Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2546 Segments
NewsReaction Politics as Persuasion

Back to episode — Episode 2546 CWSA 07/25/24

Context —

ed the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Technology is working. People streaming in. There's love everywhere in the air. Should we do a great show? Sure, I think you deserve it. Boy, I got to remind you. So I had, famously I talk about it too much, I had some food poisoning last week and followed by a week of stomach aches until my body chemistry recovered, which I did yesterday. And so yesterda…

← Previous segment →

time. As soon as my body was better, brain on point, everything's fine.

So I always think it's a mistake to imagine that your brain and your body are separate creatures. It's just your brain. Your body's part of your brain. If you treat it that way, you're going to get much better results. So do your exercise and your diet and get that right.

Well, apparently there's reports that NORAD intercepted Russian and Chinese bombers near Alaska yesterday. I don't worry about that. You know, maybe they were testing the air defenses. Maybe they're testing us politically. But they weren't going to attack. There's not really any chance that China is going to attack mainland United States because our president looks wonky, or Russia. So no, there's no real risk of a nuclear war breaking out because the president's in bad shape. I'm pretty sure that our adversaries now, well first of all that a war with the United States under any situation would be catastrophic for everybody. But they also know that if we look like we don't have a leader, that would change one minute after they attacked. It would take one minute for somebody to say, Biden, sit over there, and we'll do what we have to do. So no, we're not really in any danger. Long term, I mean you could imagine that if this were a long-term situation, yes. But six months? No. The adversary is going to wait it out for sure.

Well, Kamala did her first ad of 2024. And wokeness is reporting on X that lots of Pride flags and hardly any white men. And the only white man featured was Trump's mug shot and then a white guy maybe shown from the back. And that was it. All the faces were women. It was just women. And so I want you to look at it and you tell me if it's an anti-male ad. I think it is. I think there's nothing being hidden at this point. It's men against women. And you know the women who are on the right tend to like men, so they're basically on the same side. But on the left it's really just the women. And whoever Kamala picks for a vice president is going to have to put up with a lot of humiliation because she'll probably pick a man. I think she'll pick a man because it would be too on the nose to have two women running at the same time. It would be a little too obvious that it's women against the men. So they're going to have to pick a beta male of the people who have been suggested so far. Who is the most beta male? I saw that Mark Kelly. So I saw that Mark Kelly was one of the people suggested. But he seems to be a little bit alpha. Would you agree? I don't know anything about him but just based on resume and physical appearance and stuff. So he looks a little alpha. So I don't think you can pick an alpha male because that would be just disgusting to the women who run the Democrat party. So it can't be an alpha male. So you should eliminate anybody who looks like they could be an alpha male in a different context. That would just be the wrong fit.

Now some say what about Buttigieg. I think Buttigieg would be its own problem because he's not exactly killed it in any domain. And maybe he'd get the gay vote. But the gay vote's already Democrat. They don't need to get the gay vote, do they? They already have it. So I don't know what he would add. I don't know that he would be really highly likely to be a president after that. So it wouldn't be setting him up for the next election. So I don't know that they really have any good choices. We'll see. We'll see. Could be that they'll pick somebody that hasn't been spoken about yet. So it would have to be somebody who's probably not a woman, probably not LGBTQ, because I think the country is not ready. I'm ready. You're ready. I think most of us are ready. I mean ready is even the wrong word. We wouldn't see it as relevant to doing the job. But I don't know if it's electable the way the country is. So I don't think they would put somebody in they didn't think could really help. So who would it be? I feel like anybody they pick would give somebody a reason to not vote for them. But I can't imagine who they would add that would make Kamala more likely to get elected. So this will be really interesting. We'll see what they come up with.

All right. Netanyahu addressed Congress. Of course super political. And Biden wasn't there and Harris wasn't there and JD Vance wasn't there. But you know they have reason. They're trying to run for president and I don't think they need to run back because there's an allied country's leader in town. So I have no problem whatsoever that somebody had something better to do. But if you're looking for the highlights from that, Netanyahu said that the people who are the gays for Gaza are like, it's like saying that you're a chicken for KFC. Now apparently that got a lot of attention. And it was like an applause line. But you've all heard that a hundred times, right? Is there anybody here who had never heard somebody say that the gays for Hamas were kind of like chickens for KFC? You've all heard that, right?

So here's one of those interesting situations where it wasn't well written but he already knew it worked. So it was a cliche that maybe not everybody had heard yet. So it looked like it was a home run in terms of persuasion. And it got picked up and it was reported everywhere. So he probably made a dent. Probably made a dent. Only because conservatives have been saying this forever. They've been saying gays for Gaza is like chickens for KFC. I don't know who said it first. But maybe because it's a big line from now a big public event, maybe that penetrates. I would love to see if somebody who followed that news and who is a gay for Gaza, I'd love to see if they could kind of process that. It'd be fascinating.

Anyway, what else did he say? He said I have a message for these protesters. Because the event was protested in a big way. When the tyrant of Tehran who hangs gays from cranes and murders women for not covering their hair are appraising, promoting, and funding you, you have officially become Iran's useful idiots. Then there was a big applause for the line "useful idiots." And I said to myself again that's the most cliched thing you could ever say in public. There's somebody who's somebody's useful idiot. I mean on social media you just hear it literally every day. Oh you're the useful idiot for Russia. So amazingly it was the most cliche filled thing you've ever seen. But apparently they landed because not everybody hears all the same cliches. But Nancy Pelosi wasn't too happy about it. She said that Netanyahu's presentation in the house chamber today was quote by far the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honored with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States.

So I guess she is in favor of Biden's hostage peace plan now. I don't know what that is. I guess that's pause the fighting, trade the hostages, and then let Hamas reconstitute. Why is that even in a conversation? It's the weirdest thing. Like has anybody ever been in a conversation with let's say an Israeli who knew what they're talking about, let's say a government person, and say we think you should stop the fighting and then we could get those hostages back? Wouldn't the Israeli, whoever it was, say well you realize what you're promoting is rebuilding the situation that caused all the problems, which is Hamas in charge next to us and having access to things and money? What would they say to that? Would they say oh don't worry because Hamas is only angry because you mistreated them. So the moment you stop mistreating them things should be fine and peace will break out and then you can live in one big country or two, whichever way you're going, and everybody will be fine. Does anybody believe that?

Yeah, I saw some people on the street interviews of Palestinians over in the West Bank and it seemed to me that every one of them was in favor of October 7th and thought that killing Jews was totally appropriate and that they should all die. How in the world do you reconstitute that and say here's your country back, here's your city, hope we didn't break anything, we'll fund you to rebuild. Israel is doing literally the only thing it can do. So to imagine that there are two paths, it's like oh you didn't pick the right path. There's only one path. The only one path is to suppress their enemies as hard as possible for as long as possible. What happens in the long run is not looking good. But what else are you going to do?

Thomas Massie skipped it. He said he didn't want to be part of political theater. And he says Netanyahu being here is to bolster his political standing in Israel to quell international opposition to the war. Doesn't want to be a prop. I respect that. I have to admit he's completely right that it was a theatrical event for brainwashing and propaganda. But the government is mostly a brainwashing operation and propaganda operation. So most of what we do are that. Yeah, if he wants to call it out as a theater that it is, I think that's fair. He will of course be called anti-semitic and AIPAC will be after him, etc.

All right. So Biden addressed the country. And apparently some people like me were thinking that if it were real and it were live it would be late. Meaning that if I turned on the TV right at five o'clock it's very unlikely that I would see Biden talking. So I waited until I don't know 17 minutes after and I turned it on. I'm like wait a minute it already happened. How's that possible? And then some other smarter people took a closeup look at his watch and apparently his watch had a different time than the time it started. Meaning it was recorded. Now you didn't have to look at his watch to suspect it was recorded because he was speaking so haltingly and so slurring and so poorly and his energy was so low and he looked like he might die while he was talking. Frankly he was in bad, bad shape. It would be hard to imagine that he did that in one take, first take. Very hard to imagine. So it would have been absurd for them to do that live. It would have been absurd. It would have been honestly it would be like some kind of weird malfeasance or fiduciary responsibility. It would have been super irrational and dumb to do that live. So at least they played it smart.

You know I can't get too excited about anything that happened in his speech because he's no longer terribly relevant. But a few things he said were he didn't give a reason for why he quit except for unity over personal ambition. So he took a few cuts at Trump. And he wants to save the democracy, which of course is what they tell the brainwashed people who think their democracy is at risk.

Let's check on the democracy since the Democrats are quite concerned about democracy. Let's do a little audit from the headlines to see if there's anything about the democracy that's qu

Context —

estionable. Well there's the O'Keefe Media Group. James O'Keefe is looking into this Democrat funding group called ActBlue. And you're probably surprised at how much money suddenly flowed into Kamala Harris as soon as she became the obvious candidate. Who's going to be the wealthy candidate? And apparently ActBlue is collecting thousands of contributions from like one person. Not one person but th…

Next segment → →