Episode 154: Scott Adams Talks About the Newest Reason to Love Rand Paul

Date: 2018-07-23 | Duration: 28:46

Topics

Rand Paul’s reverse Russian collusion play on Brennan Play of the year by a person not President Trump Is Brennan monetizing his security clearances? Brennan loving networks HAVE to cover this story Paul survived TWO attempts on his life in one year

Transcript

[0:05]

Boom ba-ba-boom! In case you’re worried that my face looks very red, I will tell you that that’s the lighting in the mirror. I don’t look like I’m about to have a heart attack. I’m halfway through eating, but Rand Paul made the morning too interesting. I just couldn’t wait. Breakfast is still ongoing.

And if somebody says you look old, this is how I look when I just wake up after a long night. I’m in Las Vegas right now, coming home today. So now that you’re all here, let’s pick this up where we left off. I hope you’ve seen the news that Senator Rand Paul had tweeted the following. This is Senator Rand Paul. He tweets: “Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance?

[1:06]

Is John Brennan making millions of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media with his attacks on real Donald Trump?” And then later, Paul tweets: “Today I will meet with the President and ask him to revoke John Brennan’s security clearance.”

Now you see what’s going on here, right? Rand Paul is very cleverly playing a reverse Russia collusion on Brennan. Not only is it clever and hilarious, it’s probably effective, but it could not be more perfect. And let me just talk about the parts of it. So first of all, Rand Paul does not—he doesn’t accuse Brennan of a crime.

[2:07]

He doesn’t accuse Brennan of a crime; he simply asks the question because all of the evidence would suggest that interpretation. Now, it’s different—saying somebody did something is very different than saying, “Well, all the evidence would suggest that there’s a big problem here. I’m just asking the question: Is he selling? Because he’s selling secret information to the media to overthrow the country? Just asking.”

What does that sound like? It sounds exactly like what everybody’s been saying about Russia collusion, primarily John Brennan. I’m just asking: Why is it the President is asking in this bit, “Tell me one reason why the President should be nice to Putin?” Well, of course, there are obvious reasons why to do that, and they’re not all nefarious. So Rand Paul is just giving back to John Brennan

[3:10]

exactly what he’s been giving to the President and the country for the last, I don’t know, two years or whatever. This is the funniest, coolest thing I’ve seen. This is, for things that didn’t come from the President himself, this is like the play of the year. This is so good.

And here’s what it does. The first thing it does is it takes all the energy out of the headlines because, yeah, it flips the script, but you can’t look away. He’s just… he’s accusing the ex-head of the CIA of—well, not an accusation exactly, but more of a question. It’s just a question. He’s got top-secret clearance; he is clearly against the President; he’s working with the networks; he has access to these secrets. The networks would like them; the networks have money; they would certainly pay for insider information.

[4:11]

Certainly pay for insider information, huh? Now, that doesn’t mean that John Brennan has committed any crimes. I want to be very clear: I personally am aware of no crimes by anybody, by the President or John Brennan. But is it fair for Rand Paul to go after John Brennan in what I think anyone would call a totally unfounded semi-accusation in the form of a question? Is it appropriate?

Well, it wouldn’t be appropriate if it were anyone else except maybe Clapper, but with John Brennan, it is totally appropriate. And the fact that he’s going after his security clearance is perfect. Now, I don’t know who it was who realized that there was a perfect analogy going on here. You know, the analogy of: “Hey, did Trump do something with Putin?”

[5:12]

There’s a perfect analogy to: “Hey, did John Brennan start selling some secrets to sell out the country?” We don’t know. We don’t know. But look at all the circumstantial evidence. Now, if I’ve taught you nothing—and I hope I’ve taught you something—is that the human mind cannot tell the difference between confirmation bias, where everything looks like it supports one theory, and the truth. If you have the truth, then all the facts support the truth; everywhere you look, the facts are consistent with it because it’s the truth. Where else do you see that when it’s not the truth and there’s a bunch of confirmation bias?

[6:13]

Mounds of confirmation bias material. It looks the same whether it’s true or it’s something that’s going to attract all kinds of confirmation bias. Now that Rand Paul has called the downs, you can’t tell the difference, folks. Someday we might know, but at this point, you cannot tell the difference.

And if you can’t tell the difference, this is the clever part about what Rand Paul is doing. There are probably five clever parts, but one of the clever parts is that if you can ask the question of Brennan and it’s not laughable, he has to have his security clearance taken away. Think about it. If you can even ask the question—well, it kind of looks like it might be a situation where potentially he might be abusing that security clearance for personal gain. There’s no direct evidence, but the situation certainly suggests that

[7:13]

possibility, and it certainly clearly suggests the motive. And if you’ve got the motive and the opportunity, you’ve got to take away the security clearance. So it doesn’t matter if there’s any direct evidence that Brennan did something illegal or inappropriate. That doesn’t matter as long as the confirmation bias or the circumstantial evidence—whatever you want to call it in this case—as long as it all lines up in one direction, and it does, that’s enough.

Do you think there’s any chance that the President will let John Brennan keep his security clearance? Because that’s the next story, right? The very next story should be that the President met with Rand Paul and issues an order to revoke John Brennan’s security clearance.

[8:16]

Now, what’s that going to do? Well, it’s going to suck all the energy out of the other stories. Even CNN has to cover this. So all the networks that love John Brennan, they have to cover this. This is a big story now. You’ve got a senator, and probably in a few minutes, you’ll have the President of the United States revoking the security clearance of the guy who used to be the head of the CIA for potentially trying to monetize his security clearance.

And the way Rand Paul says this is: “Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance?” That could not be a more perfect sentence. I’ve said this enough that you’re tired of hearing it, but I don’t agree with all of Rand Paul’s policy preferences. He goes further than I do on a lot of stuff, but he does operate

[9:20]

on principle. He is very smart. He does seem to have the country’s best interest in mind; that seems clear. And he’s very effective. So this is a new reason to love Rand Paul.

And I love the fact that, in one year, he survived two attempts on his life. In one year: the neighbor who tackled him and could have killed him, and the shooter on the baseball field who was trying to kill him. It appears that—I don’t want to read too much into this—but imagine, if you will, that you had survived two attempts on your life in one year. Just imagine your mindset. Do you think you’d be braver?

[10:23]

Yeah, you would. So however brave Rand Paul was or however determined he was before, it just went up a notch. His political power is probably—we’re just speculating here—but chances are he’s operating at a higher level than he was before any of this bad news came his way. I’ve got a feeling that he’s not going to take any anymore, if you know what I mean.

If you had had two attempts on your life… let me put it to you in this context. I don’t know that his neighbor attacking him—this is Rand Paul I’m talking about—when the neighbor attacked him, I haven’t heard that that’s political, but don’t you assume it is? Don’t you assume the neighbor’s attack is political, at least a little bit?

[11:24]

Even if they had a specific dispute, don’t you think it reached a new level probably because of politics? I haven’t heard that in evidence, but I’m guessing. And then, of course, the potential shooting was clearly politics. So imagine, if you will, that you’ve had two attempts on your life. And who do you think is the most responsible person for both of those attempts on your life?

John Brennan. If you’re Rand Paul, you’re probably thinking John Brennan almost killed me—meaning Rand Paul—twice. Do you think Rand Paul is ever going to back off of this? Not in your life. I’ll tell you, Brennan better finish him off because

[12:25]

Rand Paul’s coming for him now. And who’s on Rand Paul’s side? Me. Who else is on Rand Paul’s side against John Brennan? Two attempts on Rand Paul’s life. John Brennan arguably—and it’s a good argument—is the inspiration for both of them. I’m on Rand Paul’s side. So whatever he needs to do, I got his back. Hope you do too.

I would also go so far as to say is that when the President is done running for president—whether that’s… who knows? He might say, “I’ve done everything I’ve done, and I don’t need a second term.” That’s always possible. But if Rand Paul runs for president, he’s got

[13:27]

a head start. It would be very hard for me to side against him after this. Why am I being an idiot? Let me block you. I’m blocking all the Hitlers. Goodbye, Hitlers.

So have you been noticing my technique of blocking Nazis? Here I am. Have you noticed my technique of blocking Nazis on Twitter? It seems to be having an effect. If you go back three months ago, the number of people accusing anybody who supports Trump in any way—including me—of being Nazis, it was nonstop. It’s like: Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi analogy, Nazi analogy, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi.

[14:27]

And so I think it was a month ago or so I started nonstop labeling all of my critics Nazis. The criteria for labeling somebody a Nazi in this context is that they come after me personally. If they disagree with the politics or the ideas, that’s fine; they can stay all day. But if they come after me personally in any way—if it’s personal—Nazi, goodbye.

Now, what happens when people call you a Nazi and they give a reason, and then they act on it? Calling you a Nazi by itself doesn’t mean much. Calling you a Nazi and then giving you a reason which you say, “Ooh, yeah, that’s a reason,” and then acting on it—actually penalizing them by blocking them—it’s very powerful. It might be more powerful when I do it because I’m famous.

[15:32]

The chat will show in a minute. I did not see that coming. Somebody said… so it feels like the Nazi thing is disappearing. That was my plan. My plan was to drive it out of existence by labeling the other side Nazis with reasons. Never without a reason. I only do it if there’s a specific reason. Let’s drink to that. Trademark in West Virginia? I don’t know about that.

[16:33]

Just looking at your comments right now. Did you see the list being tweeted around? I think I talked about this before, of priorities, of the country’s priorities. Climate change isn’t even on the top 36. There was another poll of 18 priorities, and climate change came in 17th out of 18.

What happened to climate change? Why did climate change go from the biggest issue in the world, literally, to not an issue? Give me your opinions. What is your opinion of why climate change went from a top priority to almost no priority at all?

[17:44]

Your comments are a little bit behind. Somebody says, “Trump killed it.” Somebody said, “Was Rand Paul on the train that wrecked?” That’s a terrible thought, but it’s very funny. For the people who say climate change… it’s called weather. They don’t seem to understand anything about the conversation. Doesn’t matter which side says that.

Too boring. Some people think it just got pushed down in the headlines by other stuff. The President made us forget it. Yeah, but why? Why did we stop caring? What did the President do to make us stop caring? It wasn’t just him.

[18:46]

So here’s some speculation. I don’t think it’s one thing. I think it’s the following things. I never trust any data that I see about climate change, whether it’s from the left or the right. I assume it’s all cherry-picked, taken out of context, illegitimate, fake. Doesn’t matter which side it’s coming from. Doesn’t matter what it says about the temperature; I figure it’s all non-credible.

But correct me if I’m wrong: the evidence that has come out lately, it has been counterfactual, hasn’t it? Counterfactual to climate change? Am I wrong? It seems to me that the data doesn’t seem to be supporting it, at least in the last year. Now, one year doesn’t mean anything because we’re looking at the long game, but it looks like the evidence sort of waned. So that’s part of it. Another part of it is we pulled out of the Paris Peace Accords, and people figured out what that really meant.

[19:49]

Because I think, being in it, people thought, “Oh, we’re in a Paris Peace Accord. I guess we’re doing something to fix the problem.” And then when people realize that the agreement had very little to do with fixing the problem—it almost wasn’t even about that—I think people probably felt a little bit fooled.

If you believed everything about climate change, you believed everything was true, and then you also believed the Paris climate accord was an important part of the full story, and then suddenly there’s a really good and obvious case that says the Paris climate accord didn’t make any difference. Now what do you think about the whole story when you find out that an important piece of it really wasn’t exactly the way it was presented? Well, it changes the credibility of the whole story. The other thing that changes the credibility is what we just said: if the weather doesn’t cooperate.

[20:50]

Even though today’s temperature doesn’t really mean much about climate change in general, these are counterfactual, anecdotal things that work against the belief. So you’ve got that going on.

But I think there’s another factor. You’ve watched me for two years argue that climate scientists had conflated the science, which has a lot of validity, with the prediction models, that have none—zero. And who besides me has talked so much in the last two years about how the prediction models are not credible even if the science is? I don’t know if the science is. I’m not a scientist, but I’m not doubting it. If the majority of scientists say, “Hey, if you add this chemical to the mix, you get a higher temperature,” that part seems reasonable.

[21:51]

So I think the fact that people no longer feel a great trust in the models, the fact that the Paris Peace Accord was an overhyped, useless piece, and the fact that the temperature hasn’t changed that much… and yeah, I think all of those things together. Oh, and there’s one other thing.

Probably a lot of people have seen by now stories in the news about inventions that will suck the CO2 out of the air or clean it before it gets out of the smokestack—that sort of thing. I think that people now see another way to solve it, which is technology. Now, what have I been telling all of you for years? That the one thing you can’t predict—there are lots of things you can’t predict, but one thing you definitely can’t predict—is innovation.

[22:54]

It wouldn’t be innovation if people could predict it. And people are starting to see the innovation variable kicking in. It’s like, “Oh, people are inventing things to fix this.” I did not have that in my model. My prediction model just says we’re a bunch of big idiots and we don’t do anything to fix anything.

Now, the prediction models probably are the reason that people are inventing things to fix it. But I think you put all those things together: the Paris Peace Accord deal, the models being unreliable—separate from the science; science could be solid, but the models could still be unreliable—and the temperature not cooperating, and the new innovations in getting rid of CO2 from the air. You put all that together, and then you make other things seem more important at the moment, and no more climate change.

[23:55]

Remember: the facts don’t matter. Facts don’t matter until you get enough of them. There’s no such thing as a complete absolute—let me soften that a little bit—most things are not binary. Most of them are not absolute.

With climate change, you could add a lot of counterfactual facts and it wouldn’t change people’s opinions. You could add a lot of them. But if you got to the point where all of the facts contradict climate change, well, people would change their mind. Most of them. Some of them still wouldn’t. This hasn’t happened, but if you got to the point where all of the temperature measurements for ten years

[24:57]

were in the wrong direction, if you got to the point where somebody had built a machine that was already economically taking CO2 out of the air, that would change people’s opinions. So there are at least conceptually enough facts that could happen that would change how we think of things.

Yeah, those Playboy models and Michael Cohen, those stories seem less now. I need an exit. I’ve got to get some stuff done. So let me ask you this question and then I’ll go. My book publisher has asked me for

[25:59]

another book, a follow-up to Win Bigly. It would be my third in a series that are along these lines. The first one was “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.” And the concept I’m working on is teaching you how to escape your mental prison and how to help other people escape, but mostly how to escape your own mental prison and find the Golden Age. An optimistic book with actual useful techniques. Would that be of interest?

Well, that’s interesting. More than one person… was that the same person? I can’t tell. I think more than one person may have suggested a book title called “Shake the Box.” That is not bad as a book title.

[27:03]

“Shake the Box.” That is not bad as a book title. I will take that under advisement. The working title is “The Golden Age and How to Think Your Way Into It.” That’s the working title. It’s unlikely that will be the final title. Escape from your mental prison and throw in a chapter on how to get a Christina? That would take a whole new book.

I think the biggest surprise anybody has about Christina and me is that we’ve been together two years now and that it’s actually a real relationship. I don’t think anybody believed that for at least a year. It’s just a real normal, normal relationship just like

[28:03]

every other relationship. Yeah, “Shake the Box,” that’s a pretty good book title. I like that suggestion. I’ll definitely think about that.

I’ve said enough. So props to Rand Paul for his extraordinarily clever broadside on John Brennan, who may be the inspiration for almost getting Rand Paul killed twice in one year. Did that look like a gang symbol? I didn’t mean that. No gang symbols here. I’ll talk to you later.