Episode 116 - Facts are not Influencing the Immigration Debate
Crime rate by illegal immigrants, just illegal immigrants… Is it higher or lower than for legal immigrants? Conflating legal immigrants with illegal immigrants Defining “Open borders” Persuasion value of hypocrisy claims Facts only matter to outcomes, but we don’t use them for decisions
But um, pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom. Hey everybody. Some of you are not in church right now and you are joining me for Coffee with Scott Adams. Do you know what Coffee with Scott Adams goes well with? Besides coffee and besides you? Sunday morning feels so good.
View segment →Join me, will you? And the simultaneous sip. Oh, that's good. That's some good simultaneous sipping.
View segment →So is it my imagination or is the Summer of Love not turning out quite the way I had hoped? I had two predictions which I didn't realize until recently were in conflict. In other words, I had predicted two things that couldn't both be true, and I had acted like maybe they could. So let me start by t…
View segment →Now let me read to you some quotes I'm seeing this morning. So Jennifer Rubin writes for The Washington Post, and she says — and I think she's talking about Sarah Sanders being ejected from the Red Hen restaurant — Jennifer Rubin writes, "It is not altogether a bad thing to show those who think they…
View segment →General Hayden said this morning — let me find General Hayden's tweet which I've also retweeted. You'd find both of these in my Twitter feed. General Michael Hayden said, "So exactly when do we send up the warning flare?" He's talking about Nazi stuff. He says, "After the torchlight parade chanting…
View segment →Now here's a thought that I've been having that's growing stronger in me. Most of you who have been following me for a while know that I'm not a Republican and that I don't vote. And I don't vote because I don't like to be influenced into team politics even though at this point I am. But because I'v…
View segment →All right, let's talk about immigration. So I think many of you heard me as recently as yesterday say that immigrants have a lower crime rate than citizens and that that fact is influencing part of the discussion. And when you look into it, it turns out that there had not been any studies about ille…
View segment →So why did they do it, Scott? What's their endgame? Well for most of them it's just team play. I would say that the vast majority of people on the left are just simply opposed to the president. They're just joining their team. There's not anything like thinking or reason. There's not a long-term pur…
View segment →Let me give you another example. So as many people have been saying, during the Obama administration families were separated. During the Trump administration they were separated more aggressively perhaps because there were more of them in part. But everybody agrees that what Trump did was some sort…
View segment →Oh can I expand on my hypocrisy? So for those of you who didn't see it I did a tweet about hypocrisy this morning. It's in my Twitter feed. And I was saying that the hypocrisy claim — and I'm gonna limit this to politics because it doesn't apply to your personal life — when you're calling the other…
View segment →You can watch me calling the Nazis Nazis and think about your call to voting as they might come for you next. So vote in the midterms if you don't want them to come for you next. And I'll see you all later.
View segment →But um, pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom. Hey everybody. Some of you are not in church right now and you are joining me for Coffee with Scott Adams. Do you know what Coffee with Scott Adams goes well with? Besides coffee and besides you? Sunday morning feels so good. Join me, will you? And the simultaneous sip. Oh, that's good. That's some good simultaneous sipping.
So is it my imagination or is the Summer of Love not turning out quite the way I had hoped? I had two predictions which I didn't realize until recently were in conflict. In other words, I had predicted two things that couldn't both be true, and I had acted like maybe they could. So let me start by telling you how dumb I am.
I had two predictions. They can't both be true. One, I think, was more wishful thinking. I said that this would be the Summer of Love and people would be nicer to each other. Well, that's clearly wrong. But I had another prediction that seems to be spot-on. So if there's any lesson here, you should make two predictions that are completely opposite because one of those damn predictions is going to be right.
The other one was that when President Trump got a good result with North Korea, they would cause Trump Derangement Syndrome to kick in to a higher level against all odds. Now if I said to you, all right, Mr. Logic, Mr. Irrational, or Mrs. or Miss, whoever you are, you're a rational person, tell me what do you think will happen to Trump Derangement Syndrome when the economy is great that they didn't expect, President Trump gets good progress on North Korea that they didn't expect, and importantly the Russia collusion investigation fizzles into nothing? What would be the logical outcome of such a thing, Mister Logical, Miss Logical?
You're probably saying to yourself, well logically I guess all the Trump Derangement Syndrome would dissipate and people would just start getting reasonable after that. But what did I tell you would happen? The opposite. I told you that the better President Trump does, especially when he does things that are so unexpectedly better such as progress in North Korea, and if he starts getting some progress with trade deals — and I would say that he has gotten some progress — if he starts getting progress with trade deals, it's gonna be full-out bouncing-off-the-wall lunacy. And we're just about there.
So to reiterate, the Summer of Love did not come out the way I had hoped. To be honest that was more of a I was hoping to promote it more than predicted. But the actual prediction was that cognitive dissonance would make people crazier, not less crazy.
Now let me read to you some quotes I'm seeing this morning. So Jennifer Rubin writes for The Washington Post, and she says — and I think she's talking about Sarah Sanders being ejected from the Red Hen restaurant — Jennifer Rubin writes, "It is not altogether a bad thing to show those who think they're exempt from personal responsibility that their actions bring scorn, exclusion, and rejection." In other words, she's supporting Sarah Sanders being driven out because people have a different opinion.
Now isn't that Nazi stuff right there? Didn't Jennifer Rubin just become the Nazi? Because she seems completely unaware of the fact that half of the country would consider what she's saying right now, plus other things she's said in writing, to be completely irresponsible. Indeed they're so irresponsible that it has put the country at the verge of civil war over basically nothing. And her standard is that if something genuinely seems to you to be over the line, then it's okay to show your scorn and your derision and to reject. This doesn't end well. It's pretty much the opposite of at least the concept of — I know this is not technically, you're gonna disagree with me technically, but just the vibe of it — anti-free-speech. Because the whole point of free speech is people get to say unpleasant things but we still live together.
Now I realize that free speech is about the government and not about citizen-to-citizen stuff. But if citizens can do what government used to be able to do, which is censor, citizens are the government now. By the way, I've argued this before. In the old days the government was in charge and told the citizens what to do, sort of, at least in between elections. At the moment the citizens are in charge through social media and the government is largely responsive in real time. You saw that with the president reversing himself on the family staying together. The public is in charge.
So in the old days when the Constitution was written it was assumed that the only entity that could really make a difference to your free speech was the government. And so the Constitution said, hey government, you cannot abridge people's free speech. The part they left out, because they could not have seen 200 years later that the government would not be in control but rather the people are in control through social media and the government just responds, is that now the power to take away your free speech lies with the people. And we don't have a law against that. We don't have a constitution that says people can't discriminate against people. And I don't know how you could enforce it anyway. But the point is that free speech is no longer practical. It's still legal but it's not practical.
General Hayden said this morning — let me find General Hayden's tweet which I've also retweeted. You'd find both of these in my Twitter feed. General Michael Hayden said, "So exactly when do we send up the warning flare?" He's talking about Nazi stuff. He says, "After the torchlight parade chanting blood and soil? After the White House press office becomes a Ministry of Propaganda? After we punish a marginalized population? Asking for a friend."
So I called him a Nazi because that sounds like a Nazi, doesn't it? Now fair is fair. What he's saying is that there are some things that are happening that remind him of Nazis. And I would say okay, those things do remind people of Nazis. What he's doing right now also legitimately — then there's no joke here at all — legitimately what he's doing reminds me of a Nazi. Did we gain anything by him calling you guys a Nazi and me calling him a Nazi? Not really. And we're both right, right? In the sense that we're both just being rude. It doesn't mean he is a Nazi. It doesn't mean you're a Nazi. Anybody else is a Nazi. But if it's good enough to just be reminded of Nazis, then I think that's got to apply both ways.
So you may have noticed in my Twitter feed that when the critics are coming over, if they have a point about something I'll engage them in a normal conversation. If they disagree with me we could talk about facts and arguments and stuff. But when the haters are coming over and it's just personal, I call them a Nazi because they remind me of Nazis and then I block them. Did I just say I blocked Nazis? And then I block them.
Now it seems to me that the people calling people Nazis probably think that's the worst thing you could be called. And so returning it seems like an effective strategy because they're getting to feel what they're giving out. So if I'm reminded of a Nazi by their actions, meaning they've identified a group of society to say you people are bad people, then that's what they've done. They're saying Trump supporters should be singled out for actual retribution. That's Nazi stuff.
Now I'm not saying that the other side doesn't see things that remind them of Nazi things because they do. But everybody is reminded of Nazi things all the time. Everything we don't like looks a little bit Nazi. So let's just not pretend it's going one direction anymore.
Now here's a thought that I've been having that's growing stronger in me. Most of you who have been following me for a while know that I'm not a Republican and that I don't vote. And I don't vote because I don't like to be influenced into team politics even though at this point I am. But because I've been labeled as a Trump supporter and I've already told you that I stopped — I've got one exception coming up — but I stopped appearing in public and I'm quite serious about not appearing in public because of the physical danger where I live, especially in Northern California. I just don't think it would be safe.
And I was thinking to myself what would happen if Trump got, you know, let's say there was a blue wave and Trump got impeached. I think it would be a dangerous situation for Trump supporters, wouldn't you? And I'm feeling like the best reason for Republicans to vote is that they're coming for you next and they're not hiding it. They're coming for Trump right now but they're making it pretty clear they're coming for Trump supporters next. The one and only way to protect yourself is just to make sure they lose the election.
So they've somehow made the only situation — it's amazing the bad strategy you see on the left. The big way that anybody wins in midterms is by turnout, right? So whoever gets the best turnout wins because the sides are roughly even. The races that are even are the ones that matter. So turnout is the tiebreaker. Who's going to get more turnout?
I have a feeling the Republicans are going to be physically frightened because it's real now. The left has been clear that this is personal now and this is citizen to citizen. And probably the safest thing you could do if you're a Republican is to help get out the vote because it's gonna be a dangerous place around here if the president gets impeached. I'm not wrong about that, right? The impeachment is the point where the risk of something snapping is pretty high right now. We're at a lot of bend. We have a system that allows things to get pretty excited and still just bends a little bit and it just goes back.
At the moment I'm not worried about a revolution if President Trump gets impeached while his performance is similar to what it is now. You know, ninety percent support on his side. That's a dangerous situation. And I'm actually considering voting for the first time. And I wouldn't even be voting for candidates. I would just be voting for a side. I would just say Republican. I'm not a Republican. It's not even about policies. I think it would be just pure self-defense because I would want the safest situation for the country.
So here's the get-out-the-vote slogan that I think is the strongest for Republicans: They're coming for you next. You know it's true. They are coming for you next. And if you want to be safe you probably want to keep the system intact as long as possible.
All right, let's talk about immigration. So I think many of you heard me as recently as yesterday say that immigrants have a lower crime rate than citizens and that that fact is influencing part of the discussion. And when you look into it, it turns out that there had not been any studies about illegal immigrants, which are really the point. Illegal immigrants had not been studied until just recently.
So only yesterday I saw Tucker Carlson talking about the first statistics about just the illegal immigrants and their crime. And according to this one source — which by the way I would expect to be debunked by lunchtime today — but according to that one source, illegal immigrants actually do have a much higher crime rate. Whereas the legal immigrants, you would not be surprised to know that someone who had gone through the process of becoming a legal resident are people who like following rules. They are the people who followed the rules. That's how they became legal immigrants. They're rule-followers. So don't be surprised that they also follow the law. That should surprise no one.
But the illegal ones had not been studied and the pro-immigration group had cleverly conflated the legal and the illegal so you couldn't tell what was going on. Now that this statistic is out there very unambiguously — it says that say the murder rate is way higher for the illegal immigrants, only illegal immigrants we're talking about — wouldn't you expect, because you're all logical and rational people and you love your facts, wouldn't you suspect that that would just change everything? That would change the debate, right? Now that it's objectively shown that President Trump was totally right, that there's a higher crime rate coming in illegally than is already here, so immigration is a crime thing, should change everything, right?
No, no it will change nothing. And you're going to watch this right in front of you. And if you didn't see Tucker interview a pro-immigration — I don't know if that's the right way to characterize them — but look in my Twitter retweets today and you'll see Tucker Carlson's interview from last night I guess in which he talked to somebody about this new fact that now we know according to this one source that again will probably be debunked on Snopes by lunchtime because they need to debunk it. So there will be enough debunking whether it's true or not. Whether the debunking is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's going to happen. So expect some debunking, valid or not, until this day that becomes a little murkier in our minds.
But anyway, so Tucker is interviewing this guy and Tucker has the goods on him. I mean he just has the goods on him because of this new data. This is the illegal immigrants, just the illegal ones, have a much higher crime rate. And so how does this person respond to a new set of facts that completely blows his old argument out of the water? He pretends that he's answering a different question over and over again. So no matter how many times Tucker asked him to deal with the fact that it's now a fact that illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants only, have a higher crime rate, you know how does he address that? And he kept saying well that's why you need sanctuary cities. And he just refused to deal with the new fact.
So we saw the facts did not matter. So there was a guy who went on television, it was his job to defend against this kind of argument, and he wouldn't even talk on the topic. And it's the only topic that matters in this whole debate, that fact that Tucker gave him. That there's a high crime rate of illegal immigrants. Illegal. And by the way that's the way you should always say it if you're talking about this. Always go illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants. Because then when you're taking it out of context later you could say don't you remember me saying illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants? Because you keep talking about the legal ones and I'm not talking about that.
Everybody loves — we all love our legal immigrants. Legal immigrants are the best, right? Maybe some of you disagree but in my experience the immigrant population tends to be pretty awesome frankly. You may disagree but I don't care.
So watch how much the new facts don't change a thing. And you should not be surprised that it doesn't change a thing because it didn't change your minds when you thought it was the other way. All right, you're not going to like this next part.
So yesterday I had an argument with — not an argument but some text exchanges with somebody who was saying — so remember this is way back yesterday before we had this new information. Yesterday seems like so long ago now. So way back yesterday morning when I was debating somebody on Twitter I said incorrectly that there was a lower crime rate with immigrants. But I also, when I first said it, didn't realize that I had also conflated legal and illegal immigrants. And it was really the legal immigrants who have a lower crime rate than the average, which should be no surprise.
And I said hey, you know, you're not going to win on crime. You can't win the crime argument because they're not really bringing an extra crime on average. And just saying that somebody got killed by somebody who's illegal, well that you know that's not a strong persuasion, I was saying. And people would say no, no, the person is dead who didn't need to be dead. So it doesn't matter that they would bring in less crime on average when I believed that was true. It doesn't matter because a dead person is a dead person. And I don't care that the average illegal immigrant isn't bringing in any crime, which turns out not to be true. Or the average one actually is not criminal but they bring in a higher average of criminality.
Let me stop and say that again. The average illegal immigrant is law-abiding, right? It's just that they bring a higher ratio of crime. But still the vast majority of them, just to be perfectly clear, completely law-abiding except for coming into the country illegally.
So anyway, point is facts won't change anything. I've been saying that the crime argument is sort of a loser even though the facts might be on the president's side and it appears that they are. It's a losing argument because you're branding one type of person as a criminal in the eyes of the opposition. So the opposition can so easily conflate the illegal immigrants with the legal and we'll do it. We'll do it forever now because now they have to do it even harder. Then it will be like talking to a wall.
So you'll be saying well you know the legal immigrants are awesome, we love them, but the illegal ones are bringing in more crime. What will the opposition say? Why are you calling all immigrants racists? Or why are you calling all immigrants rapists and criminals, right? So there won't even be the same conversation. You know the Republicans will say a specific measured problem, let's try to close it. And the other side will say well that's what racists say. So that's the beginning and the end of the conversation.
See my Twitter feed for the Tucker Carlson retweet and the source will be in there.
So why did they do it, Scott? What's their endgame? Well for most of them it's just team play. I would say that the vast majority of people on the left are just simply opposed to the president. They're just joining their team. There's not anything like thinking or reason. There's not a long-term purpose to it.
So you may remember that I challenged someone to explain to me why open borders was a good idea. And I've learned a little but I'm hoping you can guide me to what I'm still confused about, to an answer to what I'm still confused about. So someone pointed me on Twitter to an article in which someone smart, an economist, was talking about the economic benefit of open borders. And I thought to myself all right, here it is. Perfect. It's an actual economist. He'll use reason and facts and he'll give the argument for what's good about open borders. Because I didn't know the argument. I didn't have an opinion because open borders to me sounds like you just don't have a border and anybody can do what they want and how could that possibly work?
So I thought I must be missing something in this open borders argument. So here's what I'm missing. It's probably what you're missing too. Open borders doesn't mean no border. Open borders doesn't mean you don't have a wall. It doesn't mean you don't have border control. I thought it did. I thought the point of an open border was you don't have any border control. It doesn't mean that.
And because people are conflating what it does mean, which I'll tell you in a moment, with having no border, then open border sounds like just this awful thing to the right because they imagine no border. Whereas the left are imagining open, fewer restrictions, poor people can go where the jobs are. Open. I like it.
So you're seeing when people are arguing for or against open borders they're not even on the same topic. Let me tell you what open borders means to the people who are defending it who actually are smart, right? So the smartest people defending it have this argument. The open border is really about allowing workers to move across borders with controls. In other words the workers don't get to just walk across the border. The workers have to do the paperwork. They have to apply. They have to come over. They have to go back if they don't have a job. But that employment would work across borders.
And the thought was that if you had more efficient employment across borders that the entire economy would be better. The obvious example of this is the farmers in this country who have trouble getting enough labor especially seasonally. For them their business would be better. The immigrants who came in legally, legally, legally, those immigrants would just help the economy. They'd make money. Everybody wins.
So when people talk about open borders they're talking about exactly what Trump wants. Do you get that? Trump is also in favor of open borders explicitly. He does want a system that allows people to come in to work and to be documented. And they would not have, let's say, voting privileges for example. And open borders doesn't require that they vote. It just wants them to get jobs.
So this entire open borders versus not open borders — this is my tentative opinion and you saw how wrong I was about immigration crime yesterday so allow me to be fact-checked by all of you — but my understanding as of today is that the open borders versus not open borders is a completely fake debate because everyone is actually on the same side. There's no one against that idea.
Have you ever heard anybody say we don't want a system where people can be brought in to fill needs that are not being filled in this country as long as they're documented and legal and it's all done aboveboard? Has anybody ever — have you ever seen anybody disagree with that idea? President Trump is strongly in favor of open borders the way it is actually defined.
The people with the pink hats and marching in the streets, do you think that they understand what an open border is? Do you think they could define it? I don't think so. So if somebody says Soros has a different plan, does he? Does Soros have a different plan than that? Because if he does, well I'm gonna limit — let me say you might be right. So that's exactly the sort of thing I want you to fact-check me on. If you could point me to an article in which Soros has said in his own words what open borders means to him, I'd like to see that. But I'll bet, I'll bet it's about jobs.
Yes, so we have an inefficient system for legally bringing in employees and we should fix that system. Probably hire Americans at better wages, blah blah. Yeah you know there are things you can do when the economy is strong that you just can't consider when it's weak.
So I've suggested — you saw this yesterday — that the amount of foreign workers that we bring in legally, legally, legally, the amount of foreign workers that we bring in legally should float with the unemployment rate. So right now we're very close to what economists would call full employment, which means that even though some percent are unemployed those are just the people between jobs, changing jobs, retraining, etc. So that you actually need some unemployment just to have a little bit of slop in the system so people can change jobs. And yeah there's a normal amount of unemployment that's good. And where we seem to be just about there.
So that means that basically any citizen could get a job already and probably a better job than the ones that are going to the foreign workers. So yes if the unemployment were terrible you should take down your legal immigration for workers and when you know and vice versa.
You're saying Scott they literally write no borders on their signs. Yeah that's what I'm saying. So I'm saying that the people who are protesting can't define what no borders means or open borders. They just don't know what it means. And I'm not even sure that the immigrants themselves, the illegal ones who are coming here for legitimate work purposes — you could argue whether that's legitimate — but they're coming to work as opposed to crime. I would think that what they mostly care about is the ability to work. I don't think the illegal immigrants are saying damn it I'm going to come into this country and get myself a vote. Yeah I mean they might think that would be good in the long run or something but they're not coming to vote. They're coming to work.
So like many things, politics has made something which everybody largely agrees on sound like it's cause for a civil war. You know sometimes you can say yes hard enough.
Let me give you another example. So as many people have been saying, during the Obama administration families were separated. During the Trump administration they were separated more aggressively perhaps because there were more of them in part. But everybody agrees that what Trump did was some sort of continuation and expansion of what was already happening.
All right so someone says you don't get the threat of alien culture. Well let me change topics for a moment. If people are coming in with work visas that's not the biggest risk in the world.
I forgot what I was talking about before that. Somebody changed my thought process right in the middle. Oh okay yeah. So there was a big expansion of families being separated but here's the thing. Both sides agreed that there were situations in which kids must be separated. And then when it became a bigger deal, you know got more visibility, the public said we can't stand for this. We the public will not stand for this treatment of illegal immigrants. And then the government responded and changed the rule.
The biggest story in the world is that the system worked. The system being the press highlighted something — now they may have taken it out of context etc. — but the result was the public cared. The left cared and the right cared. There wasn't anybody who was in favor — well nobody serious who was in favor of separating families. And then when this situation was brought to the government the government said okay people really care about this. I think I'll go fix that.
So the best news in the world is that the public has an opinion that was different from the government's and the government immediately conformed to the public.
Oh can I expand on my hypocrisy? So for those of you who didn't see it I did a tweet about hypocrisy this morning. It's in my Twitter feed. And I was saying that the hypocrisy claim — and I'm gonna limit this to politics because it doesn't apply to your personal life — when you're calling the other side a hypocrite, for example why are you saying that separating families is bad under Trump when you didn't say it was bad under Obama? Well my first statement is the hypocrisy claim has never changed anybody's mind. So from a persuasion perspective the hypocrisy claim is a sort of appeal to facts and facts don't persuade anybody.
So people say wait a minute it was a fact that your side was doing this and you were okay with it and now it's the fact that you're complaining about it when Trump does it so therefore you shouldn't complain. That argument has never changed any mind in the history of the world. It has never changed mine. Now you should say you should but it doesn't matter because it doesn't. It just doesn't.
And one of the things I added to that to the tweet that I'll refer you to in my Twitter feed is I said that one of the things the hypocrisy claim does in this context is it's a confession of your own problem. So when you say hey Obama separated families too, you're saying you're guilty. How in the world are you gonna change somebody's mind by confessing your guilt to something you agree is bad? How did that ever work?
So as soon as you call the other side and you say the other side did it too, you just confess that you're doing it. In this case it's obvious that it was being done but the thing you're doing is either good or bad. You can't change the past. You can't change the past. But if you just admitted you're doing it you can certainly change the present. So confessing you're doing something wrong is not exactly a good argument.
Yes it was the law then. It's the law now. If facts don't matter what does? Emotions. How we feel. Facts do matter to outcomes. People get confused by that. So when I say facts don't matter I mean that we don't use them to make decisions. We should. Wouldn't it be great if we did? And there's a very minor area where facts and reason do get used. And the very minor area where facts and reason do get used are when there's no emotion in the topic. So an engineer can use facts and reason because nobody feels badly about this component. You just want it to work.
But as soon as you say you know children, life and death, rights, Constitution, guns, our brains just go all right. And there's no fact that's going to help any of that make any difference.
All right that's enough about that. You can watch me calling the Nazis Nazis and think about your call to voting as they might come for you next. So vote in the midterms if you don't want them to come for you next. And I'll see you all later.
but um pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom hey everybody some of you are not in church right now and you are joining me for coffee with Scott Adams do you know what coffee with Scott Adams goes well with besides coffee and besides you Sunday Sunday morning feels so good join me will you and the simultaneous M oh that's good that's some good simultaneous sipping so is it my imagination or is the summer of love not turning out quite the way I had hoped I had so I had to I had two predictions which I didn't realize until recently were in conflict in other words I had predicted two things that couldn't both be true and I had acted like maybe they could so let me start by telling you how dumb I am I had had two predictions they can't both be true one I think was more wishful thinking I said that this would be the Summer of Love and people would be nicer to each other well that's clearly wrong but I had another I had another prediction that seems to be spot-on so if there's any lesson here you should make two predictions that are completely opposite because one of those damn predictions is going to be right so the other one was that when President Trump got a good result with North Korea they would cause Trump in Syndrome to kick in to a higher level against all odds now if I said to you all right mr.
logic mr.
irrational or mrs.
or miss whoever you are you're a rational person tell me what do you think will happen to trump derangement syndrome when the economy is great that they didn't expect President Trump gets good progress on North Korea that they didn't expect and importantly the Russia collusion investigation fizzles into nothing what would be the logical outcome of such a thing mister logical miss logical you're probably saying to yourself well logically I guess all the Trump derangement derangement syndrome would dissipate and people would just start getting reasonable after that but what did I tell you would happen the opposite I told you that the better President Trump does especially when he does things that are so unexpectedly better such as progress in North Korea and if he starts getting some progress with trade deals and I would say that he has gotten some some progress if he starts getting progress with trade deals it's gonna be full out bouncing off the wall Lou ninis and we're just about there so to reiterate the Summer of Love did not come out the way I had hoped to be honest that was more of a I was hoping to promote it more than predicted but the actual prediction was that cognitive different distance would make people crazier not less crazy now well let me read to you some some quotes I'm seeing this morning so Jennifer Rubin writes for The Washington Post and she says and I think she's talking about Sarah Sanders being ejected from the red hen restaurant in Jennifer Rubin writes it is not altogether a bad thing to show those who think they're exempt from personal responsibility that their actions bring scorn exclusion and rejection in other words she's supporting Sarah Sanders being driven out because people have a different opinion now visit thousand Nazi stuff right there didn't didn't Jennifer Rubin just become the Nazi because she seems completely unaware of the fact that half of the country would consider what she's saying right now plus other things she said in written to be completely irresponsible indeed they're so irresponsible that has put the country you know at the verge of you know Civil War over basically nothing and her standard is that if something genuinely seems to you to be over the line then it's okay to show your scorn and your derision and to reject this doesn't end well it's pretty much the opposite of at least the concept of I know this is not technically you know you're gonna disagree with me technically but just the vibe of it anti free speech because the whole point of free speech is people get to say unpleasant things but we still live together right now I realize that free speech is about the government and not about citizen to citizen stuff but if citizens can do what government used to be able to do which is censor citizens are the government now by the way I've argued this before in the old days the government was in charge and told the citizens what to do sort of at least in between elections at the moment the citizens are in charge through social media and the government is largely responsive in real-time you see that you saw that with the president reversing himself on the family staying together the public is in charge so in the old days when the Constitution was written it was assumed that the only entity that could really make a difference to your free speech was the government and so the Constitution said hey government you cannot abridge people's free speech the part they left out because they could not have seen 200 years later that the government would not be in control but rather the people are in control through social media and the government just responds that now the power to take away your free speech lies with the people and we don't have a law against that we don't have a constitution that says people can't discriminate against people and I don't know how you could enforce it anyway but the point is that free speech is no longer practical it's still legal but it's not practical general Hayden said this morning let me find general Hayden's tweet which I've also retweeted you'd find both of these in my Twitter feed General Michael Hayden said so exactly when do we send up the warning flare he's talking about you know Nazi stuff he says after the torchlight parade chanting blood and soil after the White House press office becomes a Ministry of propaganda after we punish a marginalized population asking for a friend so I called them a Nazi because that sounds like a Nazi doesn't it now fair is fair what are you saying is that there are some things that are happening that reminds him of Nazis and I would say okay those things do remind people of Nazis what he's doing right now also legitimately then there's no joke here at all legitimately what he's doing reminds me of a Nazi did did we gain anything by him calling you guys a Nazi and me calling him a Nazi not really and we're both right right in the sense that we're both just being rude of stuff it doesn't mean he is not see it doesn't mean you're now see anybody else is not see but if it's good enough to just be reminded of Nazis then I think that's got to apply both ways so I've you may have noticed in my Twitter feed that when the critics are coming over if they have a point about something I'll engage them you know in a normal conversation if they disagree with me you know we could talk about facts and arguments and stuff but when the haters are coming over and it's just personal I called them a Nazi because they remind me of Nazis and then I blocked them I did I just say I blocked Nazis and then I you know I block them now it seems to me that the people calling people Nazis probably think that's the worst thing you could be called and so returning it seems like an effective strategy because they're they're getting to feel what they're giving out so if I'm reminded of a not safe by their actions meaning they've they've identified a group of society to say you you people are bad people then that's what they've done you know they're they're saying Trump supporters are should be singled out for actually retribution that's Nazi stuff now I'm now saying that the other side doesn't see things that remind them of Nazi things because they do but everybody is reminded of Nazi things all the time everything we don't like looks a little bit Nazi so let's just not pretend it's going one direction anymore now here's a thought that I've been having that's growing stronger in me most of you have been following me for a while know that I'm not a Republican and that I don't vote and I don't vote because I don't like to you know be influenced into team politics even though at this point I am but because I've been labeled as a trump supporter and I've already told you that I stopped I've got one exception coming up but I stopped appearing in public and I'm quite serious about not appearing in public because of the the physical danger where I live especially in Northern California I just don't think it would be safe and I was thinking to myself what would happen if Trump got you know let's say there was a blue wave and Trump got impeached I think it would be a dangerous situation for Trump supporters wouldn't you and and I'm feeling like the best reason for Republicans to vote is that they're coming for you next and they're not hiding it they're coming for Trump right now but they're making it pretty clear they're coming for Trump supporters next the one and only way to protect yourself just to make sure they lose the election so they've somehow made the only situation that you know it's it's amazing the bad strategy you see on the left the the big way that anybody wins in midterm is by turnout right so ever gets the best turnout wins because the sides are roughly even the races that are even are the ones that matter so turnout is the the tiebreaker who's going to get more turnout I have a feeling the Republicans are going to be physically frightened because it's real now the the left has been a clear that this is personal now and this is citizen to citizen and probably the safest thing you could do if you're a Republican is to help get out the vote because it's gonna be a dangerous place around here if the president gets impeached I'm not wrong about that right but the impeachment is the point where there might you know the risk of something snapping is pretty high right now we're you know there's a lot of Bend we have a system that allows things to get pretty excited and still just it bends a little bit and it just goes back at the moment I'm not worried about a revolution if the if president Trump gets impeached while his performance is similar to what it is now you know ninety percent support on his side that's a dangerous situation and I'm actually considering voting for the first time and I wouldn't even vote I wouldn't even be voting for candidates I would just be voting for a side I would just say Republican I'm not a Republican it's not even about policies about I think it would be just pure self defense because I would want the safest situation for the country so here's the here's the get out the vote slogan that I think is the strongest for Republicans they're coming for you next you know it's true they are coming for you next and if you want to be safe you probably want to keep the system intact as long as possible all right let's talk about immigration so I think you many of you heard me as recently as yesterday say that immigrants have a lower crime rate than citizens and that that fact is influencing part of the discussion and when you look into it it turns out that there had not been any studies about illegal immigrants which are really the really the point illegal immigrants had not been studied until just recently so only yesterday I saw Tucker Carlson talking about the first statistics about just the illegal immigrants and their crime and according to this one source which by the way I would expect to be debunked you know by lunchtime today but according to that one source illegal immigrants actually do have a much higher crime rate whereas the legal immigrants you would not be surprised to know that someone who had gone through the process of becoming a legal resident are people who like following rules you know they are the people who followed the rules that's how they became legal you know legal citizens legal or legal immigrants they're rule-followers so don't be surprised that they also follow the law that should surprise no one but the illegal ones had not been studied and the the pro-immigration group had had cleverly conflated the legal and the illegal so you couldn't tell what was going on now now that this statistic is out there very unambiguously says that say the murder rate is way higher for the illegal immigrants only illegal immigrants we're talking about wouldn't you expect because you're all logical and rational people and you love your facts wouldn't you suspect that that would just change everything that would change the debate right now that now that it's objectively shown that President Trump was totally right that there's a higher crime rate coming in illegally then is already here so immigration is a crime thing should change everything right no no it will change nothing and you're going to watch this right in front of you and if you didn't see Tucker interview a pro immigration I don't know if that's the right way to characterize them but look in my my Twitter retweets today and you'll see Tucker Carlson's interview from last night I guess in which he talked to somebody about this new fact that now we know according to this one source that again will probably be debunked on Snopes by by lunchtime because they need to debunk it so there will be enough debunking whether it's true or not whether the debunking is true or not doesn't um doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's going to happen so expect some debunking valid or not until this this day that becomes a little murkier in our minds but anyway so you so tucker is interviewing this guy and and talker has the goods on him I mean he just he just has the goods on and because of this new data this is the illegal immigrants just the illegal ones have a much higher crime rate and so how does the how does this person respond to a new set of facts that completely blows his old argument out of the water he pretends that he's answering a different question over and over again so no matter how many times Tucker asked him to deal with the fact that it's now a fact that illegal immigrants illegal immigrants only have a higher crime rate you know how does he address that and he kept saying well that's why you need sanctuary cities and he would he just refused to deal with the new fact so we saw the facts did not matter so there was a guy who went on television it was his job to defend against this kind of argument and he wouldn't even talk on the topic and it's the only topic that matters in this whole debate that fact that Tucker gave him that is there's a high crime rate of illegal immigrants illegal and Wyatt by the way that's the way you should always say it if you're talking about this always go illegal immigrants illegal immigrants because then when you're taking it out of context later you could say don't you remember me saying illegal immigrants illegal immigrants because you keep talking about the legal ones and I'm not talking about that everybody loves we all love our legal immigrants legal immigrants are the best right maybe some of you disagree but in my in my experience the immigrant population tends to be pretty awesome frankly you may disagree but I don't care so so watch how much the new facts don't change a thing and you should not be surprised that it doesn't change a thing because it didn't change your minds when you thought it was the other way all right you're not going to like this next part so yesterday I had an argument with not an argument but some text exchanges was somebody who was saying so remember this is way back yesterday before we had this new information yesterday seems like so long ago now so way back yesterday morning when I was debating somebody on Twitter I said incorrectly that there was a lower crime rate with immigrants but I also when I first said it didn't realize that I had also conflated legal and illegal immigrants and I were in it's really the legal legal legal immigrants who have a lower crime rate than the average which should be no surprise and I said hey you know you're not going to win on crime you can't win the crime argument because they're not really bringing an extra crime on average and just saying that somebody got killed by somebody who's illegal well that you know that's not a strong persuasion I was saying and people would say no no the person is dead who didn't need to be dead so it doesn't matter that they would bring in less crime on average when I believed that was true it doesn't matter because a dead person is a dead person and I don't care that the average illegal immigrant isn't bringing in any crime which turns out not to be true or the average one actually is not criminal but they bring in a higher average criminal ring let me let me stop and say that again the average illegal immigrant is law-abiding right it's just that they bring a higher ratio of crime but still the vast majority of them just to be perfectly clear completely law-abiding the except for coming into the country illegally so anyway point is facts won't change anything I've been saying that the the crime argument is sort of a loser even though the facts might be on the president's side and it appears that they are it's a losing argument because your branding one one type of person as a criminal in the eyes of the opposition so the opposition can so easily conflate the illegal immigrants with the legal and we'll do it we'll do it forever now because now they have to do it even harder then it will be like talking to a wall so you'll be saying well you know the legal immigrants are awesome we love them but the illegal ones are bringing in more crime what will the opposition's that opposition say why are you calling all immigrants races or why are you calling all immigrants rapists and criminals right so there won't even be the same conversation you know the Republicans will say a specific measured problem let's try to close it and the other what side will say well that's what races say so that's that's the beginning in the end of the conversation see my see my Twitter feed for the tucker carlson retweet and the source will be in there so why did they do it Scott what's their endgame well for most of them it's just team play I would say that the vast majority of people on the left are just you know simply opposed to the president they're just joining their team there's not anything like thinking or reason there's not a long term purpose to it so you may remember that I challenged someone to explain to me why open borders was a good idea and I've learned a little but I'm hoping you can you can guide me to what I'm still confused about you know to an answer to what I'm still confused about so someone pointed me on Twitter someone pointed me to an article in which someone smart an economist was talking about the economic benefit of open borders and I thought myself all right here it is perfect it's an actual economist he'll use reason and facts and he'll he'll give the argument for what's what's good about open borders because I didn't know the argument I didn't have an opinion cuz open borders to me sounds like you just don't have a border and anybody can do what they want and how could that possibly work so I thought I must be missing something in this open borders argument so here's what I'm missing it's probably what you're missing to open borders doesn't mean no border open borders doesn't mean you don't have a wall it doesn't mean you don't have border control I thought it did I thought the point of an open border was you don't have any border control it doesn't mean that and because people are conflating what it does mean which I'll tell you in a moment with having no border then open border sounds like just this awful thing to the right because they imagine no border whereas the left are imagining open open fewer restrictions poor people can go where the jobs are open I like it so you're seeing when people are arguing for or against open border they're not even on the same topic let me tell you what open border means to the people who are defending it who actually are smart right so the smartest people defending it have this argument the open border is really about allowing workers to move across borders with controls in other words the workers don't get to just walk across the border the workers have to do the paperwork they have to apply they have to come over they have to go back if they don't have a job but that employment would work across borders and the thought was that if he had more efficient employment across borders that the entire economy would be better the obvious example of this is the farmers in this country who have trouble getting enough labour especially seasonally for them their business would be better the the immigrants who came in Legally legally legally those immigrants would just help the economy they'd make money everybody wins so when people talk about open borders they're talking about exactly what Trump wants do you get that Trump is also in favor of open borders explicitly he does want a system that allows people to come in to work and to and to be documented and they would not have let's say voting privileges for example and open borders doesn't require that they vote it just wants them to get jobs so this entire open borders versus not open borders saying this is my tentative opinion and you saw how wrong I was about immigration crime yesterday so allow me to be fact-checked by all of you but my understanding as of today is that the open borders versus not open borders is a completely fake debate because everyone is actually on the same side there's no one against that idea have you ever heard anybody say we don't want a system where people can be brought in to fill needs that are not being filled in this country as long as they're documented and legal and it's all done aboveboard has anybody ever have you ever seen anybody disagree with that idea president Trump is strongly in favor of open borders the way it is actually defined the people with the pink hats and marching in the streets do you think that they understand what an open border is do you think they could define it I don't think so so if somebody says Soros has a different plan does he does he the Soros have a different plan than that because if he does well I'm gonna limit let me say you might be right so that's exactly the sort of thing I want you to fact-check me on if you could point me to an article in which Soros has said in his own words what open border means to him I'd like to see that but I'll bet I'll bet it's about jobs yes so we have an inefficient system for legally bringing in employees and we should fix that system probably hire Americans at better wages bla bla yeah you know there are things you can do when the economy is strong that you just can't consider when its weak so I've suggested you saw this yesterday that the amount of foreign workers that we bring in legally legally legally the amount of foreign workers that we bring in legally should float with the unemployment rate so right now we're very close to what economists would call full employment which means that even though some percent are unemployed those are just the people between jobs changing jobs you know retraining etc so that you actually need some unemployment just have a little bit of slop in the system so people can change jobs and yeah there's a normal amount of unemployment that's good and where we seem to be just about there so that means that basically any any citizen could get a job already and probably a better job than the ones that are going to the Ford workers so yes if the if unemployment we're terrible you should take down your your your legal immigration for workers and when you know and vice versa you're saying Scott they literally right no borders on their sides yeah that's what I'm saying so I'm saying that the people who are protesting can't define what no borders means or open borders they just don't know what it means and I'm not even sure that the the immigrants themselves the illegal ones who are coming here for legitimate work purposes you could argue whether that's legitimate but they're coming to work as opposed to crime I would think that what they mostly care about is the ability to work I don't think the illegal immigrants are saying damn it I'm going to come into this country and get myself a vote yeah I mean they might think that would be good in the long run or something but they're not coming to vote they're coming to work so like many things politics has made something which everybody largely agrees on sound like it's cause for a civil war you know sometimes you can say yes hard enough let me give you another example so as many people have been saying during the Obama administration families families were separated during the Trump administration they were separated more aggressively perhaps because there were more of them in part but everybody agrees that what Trump did was some sort of continuation and expansion of what was already happening all right so someone says you don't get the threat of alien culture well let me change topics for a moment if people are coming in with work visas that's not the biggest risk in the world I forgot what I was talking about before that somebody changed my thought process right in the middle oh okay yeah so there was a big expansion of families being separated but here's the thing both sides agreed that there were situations in which kids much must be separated and then when it became a bigger deal you know got more visibility the public said we can't stand for this we the public will not stand for this treatment of illegal immigrants and then the the government responded and changed the rule the biggest story in the world is that the system worked the system being the the press highlighted something now they may have taken it out of context etc but the result was the public cared the left cared and the right cared there wasn't anybody who was in favor well nobody's serious who was in favor of separating families and then when this situation was brought to the government the government said okay people really care about this I think I'll go fix that so the best news of the world is that the public the public has an opinion that was different from the government's and the government immediately conformed to the public oh can I expand on my hypocrisy so for those of you didn't see it I did a tweet about hypocrisy this morning it's in my Twitter feed and I was saying that the hypocrisy claim and I'm gonna limit this to politics because it doesn't apply to your personal life when you're calling the other side a hypocrite for for example why are you saying that separating families is bad under Trump when you didn't say it was bad under Obama well my first statement is the hypocrisy claim has never changed anybody's mind so from a persuasion perspective the hypocrisy claim is a sort of appeal to facts and facts don't persuade anybody so people say wait a minute it was a fact that your side was doing this and you were okay with it and now it's the fact that you're complaining about it when Trump does it so therefore you shouldn't complain that argument has never come has never changed any mind in the history of the world it has never changed in mine now you should say you should but it doesn't matter because it doesn't it just doesn't and one of the things I added to that to the tweet that I'll refer to you to in my my Twitter feed as I said that one of the things the hypocrisy claim does in this context is it's a confession of your own problem so when you say hey Obama separated families - you're saying - you're saying you're guilty how in the world are you gonna change somebody's minds by confessing your guilt to something you agree as bad how did that ever work so as soon as you call the other side and you say the other side did it - you just confess that you're doing it in this case it's obvious that it was being done but the thing you're doing is either good or bad you can't change the past you can't change the past but if you just admitted you're doing it you can certainly change the present so confessing you're doing something wrong is not exactly a good argument yes it was the law then it's the law now if facts don't matter what does emotions how we feel facts do matter to outcomes people get confused by that so when I say facts don't matter I mean that we don't use them to make decisions we should wouldn't it be great if we did and and there's a very minor area where facts and reason do get used and the very minor area where facts and reason do get used are when there's no emotion in the in the topic so an engineer can use facts and reason because nobody is nobody feels badly about this component you just want it to work but as soon as you say you know children life and death rights you know Constitution guns our brains just go alright and there's no fact that's going to help any of that make any difference all right that's enough about that you can watch me calling the Nazis Nazis and think about think about your call to voting as the they might come for you next so vote in the midterms if you don't want them to come for you next and I'll see you all later
but um pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom
pom pom pom pom hey everybody
some of you are not in church right now
and you are joining me for coffee with
Scott Adams do you know what coffee with
Scott Adams goes well with besides
coffee
and besides you Sunday Sunday morning
feels so good
join me will you and the simultaneous M
oh that's good that's some good
simultaneous sipping so is it my
imagination or is the summer of love not
turning out quite the way I had hoped I
had so I had to I had two predictions
which I didn't realize until recently
were in conflict in other words I had
predicted two things that couldn't both
be true and I had acted like maybe they
could so let me start by telling you how
dumb I am I had had two predictions they
can't both be true one I think was more
wishful thinking I said that this would
be the Summer of Love and people would
be nicer to each other well that's
clearly wrong but I had another I had
another prediction that seems to be
spot-on so if there's any lesson here
you should make two predictions that are
completely opposite because one of those
damn predictions is going to be right so
the other one was that when President
Trump got a good result with North Korea
they would cause Trump in Syndrome
to kick in to a higher level against all
odds now if I said to you all right mr.
logic mr. irrational or mrs. or miss
whoever you are you're a rational person
tell me what do you think will happen to
trump derangement syndrome when the
economy is great that they didn't expect
President Trump gets good progress on
North Korea that they didn't expect and
importantly the Russia collusion
investigation fizzles into nothing what
would be the logical outcome of such a
thing mister logical miss logical you're
probably saying to yourself well
logically I guess all the Trump
derangement derangement syndrome would
dissipate and people would just start
getting reasonable after that but what
did I tell you would happen the opposite
I told you that the better President
Trump does especially when he does
things that are so unexpectedly better
such as progress in North Korea and if
he starts getting some progress with
trade deals and I would say that he has
gotten some some progress if he starts
getting progress with trade deals it's
gonna be full out bouncing off the wall
Lou ninis and we're just about there so
to reiterate the Summer of Love did not
come out the way I had hoped to be
honest that was more of a I was hoping
to promote it more than predicted but
the actual prediction was that cognitive
different distance would make people
crazier not less crazy now well let me
read to you some some quotes I'm seeing
this morning so Jennifer Rubin writes
for The Washington Post and she says and
I think she's talking about Sarah
Sanders being ejected from the red hen
restaurant in Jennifer Rubin writes it
is not altogether a bad thing to show
those who think they're exempt from
personal responsibility that their
actions bring scorn exclusion and
rejection
in other words she's supporting Sarah
Sanders being driven out because people
have a different opinion now visit
thousand Nazi stuff right there didn't
didn't Jennifer Rubin just become the
Nazi because she seems completely
unaware of the fact that half of the
country would consider what she's saying
right now plus other things she said in
written to be completely irresponsible
indeed they're so irresponsible that has
put the country you know at the verge of
you know Civil War over basically
nothing and her standard is that if
something genuinely seems to you to be
over the line then it's okay to show
your scorn and your derision and to
reject this doesn't end well it's pretty
much the opposite of at least the
concept of I know this is not
technically you know you're gonna
disagree with me technically but just
the vibe of it anti free speech because
the whole point of free speech is people
get to say unpleasant things but we
still live together right now I realize
that free speech is about the government
and not about citizen to citizen stuff
but if citizens can do what government
used to be able to do which is censor
citizens are the government now by the
way I've argued this before in the old
days the government was in charge and
told the citizens what to do sort of at
least in between elections at the moment
the citizens are in charge through
social media and the government is
largely responsive in real-time you see
that you saw that with the president
reversing himself on the family staying
together the public is in charge so in
the old days when the Constitution was
written it was assumed that the only
entity that could really make a
difference to your free speech was the
government and so the Constitution said
hey government
you cannot abridge people's free speech
the part they left out because they
could not have seen 200 years later that
the government would not be in control
but rather the people are in control
through social media and the government
just responds that now the power to take
away your free speech lies with the
people and we don't have a law against
that we don't have a constitution that
says people can't discriminate against
people and I don't know how you could
enforce it anyway but the point is that
free speech is no longer practical it's
still legal but it's not practical
general Hayden said this morning
let me find general Hayden's tweet which
I've also retweeted you'd find both of
these in my Twitter feed General Michael
Hayden said so exactly when do we send
up the warning flare he's talking about
you know Nazi stuff he says after the
torchlight parade chanting blood and
soil after the White House press office
becomes a Ministry of propaganda after
we punish a marginalized population
asking for a friend so I called them a
Nazi because that sounds like a Nazi
doesn't it now fair is fair what are you
saying is that there are some things
that are happening that reminds him of
Nazis and I would say okay those things
do remind people of Nazis what he's
doing right now
also legitimately then there's no joke
here at all legitimately what he's doing
reminds me of a Nazi did did we gain
anything by him calling you guys a Nazi
and me calling him a Nazi not really
and we're both right right in the sense
that we're both just being rude
of stuff it doesn't mean he is not see
it doesn't mean you're now see anybody
else is not see but if it's good enough
to just be reminded of Nazis then I
think that's got to apply both ways so
I've you may have noticed in my Twitter
feed that when the critics are coming
over if they have a point about
something I'll engage them you know in a
normal conversation if they disagree
with me you know we could talk about
facts and arguments and stuff but when
the haters are coming over and it's just
personal I called them a Nazi because
they remind me of Nazis and then I
blocked them I did I just say I blocked
Nazis and then I you know I block them
now it seems to me that the people
calling people Nazis probably think
that's the worst thing you could be
called and so returning it seems like an
effective strategy because they're
they're getting to feel what they're
giving out so if I'm reminded of a not
safe by their actions meaning they've
they've identified a group of society to
say you you people are bad people then
that's what they've done you know
they're they're saying Trump supporters
are should be singled out for actually
retribution
that's Nazi stuff now I'm now saying
that the other side doesn't see things
that remind them of Nazi things because
they do but everybody is reminded of
Nazi things all the time everything we
don't like looks a little bit Nazi so
let's just not pretend it's going one
direction anymore now here's a thought
that I've been having that's growing
stronger in me most of you have been
following me for a while know that I'm
not a Republican and that I
don't vote and I don't vote because I
don't like to you know be influenced
into team politics even though at this
point I am but because I've been labeled
as a trump supporter and I've already
told you that I stopped I've got one
exception coming up but I stopped
appearing in public and I'm quite
serious about not appearing in public
because of the the physical danger where
I live especially in Northern California
I just don't think it would be safe and
I was thinking to myself what would
happen if Trump got you know let's say
there was a blue wave and Trump got
impeached I think it would be a
dangerous situation for Trump supporters
wouldn't you and and I'm feeling like
the best reason for Republicans to vote
is that they're coming for you next and
they're not hiding it
they're coming for Trump right now but
they're making it pretty clear they're
coming for Trump supporters next the one
and only way to protect yourself just to
make sure they lose the election
so they've somehow made the only
situation that you know it's it's
amazing the bad strategy you see on the
left the the big way that anybody wins
in midterm is by turnout right so ever
gets the best turnout wins because the
sides are roughly even the races that
are even are the ones that matter so
turnout is the the tiebreaker who's
going to get more turnout I have a
feeling the Republicans are going to be
physically frightened because it's real
now the the left has been a clear that
this is personal now and this is citizen
to citizen and probably the safest thing
you could do if you're a Republican
is to help get out the vote because it's
gonna be a dangerous place around here
if the president gets impeached I'm not
wrong about that
right but the impeachment is the point
where there might you know the risk of
something snapping is pretty high right
now we're you know there's a lot of Bend
we have a system that allows things to
get pretty excited and still just it
bends a little bit and it just goes back
at the moment I'm not worried about a
revolution if the if president Trump
gets impeached while his performance is
similar to what it is now you know
ninety percent support on his side
that's a dangerous situation and I'm
actually considering voting for the
first time and I wouldn't even vote I
wouldn't even be voting for candidates I
would just be voting for a side I would
just say Republican I'm not a Republican
it's not even about policies about I
think it would be just pure self defense
because I would want the safest
situation for the country so here's the
here's the get out the vote slogan that
I think is the strongest for Republicans
they're coming for you next you know
it's true
they are coming for you next and if you
want to be safe you probably want to
keep the system intact as long as
possible
all right let's talk about immigration
so I think you many of you heard me as
recently as yesterday say that
immigrants have a lower crime rate than
citizens and that that fact is
influencing part of the discussion and
when you look into it it turns out that
there had not been any studies about
illegal immigrants which are really the
really the point illegal immigrants had
not been studied until just recently
so only yesterday
I saw Tucker Carlson talking about the
first statistics about just the illegal
immigrants and their crime and according
to this one source which by the way I
would expect to be debunked you know by
lunchtime today but according to that
one source illegal immigrants actually
do have a much higher crime rate whereas
the legal immigrants you would not be
surprised to know that someone who had
gone through the process of becoming a
legal resident are people who like
following rules you know they are the
people who followed the rules that's how
they became legal you know legal
citizens legal or legal immigrants
they're rule-followers so don't be
surprised that they also follow the law
that should surprise no one but the
illegal ones had not been studied and
the the pro-immigration group had had
cleverly conflated the legal and the
illegal so you couldn't tell what was
going on now now that this statistic is
out there very unambiguously says that
say the murder rate is way higher for
the illegal immigrants only illegal
immigrants we're talking about wouldn't
you expect because you're all logical
and rational people and you love your
facts wouldn't you suspect that that
would just change everything that would
change the debate right now that now
that it's objectively shown that
President Trump was totally right that
there's a higher crime rate coming in
illegally then is already here so
immigration is a crime thing should
change everything right no no it will
change nothing and you're going to watch
this right in front of you and if you
didn't see Tucker interview a pro
immigration
I don't know if that's the right way to
characterize them but look in my my
Twitter retweets today and you'll see
Tucker Carlson's interview from last
night I guess in which he talked to
somebody about this new fact that now we
know according to this one source that
again will probably be debunked on
Snopes by by lunchtime because they need
to debunk it so there will be enough
debunking whether it's true or not
whether the debunking is true or not
doesn't um doesn't have anything to do
with the fact that it's going to happen
so expect some debunking valid or not
until this this day that becomes a
little murkier in our minds but anyway
so you so tucker is interviewing this
guy and and talker has the goods on him
I mean he just he just has the goods on
and because of this new data this is the
illegal immigrants just the illegal ones
have a much higher crime rate and so how
does the how does this person respond to
a new set of facts that completely blows
his old argument out of the water he
pretends that he's answering a different
question over and over again so no
matter how many times Tucker asked him
to deal with the fact that it's now a
fact that illegal immigrants illegal
immigrants only have a higher crime rate
you know how does he address that and he
kept saying well that's why you need
sanctuary cities and he would he just
refused to deal with the new fact so we
saw the facts did not matter so there
was a guy who went on television it was
his job to defend against this kind of
argument and he wouldn't even talk on
the topic and it's the only topic that
matters in this whole debate that fact
that Tucker gave him that is there's a
high crime rate of illegal immigrants
illegal
and Wyatt by the way that's the way you
should always say it if you're talking
about this always go illegal immigrants
illegal immigrants because then when
you're taking it out of context later
you could say don't you remember me
saying illegal immigrants illegal
immigrants because you keep talking
about the legal ones and I'm not talking
about that everybody loves
we all love our legal immigrants legal
immigrants are the best right maybe some
of you disagree but in my in my
experience the immigrant population
tends to be pretty awesome frankly you
may disagree but I don't care so so
watch how much the new facts don't
change a thing and you should not be
surprised that it doesn't change a thing
because it didn't change your minds when
you thought it was the other way all
right you're not going to like this next
part so yesterday I had an argument with
not an argument but some text exchanges
was somebody who was saying so remember
this is way back yesterday before we had
this new information yesterday seems
like so long ago now so way back
yesterday morning when I was debating
somebody on Twitter I said incorrectly
that there was a lower crime rate with
immigrants but I also when I first said
it didn't realize that I had also
conflated legal and illegal immigrants
and I were in it's really the legal
legal legal immigrants who have a lower
crime rate than the average which should
be no surprise and I said hey you know
you're not going to win on crime you
can't win the crime argument because
they're not really bringing an extra
crime on average and just saying that
somebody got killed by somebody who's
illegal well that you know
that's not a strong persuasion I was
saying and people would say no no the
person is dead who didn't need to be
dead so it doesn't matter that they
would bring in less crime on average
when I believed that was true it doesn't
matter because a dead person is a dead
person and I don't care that the average
illegal immigrant isn't bringing in any
crime which turns out not to be true or
the average one actually is not criminal
but they bring in a higher average
criminal ring let me let me stop and say
that again
the average illegal immigrant is
law-abiding right
it's just that they bring a higher ratio
of crime but still the vast majority of
them just to be perfectly clear
completely law-abiding the except for
coming into the country illegally
so anyway point is facts won't change
anything I've been saying that the the
crime argument is sort of a loser even
though the facts might be on the
president's side and it appears that
they are it's a losing argument because
your branding one one type of person as
a criminal in the eyes of the opposition
so the opposition can so easily conflate
the illegal immigrants with the legal
and we'll do it we'll do it forever now
because now they have to do it even
harder then it will be like talking to a
wall so you'll be saying well you know
the legal immigrants are awesome we love
them but the illegal ones are bringing
in more crime what will the opposition's
that opposition say why are you calling
all immigrants races or why are you
calling all immigrants rapists and
criminals right so there won't even be
the same conversation you know the
Republicans will say
a specific measured problem let's try to
close it and the other what side will
say well that's what races say so that's
that's the beginning in the end of the
conversation see my see my Twitter feed
for the tucker carlson retweet and the
source will be in there so why did they
do it Scott what's their endgame well
for most of them it's just team play I
would say that the vast majority of
people on the left are just you know
simply opposed to the president they're
just joining their team there's not
anything like thinking or reason there's
not a long term purpose to it so you may
remember that I challenged someone to
explain to me why open borders was a
good idea and I've learned a little but
I'm hoping you can you can guide me to
what I'm still confused about you know
to an answer to what I'm still confused
about so someone pointed me on Twitter
someone pointed me to an article in
which someone smart an economist was
talking about the economic benefit of
open borders and I thought myself all
right here it is perfect it's an actual
economist he'll use reason and facts and
he'll he'll give the argument for what's
what's good about open borders because I
didn't know the argument I didn't have
an opinion
cuz open borders to me sounds like you
just don't have a border and anybody can
do what they want and how could that
possibly work so I thought I must be
missing something in this open borders
argument so here's what I'm missing it's
probably what you're missing to open
borders doesn't mean no border open
borders doesn't mean you don't have a
wall it doesn't mean you don't have
border control I thought it did
I thought the point of an open border
was you don't have any border control it
doesn't mean that and
because people are conflating what it
does mean which I'll tell you in a
moment with having no border then open
border sounds like just this awful thing
to the right because they imagine no
border whereas the left are imagining
open open fewer restrictions poor people
can go where the jobs are open I like it
so you're seeing when people are arguing
for or against open border they're not
even on the same topic let me tell you
what open border means to the people who
are defending it who actually are smart
right so the smartest people defending
it have this argument the open border is
really about allowing workers to move
across borders with controls in other
words the workers don't get to just walk
across the border the workers have to do
the paperwork they have to apply they
have to come over they have to go back
if they don't have a job but that
employment would work across borders and
the thought was that if he had more
efficient employment across borders that
the entire economy would be better the
obvious example of this is the farmers
in this country who have trouble getting
enough labour especially seasonally for
them their business would be better the
the immigrants who came in Legally
legally legally those immigrants would
just help the economy they'd make money
everybody wins so when people talk about
open borders they're talking about
exactly what Trump wants do you get that
Trump is also in favor of open borders
explicitly he does want a system that
allows people to come in to work and to
and to be documented and they would not
have let's say voting privileges for
example and open borders doesn't require
that they vote it just wants them to get
jobs so this entire open borders versus
not open borders saying this is my
tentative opinion and you saw how wrong
I was about immigration crime yesterday
so allow me to be fact-checked by all of
you but my understanding as of today is
that the open borders versus not open
borders is a completely fake debate
because everyone is actually on the same
side there's no one against that idea
have you ever heard anybody say we don't
want a system where people can be
brought in to fill needs that are not
being filled in this country as long as
they're documented and legal and it's
all done aboveboard has anybody ever
have you ever seen anybody disagree with
that idea
president Trump is strongly in favor of
open borders the way it is actually
defined the people with the pink hats
and marching in the streets do you think
that they understand what an open border
is do you think they could define it I
don't think so so if somebody says Soros
has a different plan does he does he the
Soros have a different plan than that
because if he does well I'm gonna limit
let me say you might be right so that's
exactly the sort of thing I want you to
fact-check me on if you could point me
to an article in which Soros has said in
his own words what open border means to
him I'd like to see that but I'll bet
I'll bet it's about jobs
[Music]
yes so we have an inefficient system for
legally bringing in employees and we
should fix that system probably hire
Americans at better wages bla bla yeah
you know there are things you can do
when the economy is strong that you just
can't consider when its weak
so I've suggested you saw this yesterday
that the amount of foreign workers that
we bring in legally legally legally the
amount of foreign workers that we bring
in legally should float with the
unemployment rate so right now we're
very close to what economists would call
full employment which means that even
though some percent are unemployed those
are just the people between jobs
changing jobs you know retraining etc so
that you actually need some unemployment
just have a little bit of slop in the
system so people can change jobs and
yeah there's a normal amount of
unemployment that's good and where we
seem to be just about there
so that means that basically any any
citizen could get a job already and
probably a better job than the ones that
are going to the Ford workers so yes if
the if unemployment we're terrible you
should take down your your your legal
immigration for workers and when you
know and vice versa
[Music]
you're saying Scott they literally right
no borders on their sides yeah that's
what I'm saying
so I'm saying that the people who are
protesting can't define what no borders
means or open borders they just don't
know what it means
and I'm not even sure that the the
immigrants themselves the illegal ones
who are coming here for legitimate work
purposes you could argue whether that's
legitimate but they're coming to work
as opposed to crime I would think that
what they mostly care about is the
ability to work I don't think the
illegal immigrants are saying damn it
I'm going to come into this country and
get myself a vote yeah I mean they might
think that would be good in the long run
or something but they're not coming to
vote they're coming to work so like many
things politics has made something which
everybody largely agrees on sound like
it's cause for a civil war you know
sometimes you can say yes hard enough
let me give you another example so as
many people have been saying during the
Obama administration families families
were separated during the Trump
administration they were separated more
aggressively perhaps because there were
more of them in part but everybody
agrees that what Trump did was some sort
of continuation and expansion of what
was already happening all right so
someone says you don't get the threat of
alien culture well let me change topics
for a moment if people are coming in
with work visas that's not the biggest
risk in the world I forgot what I was
talking about before that somebody
changed my thought process right in the
middle oh okay yeah so there was a big
expansion of families being separated
but here's the thing both sides agreed
that there were situations in which kids
much must be separated and then when it
became a bigger deal you know got more
visibility the public said we can't
stand for this we the public will not
stand for this treatment of illegal
immigrants and then the the government
responded and changed the rule the
biggest story in the world is that the
system worked the system
being the the press highlighted
something now they may have taken it out
of context etc but the result was the
public cared the left cared and the
right cared there wasn't anybody who was
in favor well nobody's serious who was
in favor of separating families and then
when this situation was brought to the
government the government said okay
people really care about this I think
I'll go fix that so the best news of the
world is that the public the public has
an opinion that was different from the
government's and the government
immediately conformed to the public oh
can I expand on my hypocrisy so for
those of you didn't see it I did a tweet
about hypocrisy this morning it's in my
Twitter feed and I was saying that the
hypocrisy claim and I'm gonna limit this
to politics because it doesn't apply to
your personal life when you're calling
the other side a hypocrite for for
example why are you saying that
separating families is bad under Trump
when you didn't say it was bad under
Obama
well my first statement is the hypocrisy
claim has never changed anybody's mind
so from a persuasion perspective the
hypocrisy claim is a sort of appeal to
facts and facts don't persuade anybody
so people say wait a minute it was a
fact that your side was doing this and
you were okay with it and now it's the
fact that you're complaining about it
when Trump does it so therefore you
shouldn't complain that argument has
never come has never changed any mind in
the history of the world it has never
changed in mine now you should say you
should but it doesn't matter because it
doesn't it just doesn't and one of the
things I added to that to the tweet that
I'll refer to you to in my my Twitter
feed as I said that one of the things
the hypocrisy claim does in this context
is it's a confession of your own
problem so when you say hey Obama
separated families - you're saying -
you're saying you're guilty how in the
world are you gonna change somebody's
minds by confessing your guilt to
something you agree as bad how did that
ever work so as soon as you call the
other side and you say the other side
did it - you just confess that you're
doing it in this case it's obvious that
it was being done but the thing you're
doing is either good or bad you can't
change the past you can't change the
past but if you just admitted you're
doing it you can certainly change the
present so confessing you're doing
something wrong is not exactly a good
argument yes it was the law then it's
the law now if facts don't matter what
does emotions how we feel facts do
matter to outcomes people get confused
by that so when I say facts don't matter
I mean that we don't use them to make
decisions we should
wouldn't it be great if we did and and
there's a very minor area where facts
and reason do get used and the very
minor area where facts and reason do get
used are when there's no emotion in the
in the topic so an engineer can use
facts and reason because nobody is
nobody feels badly about this component
you just want it to work but as soon as
you say you know children life and death
rights
you know Constitution guns our brains
just go alright and there's no fact
that's going to help any of that
make any difference all right that's
enough about that you can watch me
calling the Nazis Nazis and think about
think about your call to voting as the
they might come for you next
so vote in the midterms if you don't
want them to come for you next and I'll
see you all later
