Episode 122 - Civil War, Walkaway, The Weed Poison Pill, Mike Lee, Eliminating ICE

Date: 2018-06-29 | Duration: 50:31

Topics

Schumer’s weed decriminalization bill…brilliantly evil by design #Walkaway originator realized Liberals are being fear manipulated MSM fear mongering creating a mental health issue for millions Rebranding ICE…as NICE Rowe v Wade, states banning abortion What defines a man or a woman, genitalia or chemistry? Mike Lee, Supreme risky Court nominee for free speech “Civil war” possibility

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

## Transcript

[0:05]

Pom pom pom pom pom pom pom. Hey everybody, come on in here. It's a crazy, crazy world, but there's one thing you can always count on. There's one thing that always goes right, one part of your day that's as close to perfect as you could possibly get, and you're upon that moment right now. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, certainly one of the greatest pleasures in the universe. And if you have your mug, your vessel, your cup, it's time for the simultaneous sip. Join me. Wow, that's good coffee.

[1:05]

I didn't play my new theme song in part because I haven't asked for permission to use it that way. Playing it here once seemed fair, and I'll ask its creator, Hira the Dawn, if he minds if I play that more than once. We'll see, but it's his song, so I'll let him decide that. 

Let's talk about a few things. I had tweeted hastily—I now realize I was hasty in my tweeting—about Chuck Schumer's marijuana legalization bill. I don't know the details of it, but it's a bill to get the federal government out of the business of weed enforcement. I thought to myself, "Well, that's great. Look at the Democrats." The reason I tweeted it is I try as much as possible to be as close to objective

[2:07]

as possible about this stuff as I can. I thought, I don't care who does it, Democrats or Republicans, this is just a good thing to do. So I retweeted it, and then I found out what was in it. Yeah, decriminalize is the better word; somebody is informing me it is a bill to decriminalize as opposed to making it legal, because the states still have a say. 

The bill has a poison pill in it. When I saw it, I just couldn't stop laughing because, again, I'm going to try to be objective. When I talk about persuasion, I'm not talking about the ethics involved in it every time, but just assume that I also have an ethical standard just like everybody else. If I don't mention it, don't assume it doesn't exist; sometimes I'm just talking about the tools. In this case, Schumer's bill is so brilliant in its evil,

[3:10]

you know, it's like diabolically clever that I just have to call it out for how clever it is. First of all, there's no chance that it will get passed because it has something called a poison pill. The usual use of the word poison pill is if a company doesn't want to get taken over by another company, they pass a law or rule within the company that—I'll just give an example—it might say if we're ever the subject of a takeover, every employee gets a ten thousand dollar bonus. Then you can't take them over because the moment you take them over, the company would give all this money away to its employees so that you wouldn't have purchased anything. That's called a poison pill. What Schumer did was he put a poison pill in the weed decriminalization bill and it looks like this: it's a tax. They would tax weed. 

[4:12]

Republicans are not going to vote for a tax. They're just not going to vote for a tax, no matter how much they like the weed part of the bill. It's got this little poison pill of a tax, so they would tax weed. Here's the clever part: the tax of the weed would go specifically to minority and women businesses in the cannabis industry. Those are the two parts of the weed bill that are completely poison pills. The cleverness of it is that the Republicans are either going to have to vote for a tax—ouch, they don't want to do that because they're almost certainly going to look for a deal where they could decriminalize weed without a tax—but the public will not be in on the details. They'll just say, "Those 

[5:13]

damn Republicans, they voted against weed. They can't do anything right." Schumer's play is so evil but clever at the same time that I can't not appreciate the cleverness, even though it's pure evil. It's a bill that's designed to fail for political reasons, and once you see it, it's funny. Let's hope that we can get a real bill that has a chance of getting passed, and that would be awesome. 

Now let's go to our next topic. I had not been paying much attention to the quote "walk away" movement. You're all familiar with hashtag #Walkaway. I guess it was started, or at least popularized, by Brandon Straka. I understand he's a 

[6:15]

gay man who lives in New York City, and he made a video saying—and the gay man part is important to this story because it's political—doing a video saying he was walking away from the Democratic Party. Now people have been asking me, "Scott, talk about this, write about this walk away thing." And I said to myself, "Yeah, that's not anything." It's a little news story because it's sort of a "Man Bites Dog"—it's the opposite of what you expected in your partisan politics, so it's interesting. But the first thing I thought was it's not going to be a thing; it's not going to grow. Now it has picked up some volume. I guess the video has been looked at five million times, which doesn't tell you anything because the five million are mostly Republicans already. Who knows how many Democrats are actually 

[7:17]

looking at it. So, yes, it is a thing and there are real people who are walking away, but there are probably people on the other side walking away for different reasons. It's hard to know if this will actually put a dent in the universe, but I'll tell you why I'm talking about it. 

I read a little bit about the thinking behind it and I was wondering what policy it is in particular. My assumption, which was incorrect, was that maybe it's policy-related, or maybe they just prefer the Republican policies after all, or maybe they're just saying that the President is being effective in a general way. That's what I thought before I read the details. Oh, my viewers, this is way more interesting than that. I don't know if you quite caught it, but let me put it in context. 

[8:17]

I like to talk about the persuasion filter. It's a way of looking at the world as if everything is persuasion, and the facts and reason are things we pretend we care about but sort of don't. I've also said that President Trump—and I said this two years ago—would punch a hole in the universe or put a tear in the universe so that you can look through the hole and see reality for the first time. We all walk around in this little bubble movie of our own making, and I said he's going to let you see reality, at least a little bit of it. Not all of it, because we're not able, but he would put a hole in your current bubble so you could just peek out and see what's on the other side and you'd say, "Holy crap, I'm in a bubble." Really, the most you're going to get out of this is the knowledge certain that 

[9:20]

you've been living in a bubble of truth that you created in your own head as opposed to truth that exists in the universe. Apparently that's what happened to Brandon Straka. 

Here's how he describes his thinking behind the walk away. Was it about policy? Here's what it was about: he realized that the Democrats were using fear to manipulate people. That's a big deal. That's a big deal. That's peeking through the hole in the universe. It wasn't about policies; it wasn't about which leader is a little more effective; wasn't about who cares about you; wasn't about who's got the best plans for the future. He realized that one side was manipulating them with fear and that 

[10:23]

that's all that was going on. Well, that's not all that's going on, but that was the big picture. The big picture was persuasion that was fear-based, and the fear wasn't real. Now you're saying to yourself, "Trump uses fear to manipulate you too." Here's the difference: the fear that Trump uses—and he does use fear to manipulate—he's talking about fear of people outside the country in many cases who have actually killed lots of people, like ISIS and terrorists. When he's tough on the border, he's pointing to MS-13, who are real people. MS-13 actually kills people. Apparently we're only just learning that although immigrants as a group have an unusually low crime rate—

[11:27]

yeah, immigrants are a very pro-immigrant, low crime rate, great addition to the country. But among the class of illegal ones who are breaking the law to get in, it turns out that the rate of murder and violent crime is far higher than their percentage in the population. So they are literally a high crime group, just the illegals. Immigrants in general: awesome people contributing to the country, lower crime than normal, lower crime than average. Trump's fear is based on people who really exist and really are hurting people. Those are things you actually should be worried about. You could argue that he's scared everybody with North Korea, but that's a real fear and you got a pretty good result there, or at least it seems to have you in the right direction. 

[12:29]

But if you look at the Democrats' version of fear, their fear is of your fellow citizen. Is that a sexist term? Can you say that anymore? Can you say your "fellow citizen"? Is that sexist? What's the generic way? Your other citizens? Your teammates? Your country people? Comrade citizens, somebody says. Notice the huge difference there. Brandon Straka has realized that the Democrats are creating fear of each other. Trump is creating fear almost entirely—I can't think of an example otherwise—of people who are outside our borders who are literally armed and dangerous, people with actual guns and weapons who are actually using them. That's a little 

[13:29]

bit different. There's one thing you should be afraid of and there's one thing that's largely invented. Enough time has now passed so that any reasonable citizen can see that the things that people said about Trump were clearly untrue. There was a fear that he would tank the economy—not true. There was a fear that he would blow up the world with nuclear weapons and never get anywhere with North Korea because he was a crazy man, he's crazier than Kim Jong Un—not true. You know what? It wasn't even true that Kim Jong Un is crazy in any way that matters for negotiating. What else is there? There was a fear that he would round up gay people and put them in camps—obviously not true. 

[14:31]

Anyway, so it's becoming more and more clear to the people on the left that they've been taken by their own side. Their own side is using fear of their own country people. I don't want to say "countrymen"—you realize how sexist all of our old terms are. But that is a powerful thought. If this walk away thing had been based on, "Oh, I think I've changed my mind and I like the Republican policies better," I'd say to myself, "That's not much." A few people change parties because the policy is new; no big deal. But when people are talking about changing parties because they realized that they're being taken, that they're just being manipulated by fear and that they're—

[15:32]

let me put this in perspective. Imagine, if you will, that all of the coverage of this President had been just straight objective coverage; that nobody ever gave an opinion of what they thought he would do or what they thought he was thinking. What if the only coverage you'd seen had been coverage of Trump as a person who does stuff and you just observe what he does, compared to maybe what he promised, and say, "Yeah, he's doing the things that he got elected for," etc. Here's what people think of it; here's what they don't. But if the news had not become participants in the political process, had they not moved from an observer watchdog role to actual participants trying to 

[16:34]

move the needle, would the left be afraid of this President? A little, maybe, just because it's a big country and there are a lot of different opinions and a lot of different individuals, but probably nothing like we're seeing. I would argue that close to a hundred percent of the fear that people have about this President is based on non-objective coverage. Would you say that's true? Would you agree with me that almost a hundred percent of the fear—I'm talking about the irrational fear, the thing that makes people vomit and shake because that's what people are experiencing—is from that? Joke all you will about the left howling at the moon and stuff like that, but this is a real medical problem. They've lived for 18 months in total fear. 

[17:36]

Where's that fear coming from? Well, they've been manipulated into believing it's coming from the President, that it's because of the things he's doing, the things he's thinking—which is crazy because they don't know what he thinks—and the things that in their imagination he might do. Those things all come from the press, in the opinion part of the press mostly. That's not coming from the President. What has the President said recently that would scare a citizen of the United States? Now, I do think there's a role of the press, and that public opinion and everything has changed this President's policy preferences. For example, when he was campaigning, he was talking about deporting 14 million people who are here undocumented but otherwise good citizens. Of course he's not doing that, and it doesn't look like there's any real 

[18:37]

chance of that happening. So there are some big things where we see the public pretty much immediately caused this President to change opinions. Take the children in cages, for example. The public had its say, and he changed. Now somebody is saying, "What about the repeal of Roe v. Wade?" I'll talk about that in a minute. 

My point is that this Brandon Straka, what he's doing is far more important than I imagined when I was just reading the headline about it and didn't read the detail. Once you see his reason—that he realized that Democrats are manipulating people into this permanent, unhealthy, very physically and mentally 

[19:38]

unhealthy state. The Democrats, for their political benefit, have caused the entire left to be in physical and mental distress for two years. Does policy matter to you if you realize that your own team has made you deeply unhealthy for two years intentionally for their own gain? Let me ask you this: if you're on the left, 

[20:40]

do you believe that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are as afraid for the future as they have made you feel? Let that just hang there for a minute. If you're a Democrat, do you think that Schumer and Pelosi are as afraid about what might happen with this President, with the country, as they have made you, the voter, feel? Not a chance. Not even a slight chance. You know what? You could tell just by looking at them. Have you ever seen an actual anti-Trumper, like a regular citizen who has fear of the future for the country because of the President? Have you watched them? This is no joke. Their fear is physical. They are physically shaking. 

[21:45]

You can see it in their eyes; there is a deep real fear. Who put that there? Their own people. Their own leaders. Do those leaders share that fear? Not a chance. I base that just looking at them, because when you look at a citizen talking about it, you can see the fear. It's not that hard to—somebody said mind-reading. By the way, when you accuse me of mind-reading, because that's one of the things I say about other people, thank you. That's exactly what you should be thinking. If that's your filter of this, you're way ahead and you should stay honest on that. If you see me doing it, call it out like you just did, and then I'll correct if possible. What I'm basing this on is watching people physically react to fear. You see a physical 

[22:48]

reaction to fear in the citizens that you don't see among the professionals. If they had a real fear, they'd be shaken, they'd be vomiting, but you're not seeing it. 

So there's that. Let's talk about a few other things in no particular order. We're seeing some calls to eliminate ICE. You saw what’s-her-name who just won in New York, the primary—Ocasio-Cortez. It’s going to take me a while to learn her name, but now Kirsten Gillibrand or whatever—Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. So, now there’s actually a sitting Democrat who’s also said, "Yeah, we should get rid of ICE." But let me explain to you 

[23:51]

what "get rid of ICE" means. It means change the name. Those of you who have ever worked in a company, you know how this works. "We've certainly got to get rid of the marketing department! We'll eliminate the marketing department by changing its name to another thing." As long as you have the function of ICE—and I don't think anybody has said that we should let people come in and stay once they get through the border. "Hey, they've made it across the border, which we don't have. They made it across the wall that doesn't exist. I guess it's just fair to let them stay." Nobody's really saying that. So when they say "eliminate ICE," what the hell does that mean? Change ICE to NICE? Oh my god, that's so funny. And do you know why that would be easy? Because the 'N' stands for National. What's the rest of ICE stand for? Immigration—can 

[24:53]

somebody tell me? Immigration Customs Enforcement? Is that it? So why couldn't it be National Immigration Customs Enforcement? Why can't ICE be NICE? It would be hilarious. I'm not suggesting this, but it would just be hilarious if Trump changed the name of ICE to NICE so that when the Democrats try to eliminate it, they're eliminating NICE. Because if you eliminate ICE, well, everybody wants to eliminate ice. Where's ice good except in your drink? You don't want ice on your jet; you don't want ice on your roads; you don't want ice on your windshield. But NICE? Well, we 

[25:58]

like NICE. We like NICE everywhere. 

I don't think that will happen, but it would be hilarious. Now looking at some other things: Roe v. Wade. Let's talk about that. How many of you know what the polls are in terms of abortion rights, a right to choose, whatever you want to call it? I'll just do a poll; don't look it up, just answer from the top of your head. Which one do you think is more popular in this country: abortion rights or banning abortion? 

[27:07]

I think your comments are a little bit behind because so many people are talking about ICE and NICE. But my point was that I'm not sure people even know what the majority opinion is. Let me make a larger point that I've made before, and every time I make this point you can see it applying to a new category. My point is that we used to elect people to be in the government, the government went and made decisions and then sort of told the people what decisions they made, and then we decided whether to re-elect those people or not. That's sort of the original political system. Then social media happened. Social media didn't exist when the Constitution was written. Does anybody believe that the Constitution would be exactly the same if Thomas Jefferson was 

[28:09]

on the internet? If Thomas Jefferson had the internet and understood the internet as part of the fabric of culture, he might've added a few things, might have adjusted the Constitution to allow for that. We went from a point where the people's opinion took a long time to sort of bubble up and become powerful and maybe have some impact on the elected official. There was this very indirect kind of connection between the public and then what happened; they influenced it, but it was sort of a vague, messy process. Today, I would say the public opinion crystallizes so quickly. You saw it happen with the issue of the children in cages; instantly the public crystallized on an opinion that was opposite the government's, and the government just bent. 

[29:11]

The government just immediately bent. It's like, "All right, you got it." Now, actually physically doing this is nearly impossible because there are not enough resources in the short term to do everything we need with immigration and take care of the families the way everybody would like it to be done, but we're in a world where the public rules now. This new world is not the world in which Roe v. Wade was passed. Roe v. Wade was passed in the old world where the government and the courts were sort of in charge. Today, even if the courts kicked Roe v. Wade back to the states—Jeffrey Toobin says twenty states would immediately ban abortion, and that might be true. That might actually be true. And those twenty states would immediately hear from the 

[30:12]

corporate entities that do business there, and the penalty would be pretty big. We may need a few states in which abortion is illegal and maybe people want to go live there, but who would want to move into a state where abortion is illegal because it reduces your own rights? The people who are against abortion weren't planning to have one no matter where they were, so they don't have a reason to move there. Let me put it in a clearer way: if a state bans abortion and they can get away with it because of some change in the Supreme Court, there will be no reason to move into it but lots of reasons to move out of that state—both for individuals, especially young people, which would be the death of 

[31:14]

your state. If your young people move away, that's sort of the death of your state. If a state creates a reason for people to leave, both corporations and individuals, and that creates no reason to move in—because nobody moves to the state just to have abortion banned—it just wouldn't make any sense. It would be sort of a death sentence to those states. 

I'll make a prediction that you can hold me to: if we get to the point—and that's the big if—that Roe v. Wade is weakened by the court, it's going to take a while. There probably will be states that pass anti-abortion laws. My theory is that it won't be twenty, because all twenty won't be able to get away with it in the first place; 

[32:15]

their own voters won't let them get to it. The few states that pass it will be shunned by businesses, tourists, corporations, etc., to the degree that it would be a self-kill shot. It's possible that those politicians who passed those laws would be swept from office in the next election because what motivates people more than this issue? Nothing. I think any big state that changes their situation with abortion laws is going to be in trouble. 

All right, that's enough of that. I'm seeing this trend that I didn't know if 

[33:16]

I wanted to talk about or not. Sometimes there's something that you think everybody else is thinking, but you don't want to say it; you don't want to be the first one to say it. It seems to me that the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, are having this weird gender situation where the left seems to be dominated by female themes or preferences, and the Republican side is being dominated by sort of a male-centric view, and women who like living in a world of a certain kind of men and a certain kind of situation. There's like this real difference. 

[34:18]

I don't know how to ignore it anymore. Let me put it this way to make this less horrible: in our history, when people started talking about, "Hey, gender is not just A or B, people are not just men or women, and maybe the brains of LGBTQ people are a little different and they're actually born in a unique situation that is not ambiguously one way or the other in our binary thinking," I used to reject that. Like everybody else, when it was early thinking, you just said there are always outliers but it's basically men and women. I have now completely changed my 

[35:19]

thinking. My current thinking has evolved to this: there's this big continuum of largely, I would say, chemistry. This seems to be more important than your actual physical junk. Your physical junk is less important to who you are, male or female, than your chemistry. We can see that—let's say, for example, you had a terrible accident, you're a man and you lost your stuff. Let's say you're in an accident and your genitals were destroyed in the accident but you otherwise lived. Everybody would still call you a man, right? Your actual genitalia wouldn't be the defining element. Here's how I see the world at the moment: there are definitely people who are almost entirely female in 

[36:22]

all the chemical ways, and there are people who are almost entirely male in a very high-testosterone way, but the overlap is extreme. This vast middle zone is where you can have a man who is at least chemically similar to a woman and you could have a woman who is at least chemically more similar to a man. People are sort of all over the place on this. Dr. Peterson disagrees; I think that might be one of the things that we disagree on. So it comes down to this: what is it that defines whether you're a man or woman? Some would say your genitalia—I think that's simplistic. Some would say your DNA—I would say the DNA is just one of the drivers of your chemistry. I think your 

[37:23]

chemistry is probably the thing that makes you think the way you think and makes you feel the way you feel. That's a more productive way to look at the world, as this vast range of different chemistry. Some of it has male genitalia and some has female. Somebody says human sexuality is behavior—well, your chemistry is going to drive your behavior whether you like it or not. You could put somebody in handcuffs and stop them from acting on their chemistry, but short of that, chemistry wins. Somebody says there were no gays among hunter-gatherers—there's not even a slight chance that's true. Not the slightest chance. 

[38:24]

Let's just say that there seems to be a chemistry difference between the Democrat Party and the Republicans. Would you say that's true? By the way, this is all speculation. Before anybody says that I'm anti-science, let me just say that this is a hypothesis based on observation. There's no science that I would be aware of, but it's an observation. It does seem to me that—well, let me put it another way—the men in the Democrat Party largely are submissive to the women. That is to say, if a man and a woman ran for president on the Democrat side, I think the woman would have a huge advantage. There are lots of Republican men who would vote for women 

[39:26]

far more than there are Republican women who would vote for men. Is that true? I think that's true. On the Republican side, probably there's less caring about gender just in general because, as I've said before, when the name Nikki Haley comes out among the Republicans, people say, "Heck yeah, she's our next president after Trump." On the Republican side, I see that it probably doesn't make as much difference. 

Let's talk about one more point. When we're talking about the Supreme Court nominees, the name Senator Mike Lee keeps coming up and I'm not sure why, because apparently he was not on the original list of potential Supreme Court judges that Trump had. But 

[40:28]

for some reason he keeps making the shortlist in the press. I don't know what they know that we don't. I saw a video of him—I tweeted this yesterday—in which he was being interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and he did not seem to be willing to do anything about the big tech companies' alleged or actual discrimination against conservative free speech. Instead, he said he would leave that to the market because you could always use a different search engine than Google. No you can't. No you can't. Here's why you can't use a different search engine than Google: Google is not just a product; they are a mind control technology. Google controls our minds. They're so sticky. 

[41:30]

If you've already got your Gmail and you've got your Google Wallet, you've got your Android phone—once you're in that architecture, you're so stuck in there and it's so hard to get out that for all practical purposes the big tech companies are virtual monopolies. Maybe not in the technical sense, but they're virtual monopolies because they've learned how to manipulate thought in a way that prior corporations had never done. They're just better at it. Probably in the old days it didn't make too much difference as long as there was an alternative. You could say, "As long as an alternative exists, I can go to DuckDuckGo and I can go to Bing and I can do a search," so it's not really a thing. But today the big companies are so good at mental manipulation and creating addiction and controlling your mind that getting away from these 

[42:32]

ecosystems that you get sucked into is not really the choice it used to be. It's a choice on some legal level, but not on a practical level. On the practical level, you just can't change. There will always be some of you who DuckDuckGo your way, and you could imagine that would get bigger, etc. But in a realistic way, these big companies have a control over us, and I'd be real worried about a Senator Mike Lee who likes the big corporations more than he likes freedom of speech in this case. That would be a pretty risky Supreme Court choice, but I don't think it'll happen, actually. 

I think those were my main points today. You may have conspicuously noticed that there's a story in the 

[43:34]

headlines that I haven't talked about. I didn't tweet about it yesterday; I'm not talking about it today. I'm not a big fan of talking about these big events that some idiot with a gun does. I definitely don't like to talk about it when it's fresh, but I will say one thing in the interest of being the last credible person in the world, according to me. Here it is: the question is, has the President's treatment of the media as the "fake news" and the "enemy of the people"—I think he actually said that. He said the press is not the enemy of Trump, it's the enemy of the American people, something like that. The big debate—because people are terrible, so 

[44:34]

they think that the politics of it is what we should be talking about instead of the victims—the thought is, President Trump has somehow caused this to be more likely. That was the initial reporting, and then of course we found out that this guy had a personal vendetta against the newspaper. But one does not make the other one not count, right? If you're stuck in the world where you think he did it because of Trump, or you think it had nothing to do with Trump, those views could be close to the most wrong view. It seems to me—and I'm going to be consistent with everything else I've said—I believe that, for example, music 

[45:37]

and video games do influence some people, but not very many. Some people who are on the edge, maybe they just needed a little extra push. I think that music sometimes can do it—if it's sort of angry, violent, suicide-themed music, it could do that for very few people. But definitely if you're looking at millions of consumers, there's somebody who's going to be pushed over the edge just because people are all over; some of them are on the edge. While there's no way to know, and there never will be a way to know whether this one individual was on the edge and the dehumanizing of the press pushed them slightly over, I would say it can't be known. Cannot be known. There's no way to know if this individual was in any way 

[46:37]

influenced by the "fake news" Trump approach. But here's what I will say: the continuous dehumanizing of everybody could have an impact for some very few people who are on the edge and not completely mentally in control of things. I think you can simultaneously say that dehumanizing each other—and dehumanizing in this case—means that if somebody is the enemy to your country, whether you're calling them a Nazi or whether you're saying they're the "enemy of the people," 99.99999% of all people hearing that will know it's politics and hyperbole and it's not going to change their opinion about grabbing a gun and shooting anybody. But somebody might. 

[47:39]

Let's take it from that perspective to the civil war. Apparently there was a poll that said something like a third of the public thinks that there is going to be a civil war, and among Democrats the number is much higher. There are a pretty big number of Democrats who believe there's a possibility of a civil war. I'll give you my odds at pretty much zero. The reason that there won't be a war is that the group that has the most power and the most guns is getting what it wants in this country. In other words, Trump is largely doing what the people with the guns and the real power, both politically and because they have guns, want. They're kind of getting what they want, so their incentive to be violent is super low. And the people who are getting worked up by Schumer and Pelosi—the people who are manipulating them into this 

[48:41]

unhealthy fear situation—they're not really the ones with the guns. There may be a lot of marching in the streets, and you can imagine that there will be individual acts of violence, but my prediction for a revolution in the next five years is zero. Zero. That's my prediction. 

I'll go back to Brandon Straka’s point: the left has scared people into bad health. They are actually a menace to society at this point, and they're doing it for manipulative personal reasons. They're doing it for politics; they're not doing it to help their side. If they were trying to help their side, they would come up with some 

[49:42]

good policies and they wouldn't be scaring the pants off of their own people. If they were going to scare them, they would scare them about real things, not things they made up. There are real things like terrorism, poverty, and crime. There are real things to be afraid of, but they made up some new ones so that the people who would not normally be afraid of those things had something new to be afraid of. 

All right, I think I've said enough for now. I'm going to call it a day. I'll talk to you all later.