Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive October 9, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

Well, if you watched the press conference today, you know that Sarah Sanders totally blew a chance to lock down Trump's reelection in 2020. And I mean that literally. Probably one of the biggest mistakes I have ever seen live. Now it's a mistake in the sense that it was a missed opportunity. And here's what I mean. The biggest problem for this president is the lingering accusations that he's a bi…

← Previous segment →

Now what should she have done? Well luckily I've got a whiteboard with two sides. And on this side, here's how you convince people that this is a hoax. People are going to say, my God, I saw it with my own eyes. I heard it with my own ears. It's not a hoax. It's what he actually said on television.

And then you say to them, well compare that to the hypothesis that instead of an extraordinary, mind-blowing, incredible, shockingly bad thing, maybe it was a completely ordinary thing. And that he was just talking about the statue controversy and said there are good people on both sides, which is completely consistent with everything he's ever said about that topic.

But if you want to believe in the extraordinary version that CNN is selling as the fine people hoax, you would also necessarily have to believe all of this. Let me run you through it. You would have to believe that a sitting president who knew what the topic was going to be — so this wasn't a surprise question. He watched the news like everybody else. And when he was asked about it, obviously he'd thought about it before he answered because it was already in the news. He knew what the news was.

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that a sitting president decided to throw down with the neo-Nazis after one of them had just killed somebody? Do you think that's even a little bit credible sounding? Right, we're not done yet, but just start there. That should be enough to dissuade any reasonable person from thinking that he was talking about the neo-Nazis, because nobody would do that under any circumstance.

Secondly, do we believe that he would publicly take sides against Ivanka, Jared, and his own grandchildren with them because they're all Jewish? Ivanka has converted and his grandchildren are born into it. Do we believe that he would do that? And if he did take sides with the neo-Nazis who were chanting anti-Semitic slogans — he didn't, but here's the fantasy version — do we believe that Israel didn't notice? Israel didn't notice that according to CNN the president of the United States threw down with the neo-Nazis who were chanting in public anti-Semitic slogans? Israel never noticed. Didn't bother him. Didn't need to condemn it or anything. They were just okay with it.

In fact this president's the most pro-Israel president Israel has ever known. I guess you would also have to believe that tens of millions of Trump supporters who were not the few racists saw this, or either they didn't see it. That somehow it's reported as news and fact, and it's one of the biggest headlines. It's one of the most repeated pieces of news in the last two years. But somehow tens of millions of Trump supporters either didn't notice, didn't hear the news, or were okay with it.

Now of course the racists themselves, if they believed it really happened, they'd be okay with it. But tens of millions of Trump supporters all looked at it and said, oh this is true. He's saying good things about white supremacists and neo-Nazis and I'm fine with it. That didn't happen. It's because those Trump supporters don't see it. They don't see it. That's because it doesn't exist.

You'd have to also believe, if you believe the CNN version of events, that he said there were fine people among the Nazis, that the very next day when he was asked to clarify he said clearly no, no, I'm not talking about those guys. I condemn them totally. And nobody doubts he said that. But would this be the one time he changed his opinion on a controversial thing? Is this a president who changes his opinion? He's not really the change-your-opinion kind of president.

If he said it the first time and meant to say it in public, I'm pretty sure he would have said it a second time. But he didn't. He clarified that of course that's not what he was saying. It was the ordinary interpretation.

If you believed that he praised fine people on quote both sides, you would also have to believe that in addition to praising neo-Nazis, which didn't happen, you would have to believe that he also praised Antifa, who were his sworn enemies, who wanted him deposed from office prematurely. Do you think this president praised Antifa for anything? Do you think that he said there were fine people in the group protesting to have him removed from office? Because you would have to believe that to believe that when he said they were fine people on both sides, he was talking about Antifa and the neo-Nazis as being the two sides.

And then more generally, you would have to believe the most extraordinary version of events when right in front of you there's an ordinary interpretation. And the ordinary interpretation is both sides of the statue issue, just like he has consistently said all along.

Context —

Now here's the fun part. Because CNN brought this up and they were obviously looking for some programming. They were generating news. I've told you before that the news business, they stopped reporting the news and now they're more in the business of manufacturing it. That press conference you watched right in front of your eyes, if you saw it, and if you saw the replay, you'll know you watched CN…

Next segment → →