move this even if you wanted to. And so it's quid pro quo? Well, get over it. Get over it is sort of the summary after you've said yeah that's just the way the world works. You know, thanks for waking up and being an adult and noticing that everything is quid pro quo even if you don't say it. Yeah, yeah, welcome to the adult world. Get over it. It's pretty good. It's funny. It probably raises money.

I have to admit the moment I saw it I wanted it. As soon as I saw that t-shirt I was like I kind of want that. I'm not gonna wear it 'cause I don't want to get punched in public, it's too dangerous, but I wanted it. So that's pretty good. It's not often I see a t-shirt where I say yeah I kind of want that.

All right, I would like to talk about Loserthink. It's a little thing which I have to show you the cover of the book. Hold on, don't go anywhere. Don't go anywhere. Stay with me. You didn't go anywhere, did you? All right. Now I want to give you three examples of loser think, which is a concept out of my new book which you can pre-order now. The best book I've ever written, probably the best thing you'll ever read in your entire life. Don't let other people read this before you do. You're just gonna be, well you'll be unarmed. You'll be going into debates without knowing how to do it right.

All right. One of the concepts that I talk about here and the idea behind Loserthink is that if you have exposure to different fields you can see around corners and you can see situations more clearly. So for example if you had experience let's say as a lawyer and then you also knew economics, let's say you also knew psychology, you'd be way ahead of somebody who only knew one of those things. And in Loserthink I don't teach you everything that those fields would teach you, just the important concepts. I'll give you some clear examples of this. I've got three examples of people who either exhibited loser think or did not.

Let's take number one, the Doral decision. The decision to hold the G7 at the Doral Country Club. What do people who have only, let's say their only filter is government or reporting, let's say they know the news, they know history and they're good at reporting and government stuff, and then they see this story about the president chose his own property, Doral Country Club, for the G7. What would they naturally think about that? They'd say that's a problem, right? If that was your experience, if you knew journalism, government and history and that was your main focus and you looked at that, you'd say this is terrible. This is terrible. It looks like it's just an inside job. He's looking to profit from it. And sure he said we'll do it at cost but you're still saying to yourself yeah but it brings attention to his property, right?

Now what if you had an additional skill? Let's say your skill stack included journalism and the media, a little bit about government, a little bit about psychology, history, etc. But suppose you also understood negotiating. Yeah, suppose you understood persuasion, which in negotiating are sort of the same general area. If you do, and I do, and the president does, you would say that this is the most brilliant thing you've ever seen in your life. Well I'm exaggerating a little bit but you know I do that sometimes. Here's the thing: when you're negotiating you always want the home court advantage. You want to be somewhere where you are most comfortable, your own property, and you want the other people to be impressed by your surroundings. You want something about you, you know, yourself, your personality but also your property to literally surround them and envelop them and become part of their world. You can't set the table better than this.

So much so I would say that every time that a president of our country hosts someone in this country they should always take the home field advantage. Let me ask you this question: would it be better for the President of the United States to meet another world leader at a hotel ballroom or in the Oval Office? You see it now, right? If you meet with the President of the United States in the Oval Office the president has a huge advantage in this situation because you're in the Oval Office. You're literally surrounded by that president's power and prestige. That makes a big difference. If you meet them in a restaurant and have lunch, well then the table is being set by just randomness. Yes you're just somewhere else. You have no advantage in that situation.

So that's my first example of loser think. Now remember, loser think doesn't mean that the people who are doing it are losers. Nothing like that. I'm saying that as a method of understanding your world it takes you down the unproductive path. It's a losing path. It's better to increase your talent stack so you can see around corners a little bit better. All right. So what was missing for the Doral story was an understanding of negotiating. It is a magnificently correct decision. The decision to do it at Doral isn't just pretty good. It isn't just now he can get away with it. It's magnificent. It's one of the best, smartest, cleanest wins you've ever seen, reported by people who don't have a full understanding of the world because they've got a blank spot there and the negotiating part of their brain map can't see it. This is visible to them.

All right, here's another one. So Elizabeth Warren plans to fundamentally change the system and she uses words like that, where she's going to fundamentally change our economic system. If you did not have a degree in economics, as I do, I've got a degree in economics and I've got an MBA from business school, so I have that part of my mental map is largely filled in. So when Elizabeth Warren says something like this, I want to fundamentally change the system, people who have my background, whether they say it in these words or not, are having the following thought: when is a good time to make a radical change to your system? Is a good time to do it when it's working great or when it's not working great?

Now people say hey Scott you said to me that it was actually a really good time to do a trade war with China because you said that our economy is strong. That's a good time to take a risk because your economy is so strong that if that goes wrong you're still okay because the economy started so strong. That is correct. The trade war is a change within the system. So the system didn't change at all. We're just tweaking one variable within the system. That's normal business. Now the China trade war is bigger than a normal variable but it's still within the system. No matter what we do with China the system will still be the system.

What Warren wants to do is take the system, throw it away and replace it with something we have not tried in this country in quite the way she wants to do it. That is a radical and unpredictable change which is way beyond the level of risk that anybody who had a degree in economics would accept. There's almost nobody who, if they were being honest, let's say you know in the political sense you will of course find people who will take any position on anything right because it's politics, but even somebody who pretended to disagree with what I'm saying, if I could take them privately and say look nobody will ever hear what you're gonna say to me, this is just between us, I swear, trust me, it's just us, nobody else will hear your opinion, do you think it's a good idea with your degree in economics to change the entire system when everyone agrees the system has never worked as well as it's working today? Yeah, 3.5 percent unemployment. I mean really that's just crazy. And you don't change your whole economy when it's the best it's ever been ever. It's just the dumbest thing in the world.

Now let's say that you had no experience in economics and no experience in anything else in which you would do risk management decisions. Let's say you were a journalist. Let's say you had a degree in history. Let's say you have a degree in anthropology. In which of those domains would you have learned risk management? None, right? Risk management wouldn't be part of what you do. But let's say you were a doctor. Let's say you were an emergency room doctor or even the most extreme case a battlefield doctor. You know you work in a war zone. Well in those cases you're doing risk management decisions all the time. You know, do I work on this patient? This one might die but this one's 85, patient's 20. So you're doing all these risk management decisions that might get you to the point where you would recognize that Warren's plan is completely the worst risk management decision you could ever make. It's the worst.

Now compare that with Julian Castro who was asked about UBI during the last debate. What do you remember what Julian's response was? He just gave a sort of a dismissive one sentence and he said well you know that might be worth a pilot, a little test program, a pilot program. Did you catch that? It was one of the smartest things said at the debate and it was just, he just mumbled it in one sentence because well you know maybe do a pilot program on that. Julian Castro showed you had to do it. No I don't know what his background is. Was this able, I don't know what Julian Castro's background is but maybe somebody can tell me in the comments while I'm doing this. But based on that comment, the fact that Julian said let's do a pilot program, what does that tell you about Julian Castro? It tells you he understands risk management. That's exactly what you do.

What if Elizabeth Warren had been saying look I know this is a radical thing we can't do this all at once but I'm going to pick out this part of the economy. I'm just gonna work on this one thing. Let's do a pilot. Let's try a small, let's try it in one state. Let's see what we can learn and then we'll decide later if we want to do it bigger. If Elizabeth Warren had said something like that, well maybe she wouldn't be getting as much attention as she is because that's a little bit too normal. Being extreme gets you a little more attention. But I would certainly say to myself oh there's a leader I could trust because they understand risk management.

All right, here's another example of loser think and this is a positive example. I was watching, meaning I'm gonna give somebody a compliment here. So I was watching Tucker Carlson last night and he does a little game show thing I think on Fridays or something in which he has other hosts or personalities from Fox News compete in a little trivia contest. And one of the questions was the name of Tiger Woods' upcoming autobiography. And Gregg Jarrett was competing against, I think it was Jillian Turner. I'm sorry yes it was Jillian Turner. And neither of them knew the answer but it was multiple choice. So the, neither the competitors had heard of the name of the book but there were four choices and Gregg Jarrett looked at the four choices, rang in and said the answer is "Back." One word, just "Back."

And he said I don't know what the answer is but like the other three titles are hackneyed, which is sort of a writer's term. Nobody, writers never use that word. And you know he was the best-selling author. He's got a new book that's a best-seller right now. Last book best-seller. So Gregg Jarrett I believe has a legal background. He has a media background. He knows that all right. You so he noticed the publishing world so he knows how words work, right? He's an attorney. He's a TV personality and he's an author. So when he looked at the list the word "back" jumped out as obviously the title that anybody would have chosen under that situation because "back" referred to Tiger Woods coming back but also he had a problem with his back. And also a one-word title is very strong. If you could make a title with one word, one word. Loserthink. It's not an accident that my titles are good if I do say so myself. It's because I work with professionals who really know how to put titles on books, right? It's not like I come up with one title and everybody says yes. It's a whole process. A lot of people get involved. In fact you know the subtitle is different from the title. The people involved in that, I mean it's a whole process to come up with a title.

Jillian Turner as far as I know I'm not aware of her having a best-selling book, probably didn't have experience in getting a book published and picking a title. Gregg Jarrett had an extra skill. He is a best-selling author. He has had, I know because best-selling authors all have this conversation, long conversations with editors and publishers about what the title will be. So when he looked at the list he and I said the same thing at the same time because I did not know the title of Tiger Woods' book but as soon as I saw the list I said oh it's obviously "Back." No question about it. In my opinion it was clear as day that out of that multiple choice the answer was going to be "Back." And then Gregg Jarrett speaks almost like it's coming out of my mouth. Well the top three are hackneyed and "Back" fits a couple of different ways. It's clever. That's the answer.

All right, so that's my point. Gregg Jarrett having a deeper talent stack that happened to be just perfect to this question because he knew publishing, it shows you the power of having an extra talent. Now it didn't have to be the most experienced publishing person in the world. You just had to have a little exposure to picking titles and it would have been obvious to you which of those choices jumped out.

All right, enough about that. More about the funny day. So let's talk about Hillary Clinton saying that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset. I don't know where to start. This is some of the funniest news ever. Let's start with Don Lemon. I turned on the radio as I was driving yesterday and I heard Don Lemon say this and I've been laughing to myself for hours. He said that he thinks maybe Hillary Clinton is playing 3D chess. Pause. Pause for effect. Let that sink in. Don Lemon says he thinks Hillary Clinton is playing 3D chess by accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset because what she's doing is making it more difficult for Tulsi to mount a third party run by making Tulsi go on record as saying she doesn't plan to do that.

Oh you had to hear it live to hear him say it and I felt as though I could hear him. It was almost like he was talking and knowing it was ridiculous at the same time because nobody has been rougher on Trump supporters for that 3D chess and 4D chess analogy because we're always saying that the president is thinking ahead. In fact I did it today talking about Doral. I said the president is ahead of everybody because he noticed that it's important to have it at his space. That just makes a difference. So hearing Don Lemon resort to the 3D chess analogy for something which is clearly not 3D chess, I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton was not trying to prevent Tulsi from a third run. And guess what, if she had been trying to prevent it it wouldn't have made any difference.

Do you think Tulsi Gabbard would have said you know I was really planning to do a third party run but then Hillary said something that one time? That's not gonna change anything. If Tulsi Gabbard planned on a third party run she would have a third party run. There's nothing that Hillary's gonna say that's gonna change it. This is the most ridiculous comment from somebody who I think had an embarrassing day. Here's why it was embarrassing. Imagine if you had been fighting to get Hillary elected for however many years. Imagine too that you were sorry that she hadn't been elected for the three years that Trump's been there. Would you say to yourself after hearing Hillary Clinton go full conspiracy theory and blaming Tulsi Gabbard and also Jill Stein of being Russian assets, after you heard that, if you were a Clinton supporter, a Hillary supporter right up to that day and then you heard that news, what did you say to yourself? How did you process that?

Did you say to yourself well I've been right all along as Hillary Clinton is on the ball for a mental game or her mental stability totally where I wanted to be and it looks like she's playing 3