Back to episode — Episode 1537 Scott Adams - Trump Gets His Own Social Network. That Means Good Content Today
Context —
l of your questions. As written, the current compromise version — this is one Manchin put together — of the bill would establish national rules for running elections. Sounds good. Limit partisanship in the drawing of congressional districts. Looks good. Looks good. And forced the disclosure of many anonymous donors who spend big to influence elections. I like that. Pretty good. Pretty good. Other…
← Previous segment →ication on the question? Are you suggesting that the courts would be the right place to evaluate the claims?
And Raskin would say something like, um, you know, all these courts rejected it. They all rejected it. He'd probably just repeat himself. He'd say, yeah, I know. I heard that part, and I agree with everything you're saying, but I'm looking for your assumption. Is your assumption that the courts were the right vehicle to evaluate claims? Because the court said they weren't. You know, all the ones you're mentioning. Are you aware of that, Mr. Raskin? I just need a clarification. You're aware that the court said they're not the right vehicle for this, right? So I'm a little confused why you're asking the question. Were you not aware of that? Right? You could basically end Raskin right there. But you have to do it by asking him for clarification because you need to put him on his heels.
Here's what Matt Gaetz got wrong. He entered Raskin's frame. He entered his frame. Raskin painted a box and then invited you, linguistically he painted a box and then invited Matt Gaetz to get into his box, which was a kill box. And Matt Gaetz walked right into the kill box. Well armed. Well armed, because Gaetz is really, really good at this stuff. But he walked into the kill box. Don't walk into the kill box. Never. Never. Don't enter his frame. You gotta break his frame. He offered a frame. You say, I need a clarification on that because there's an assumption that embedded in your question that I need to understand. Because my assumption wouldn't make your question make sense. But maybe you can explain to the public why the courts didn't think they were the right vehicle for this but you still do. Is there something that you know that all those judges don't know, Jamie Raskin? I mean, or Jeremy. There were what, 60 some judges who all think that they were not appropriate vehicles for this question, but you still think they were. I better explain that.
See where I'm going? Okay. How many of you think my answer would be better? Yo
Context —
u know, you can be brutal. You can be brutal if you think it doesn't — it's not even close, right? Now let me ask you another question. Except for the part where I would never run for president because, you know, I don't want them looking into my life and tearing me apart. There would be a suicide mission. I could be president because there is a skill set for this sort of stuff that I possess. Ma…
Next segment → →