
there and go to where there are more
coyotes where it's more dangerous where
it's a desert and if they cross there
there's no no human facilities for miles
and they die in the desert so it's not
that easy to go around a wall if the
wall is big enough so you would have to
you would definitely have to pick your
parts but let's say let's say there is
no way to ever know if a fence or a wall
works better let's say you put up a
little of both and you just can't tell
because as somebody said people just go
to other places and you never really
know
what's happened well I think that tells
you that all you need is a fence so you
found out everything you needed to know
yes the Israelis now a lot of people
don't know this and I didn't know this
until recently did you know that the the
Israel's wall is actually mostly a fence
how many of you knew that how many of
you know the Israel's wall is mostly a
fence because the only things you ever
see a picture of are the wall right you
see pictures of the sections that are
walls most of its offense so why would
we do something different from what
Israel did yeah they have sensors they
have blah blah yeah I also heard on I
guess was Tucker Carlton's show that
where Israel does have a solid wall I
believe is on the border with Egypt and
I believe that they have taken down the
illegal crossings to basically zero so
at least in the case of the Egypt
Israeli wall the wall worked 100% and
where they have the longer stretch there
they have a lot of fence and that seems
to be working too so I don't think we
have to have wonder if walls and fences
work now that the other news which is
very damning of course for the president
politically damning is that the
government approved what ten point six
billion dollars for Central America and
Mexico to build up their economies I
guess so that fewer people will want to
come here in a caravan and I think
they'll not just the caravan but will
want to illegally immigrate and I think
to myself that is a very inconvenient
number for a president who doesn't have
a wall if you had a wall you might be
able to justify that
because you'd say well we've got our
priorities straight we got the wall but
we're also working on developing the
things so they don't want to come across
that would sound strong but without the
wall it sounds like we're we're just
giving money to the people who are
abusing us and they're gonna come over
anyway because I don't know how much
money it takes to stop immigration but
I'm feeling like ten point six billion
spread across several countries probably
not enough yeah it feels like a drop in
the bucket
so the optics of it are horrible for
Trump's pace I would think which is
different from saying it won't work
because I'd like to see an argument for
it but it just doesn't feel like a lot
of money doesn't seem like it's the
clearly is not the whole solution but
maybe we're just testing to see if any
of it makes a difference
sounds like bribes to politicians that
might be it might be partly bribes the
wall is immediate somebody says that's
not true it would take ten years to
build the wall at least yeah so let me
ask you this let's say you're President
Trump and you're looking at endless
investigations once the once the new
Congress gets in place what would you do
if you were President Trump and you had
nothing to look forward to but analysts
just you know endless being picked to
death by the other side I would at least
consider resigning yeah I would consider
resigning and I mean that seriously by
the way so this is not a this is not a
mental game because here's what would
happen if he resigned he would be
replaced with pence and that would
activate
sort of a mutually assured destruction
meaning that it would look like a bad
idea
to force out a president because you
would get a something you liked less it
wouldn't hurt probably wouldn't hurt
Republicans that much because they'd
still get their judges
right so they still get their judges and
here's the weird part President Trump
may have already solved all the hard
parts you know
North Korea's going pretty well probably
would keep going that way
the economy and jobs are looking good
the stock market you know is gonna do
its thing one way or the other but as
long as jobs are good we're probably in
pretty good shape it might be the best
thing for him and for the country is to
just resign and suppose he doesn't
suppose that they just hound him into
ineffectiveness which there's a good
chance that that would happen what's
going to happen to the next Democrat who
becomes president is there any doubt
that the next president will be hounded
out of office the only thing that stops
people from hounding anybody out of
office is that they don't want to that's
the only thing that stops it because if
you have unlimited money to to initiate
unlimited investigations about anybody
who who makes it to the presidency you
can pretty much take out any president
you just have to be willing to do it and
until now nobody's been willing to do it
so we see the Democrats absolutely
willing to take out the president and I
would argue that if we don't see some
good bipartisan stuff happening in the
next few months and by the way the
prison bill is good
looks like the prison bill may be a
positive step but if if all that happens
is we're just bombarded with more Cohen
Russia stuff I don't know I'd be tempted
to quit he would be the most successful
president of all time in two years and
then he wouldn't have to put up with it
but he'd have to he'd have to make some
kind of a deal for I know for pens to
pardon him for all actual and future
crimes or something he will need to do
some pardons first yeah maybe so
pardon everybody and then leave it would
be even funnier if he pardoned I've said
this before the best way that that trump
could pardon himself or pardon anybody
on his team is if he thought he had all
the pardons that he's ever gonna need is
to pardon Hillary Clinton at the same
time just pardon her because if he
throws her in the mix it's just gonna
complicate the whole thing it would be
hard to disagree with it somebody
reminded me that there's apparently the
there's gonna be a ban on bump of stocks
and that feels like a fair thing to do
bump stocks were not useful for not
really useful for self defense bump
stocks are not useful for hunting they
didn't really have much of a value so
might as well get rid of them to do to -
that is no legacy yeah yeah I'm keep in
mind we should all keep in mind that
we're in the crazy
holiday season when all of this legal
jeopardy stuff for the president is all
we have to talk about because there's
not much happening so if the only thing
we have to talk about is this legal
jeopardy stuff it looks like it's more
than it is but it could be that when we
hit the new Congress it will be ten
times bigger than it is now
and if that's if that's the case well
maybe it's just time to quit and give
you president pence
mm-hmm
you need another cup of coffee Scott I
probably do you know there's the thing
they say about dogs that chase cars you
know what if the dog catches the car if
the dog catches the car the dog doesn't
want to do with it
it's all about the chasing if Trump were
to resign and I'm not recommending this
by the way this is not a recommendation
but if he were to resign
what would the Democrats do they would
have effectively ruined the government
by forcing a president out of office
over right they would have
effectively ruined the government of the
United States they would have to live
with that but they would also have to
figure out how to govern and and Trump
would be leaving them with the biggest
federal debt the biggest federal deficit
debt in the history of humanity maybe
not as a percentage
he would never resign how about this
what if the president said if you give
me 25 billion for a wall I'll quit he's
not going to say that but wouldn't that
be interesting suppose the president
said for 25 billion dollars if you
believe what you're saying suppose you
made this offer any Democrats if you
believe what you're saying about me that
all these bad things are my fault I'm
ruining the world if you believe those
things 25 billion dollars is cheap to
get rid of me build the wall and I'll
quit today what would they say think
about it would they take the deal
because if they don't take the deal it
shows that they don't think use that
much of a problem and it's just
if they do take the deal he gets his
wall he has the most successful
presidency of any president in two years
in two years he will have done more than
any president Pence will keep the
momentum going without maybe changing
much because everything's kind of going
in the right direction right now maybe
get China wrapped up that sort of thing
they'll rescind after he's gone yeah
maybe so him about Trump switches
parties no I don't think so Scott you
are a leaf somebody says I'm a leaf I
don't know what that means
all right now I saw somebody who's
trying to raise money to show that the
government has brainwashed us all with
trigger words and now we're getting all
excited about words and we pick up
emotional robots that's all true except
I don't think it's the government
planning it I think it's just the effect
of the business model of the press
[Music]
yeah you know the I think the greatest
magic trick of the past couple years is
that the the anti-trump media has
created the problem and then they
complain about the problem they created
let me let me put it in some context
roughly I don't know 15 years ago or so
I wrote a book called the Dilbert of
future and in that book I said that the
news media's business model would cause
them to kill people actually murder
people to create news
so that was my prediction 15 years ago
the news media would start killing
people to create news because it would
be good for business
now you could argue that they killed
princess died because they chased her
into a dangerous situation and she died
in a car accident but look at this
situation with Trump it seems to me that
everything the press is chasing could
have just as easily been minimized or
largely ignored likewise the you know
obviously the the Democrats are behind
it but the Democrats power depends
entirely on the media if the Democrats
were just complaining about Trump no
matter what they complained about and
the press ignored them just wouldn't
mean anything they need the press to do
the heavy lifting and and so the press
had because of their business model is
effectively assassinating the president
in slow motion and we're all watching it
and there's no question about it is it
because you know I think any objective
person who watched CNN if there is such
a thing as an objective person an
objective person look you see a 10 and
MSNBC would say oh it's clear that
you're just making news about things
that your viewers want to watch and they
like they like Russia
they like Trump legal jeopardy youporn
so they're giving it to him the the net
effect of that is that Trump would is
essentially assassinated by the media
because it's good for a business so this
is what I predicted 15 years ago that
the the press would assassinate famous
people for news and how many times have
you see in the news drag somebody out
and assassinate them in public ruining
their career in public by talking about
whatever thing they said the the outrage
that they did it's our etc it's the
press yeah
the press is literally taking American
citizens out one at a time and
assassinating them in front of the other
citizens because it's good for business
[Music]
stop saying resigning and assassinating
somebody says why cuz I'm giving people
ideas I don't think there's you know in
my view there's no real chance that
President Trump will resign you know the
odds of that are really really small
because as far as I can tell he's not in
any serious legal jeopardy it's just
what the news is talking about but they
are ruining him and they're trying as
hard as they can to assassinate him and
they're trying to take out his family
they're trying to do you know and if if
pence becomes president they'll just
take him out because they need to
assassinate famous people for ratings
I'm a little a little surprised they
haven't come after me yet are you
surprised about that have you noticed
that the at least the the top level of
the news hasn't really come after me
Bloomberg did Bloomberg came after me
with a hip piece during was it during
the election or after the election so I
guess Bloomberg has long has these are I
think BuzzFeed has Gawker did before
they went out of business yeah they're
they're been quite quite a few
second-tier media companies that have
tried to assassinate me with you know
fake news of course but the top tier has
not
yeah Jezebel yeah the the lower-level
people why hasn't your press
assassination idea picked up I don't
know
yeah Bloomberg interviewed me before the
election and then released after the
election I think that's right
who made that photo of a uniformed
Scot yeah oh that's that's true
yeah well do you count Google as the
press they sort of are aren't they I
think you could can Google as the press
all right good point so Google's image
search shows Photoshop two pictures of
me in a Nazi uniform so that would be an
example of the media because Google
really is the media that would be an
example of the media trying to
assassinate me and in that case actually
literally death
so I would say that Google is actually
trying to kill me at least that's the
indication right now it could be
accidental
it could be but since it's been called
to their attention and the picture is
still up there the pictures did
disappear from the the first search page
but they're still in the top ten on the
images page but that may be a fake out
because since I called attention to it
people are clicking on those images so
it's probably keeping them up there
artificially so I've said let's let's
wait a little while and stop clicking on
those pictures which I guess I have to
wait a few more weeks now because I
mentioned it again Google can't delete
it they certainly can they can do
anything they want
there's a health insurance plan in India
send me that link if you have one yeah
then the Nazi picture is thief well let
me look I'll look right now while you're
here I'll do Google myself all right
top page doesn't have that image but if
I click images it is the top image oops
yeah so it's the it's the fourth one and
it's right on the top so let me ask you
this and it's right after it says Scott
Adams dissecting Donald Trump so they
make sure that it's clear that I'm
associated with Trump and then the neck
the picture next to it is me in a Nazi
uniform that's been photoshopped on now
now don't you think that's trying to
literally kill me is you know that would
that be an interesting lawsuit I wish I
liked lawsuits I avoid them at all costs
but isn't it obviously true that Google
is putting me in danger of death by
branding me a Nazi intentionally
intentionally in the sense that they
could stop it but don't obviously they
know about it by now and now I suppose
they could argue free speech but this is
hate speech let me ask you this how is
this not hate speech in what world is
branding a white guy as a Nazi not hate
speech
this is absolutely hate speech it's hate
speech that gets people killed in this
case it may be me and by the way
if I ever get killed which I which I
think is a pretty high likelihood I'd
put the odds of maybe 30% I'd say the
odds of me being killed by a citizen for
something that was in the fake news
before I would die naturally are roughly
thirty percent I would say and it's
stuff like this so how does Google get
away with hate speech you know I've
decided I've decided to go harder at
this I was kind of letting this whole
Google trying to kill me situation I was
trying to not let it get to me you know
just let it run a little bit see if it
Peters out but the more I think about it
and the more I look at let's say sargon
of akkad
being kicked off a patreon for hate
speech which I think we agree probably
was not what he had in his mind he
wasn't actually hating on anybody in
fact he was the opposite but but this
Google example is unambiguous you don't
have to wonder if it's hate speech
drawing somebody in a Nazi outfit is
clearly hate speech and Google is
running this on their platform now how
does Google get away with racism because
that's what it is right I mean have you
ever seen one of those the last time you
saw like a a woman or you know a black
guy photoshopped into a Nazi elephant
you don't see that it's white adult
males it's racism there's no other name
for it so let's just call it out I'm
going to start a new hashtag what's the
good hashtag racist Google
how about racist google let's see if
that one's on there yet well I think
I'll tweet this out while you're
watching I'll take the picture of it
here you can be part of history well
we'll make your hashtag right now I get
a tweet out hashtag racist Google won't
take down the photoshopped image of me
in a Nazi uniform why why not why not
what's the name of their CEO pitch pitch
pitch pitch a how do you pronounce that
and yeah
sundar there it is I'll put him in there
all right hashtag racist Google won't
take down the photoshopped image of me
in Nazi uniform why not now I'm pretty
sure people have complained about it so
it's not a question of whether they know
about it or not so let me include that
so people can see the picture there we
go
yeah so I'm including sundar
pshhh pshhh eh eh is that how you
pronounce it I don't know how to
pronounce it racist Google won't take
down the photoshopped image of me and
not say uniform why not
this marks me for death
tweet all right so why don't you do me a
favor and retweet racist Google let's
see where is that tweet I want to make
sure I got posted and by the way you
know I like to be fair when I when I
reported this to Twitter it was down in
less than a day so Twitter actually
understands what hey speech looks like
you know in this context and they did
their job so I have no complaint with
Twitter on this topic but Google it's
still there still there so we've got 11
retweets let's see how big we can make
this now I I do think the odds of me
being assassinated because of stuff like
this about 30 percent between now and
the time I would have naturally died all
right that's all I have for now I'm
going to go do something else
and let's see if racist Google fixes
this hate speech and I'll talk to you
later
