Episode 270 Scott Adams: Caravans, Khashoggi, Avenatti
Date: 2018-10-23 | Duration: 55:27
Topics
Avenatti tweets that the caravan is “obviously a setup”…by GOP Ian Bremmer tweets graph showing countries imprisoning journalists A+ for President Trump’s trade negotiation strategy with China The caravan hits the top two human persuasion triggers Executing the Chinese illegal Fentanyl lab owners Is George Soros an evil guy with bad intentions?
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
This is "Coffee with Scott Adams" - a daily livestream where Scott discusses current events, persuasion, and his frameworks for understanding the world.
## [Intro and the Simultaneous Sip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=6s)
Bah-bah-bah, pop all, boom! Hey everybody. You're probably wondering where the heck have I been? I'm five minutes late. One of the great things about working for yourself and not working for money is you don't really have to show up on time. Your boss will not fire you. If you ever have a chance to have a job that doesn't require having a boss, you should run toward it.
I know what you want. I know why you're here. I think it has something to do with Coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous sip. Today I'll be taking the simultaneous sip from my new coffee mug which arrived in the mail anonymously, apparently from a viewer of this Periscope. You know who you are. Whoever you are, thanks for the mug. There was no note in it so I can't thank you personally. Join me for the debut sip. Oh, that's good stuff.
## [Michael Avenatti and the Caravan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=69s)
Let us start with Michael Avenatti. By the way, a number of you have asked why it seems that I always line up my face so it's exactly where the comments are and then you can't see me because the comments are covering me. There's a long explanation. Because I'm using the back camera—in other words, I can see myself—the image is reversed. In order for me to see myself, you can see me and vice versa.
The nature of this medium is that when I can see myself, it becomes personal to me. That's hard to explain, but you've probably noticed that this medium is very personal. Part of it is that I am aware that I'm not talking to just a camera. The way that I'm aware of that is both the comments and seeing myself. If I did not see my own face, it would feel more like a presentation and you would feel it as well. I don't think there's a good way for me to be able to solve this, but I'll work on it.
Anyway, let's talk about Michael Avenatti. He tweets this morning, provocatively. You all know Michael Avenatti; he was Stormy Daniels' lawyer and he represented the woman who claimed during the Kavanaugh situation that there had been these rape parties every weekend. He is not judged to be the most credible person in the world, but he tweets this morning: "There is too much at stake in the midterms for the Dems to allow the Republicans to use the caravan, which is so obviously a setup, as a wedge issue. It is time for the Dems to step up and be strong on border security. We cannot once again be painted as weak and then lose." Then he does a hashtag.
The first thing he says is that the caravan is obviously a setup by the Republicans. It looks like Avenatti is saying that the Republicans set it up. Somebody's saying I should use two devices, and I'll try that next time, but I think there's a timing lag. When I see myself here, I'm seeing myself in real time, but if I see it in the playback, it's going to be a delay.
Avenatti has apparently come out to be strong on border security because—and here's the funny part—even Avenatti can't defend the Democrats. I'll just leave that right there. I saw this tweet this morning in which Avenatti, who's presumably running for president as a Democrat, even he can't find a way to defend the primary Democratic policy point. I don't even know how he can run as a Democrat when he's coming out basically as a Republican, or closer to one than a Democrat. I just loved everything about this. I actually sat on my couch half an hour ago and I was just crying, I was laughing so hard that even Avenatti can't defend the Democrats.
## [Turkey, China, and Journalists in Prison](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=311s)
Ian Bremmer tweeted a graph from Signal, and the source is the Committee to Protect Journalists. It lists a number of journalists in prison as of 2017. The number one imprisoner of journalists is Turkey. Is this the best simulation ever? Seriously, what are the odds? There are a lot of countries in the world. I haven't counted them all up, but let me ask my assistant. Alexa, how many countries are there in the world?
There are 195 countries. Out of 195 countries in the world, the number one imprisoner of journalists is Turkey. Come on, there's no way that this was accidental. It might be accidental, but it is humorously accidental. Who is the second-worst imprisoner of journalists? China. That's right. China has imprisoned 41 journalists in 2017. How many fentanyl labs did they close in 2017? I'll bet it's less than the number of journalists that they imprisoned. I'm just going to put that out there. I'll bet China did not close 41 fentanyl labs in China that are leading to the death of 30,000 Americans a year, but they did jail 41 journalists.
## [The Trade War and Economic Leverage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=434s)
If you're watching what's happening with the Chinese economy and the US economy, you know that China is having a tougher time of it, or seems to be at least. That's the way it's being reported. Who knows what's true anymore? But it's being reported that China is having more problems economically than the US is. How do you know that's true? We don't know as much about China; it's a little less transparent. But what we do know is that the Fed raised interest rates because the US economy is too strong.
A lot of people don't know a lot about economics. There are some things which are obvious to some group of the public who has studied this sort of thing, people who have business backgrounds, but it's completely non-obvious to the general public. And that is: if you're looking at this trade war, the way you win or lose a trade war is that generally the strongest has the leverage because they can wait longer. The weak economy can't wait as long to make a deal. Our economy is so strong that our own country, operating through the Fed, had to slow it down. China is worried about not growing at the rate that they need to, and we're worried about growing too fast. Who wins the trade war?
The fact that it took President Trump to pretty much force this through the government tells you a lot about the low quality of our government before this. Now that it's happening, doesn't it feel obvious that it was the right thing to do? Before the trade war, almost all the smart people were saying, "No, no, no, trade wars are terrible, don't do that, everything will come crashing down." Didn't pretty much all of the smart people say that? Now that we're in the middle of it, it's so obviously the right thing to do. And it's obviously working.
We don't know how long it will be to get a deal, but we know that the President set it up perfectly. He started with having a great relationship with President Xi. He continues to praise President Xi for being a strong leader and a capable person, and he recognizes that Xi is fighting for his team. Trump is now fighting for America. He's setting up the respect part perfectly, and then he's using his economic leverage professionally and perfectly. This is exactly the way a trade dispute should look. He's nailing the heck out of it.
If you were to judge it from this point in history, you'd have to give the President an A+. He picked the right time to do it and he created the right atmosphere to do it. He got a few small ones done with Mexico and Canada. His team and the President are handling this perfectly. There's no way that could be missed. What kind of a critic would even dispute it today?
Months ago or a year ago, I think a reasonable person could have said, "Be careful about this, don't do it." That would have been an okay opinion even if you disagreed with it. But today, when we're actually tamping down the rate of growth of our own economy because it's too hot, and there's a shrinking of all of these inequalities in our deals—from the postage to the IP they are stealing to everything else—it just seems so obvious that this was the right move. I don't know how anybody could even argue against it at this point.
## [Trump’s Best Month Ever and the Talent Stack](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=745s)
Have you ever seen a better month for any president? I know I'm not a presidential historian, but has there ever been a 30-day period when a sitting president just had everything go his way? It was going to happen by chance sooner or later; he was going to have the best month ever, which I'm going to drink to. Let us drink to the best 30 days any president ever had. Join me.
Here are some of the things that are going right now. Obviously, the economy, North Korea, and stuff like that. We talk about that all the time. But in the past month, here are some other things that have gone right. One is these rallies. When the President is in travel-rally mode, he is the best president of all time, mostly for his base. The other people are not watching or they don't like what he's saying, but in terms of his base, he's the best president of all time. They love these rallies; they charge up the base. He just takes it to a whole other level.
Do you remember when the President was first running for office and people said dismissively, "Oh, he's just a crazy clown, he's an entertainer, he's just a reality TV show star"? Do you remember what I said? I said, "I think you're missing something." He does have all of the theater skills. I call it theater. He has a grasp and an understanding of theater. It's on top of his other skills. It's not his only skill. If it were his only skill, I wouldn't even be talking about him. Lots of people could do that one thing.
The magic here is the other stuff on top of that. The theater part is just what he does in addition to the other things—in addition to having the business sense, the negotiating, the understanding of government, the understanding of people, the charisma, the sense of humor. There's just this enormous talent stack that works really well together that he built over a lifetime. When you look at him using the theater layer of his considerable talent stack, we now see it differently. You see it as an extra level that no president has ever matched. He's unmatched in terms of the theater talents part of his talent stack.
That part's going well. He's got the great visuals, he's got the enormous crowds, and the news can't ignore it entirely because he always says something a little provocative that makes them have to focus on it. He's killing it that way.
## [Midterm Predictions and Republican Turnout](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=928s)
Second, you're seeing the Blue Wave, or at least the optimism for it, starting to atrophy quickly. We went from, "Oh my god, this is going to be good for Democrats," to "Well, this probably will be good for Democrats," to "Well, we're very confident statistically that Democrats will still probably win, but maybe not." I believe the odds of a Blue Wave are now, by some people's reckoning, almost identical to the odds of Hillary Clinton winning on Election Day.
If that is not a perfect setup for Surprise Version 2.0. Should it come to pass that the Republicans outperform—and I'm not predicting that, I'm only predicting that the turnout for Republicans will be jaw-dropping—that's my prediction. The turnout for Republicans will be jaw-dropping. The news is going to have a hard time not talking about it.
This has everything to do with my understanding of Trump supporters. We'll see if I do understand that. My understanding is that they like a joke, they like winning, and they prefer action over talk as a general quality. You put all that stuff together and what would be funnier? Seriously, what would be funnier if you're a Trump supporter than watching the news on election day for the midterms and finding a repeat of 2016? You want that not just because you want it politically; you know how fun that would be.
## [The Caravan and Persuasion Triggers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=1052s)
The biggest thing that's happening, of course, is the caravan. The caravan is capturing our attention because it hits two of the dimensions of persuasion that are the strongest. The strongest persuasion is fear. If you can persuade using fear, you're automatically the most important person in the room because everybody takes care of their fear before they move on to anything else. We got to get rid of the fear.
The look of the just the sheer number of people in the caravan—the fact that the majority of them seem male and young—is automatically like a military invasion in our minds, even though that's not what it is. Your subconscious is taking this visual and turning it into something scary. Plus, it's visual. It took a concept, which is immigration, and turned it into a scary visual. That's all working in the President's favor because it fits the sweet spot of his persuasion on immigration.
## [Rewriting History: Trump’s Immigration Rhetoric](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=1176s)
There's a better part. You know how you can't change history? Common sense says you can't change history. History is done. Well, you are watching right in front of your eyes the President of the United States, the master persuader, the best who has ever done this, maybe the best who ever will—you're watching him change history. How, you say? How is the President changing history when that's not even something that can be done? He's actually doing it right in front of you.
What was the biggest mistake that the President probably ever made in terms of political discourse? I would argue that the biggest mistake he made was the day he announced, because he made the mistake of casting the immigrants as criminals, which allowed his critics to say, "You're saying all people from Mexico are criminals, you darn racist." That's the history you used to believe, or at least half of the country believed. Half of the country believed that he meant literally that they were all criminals, and the people who became his supporters believed that he was talking about "too many" criminals.
Anybody with an ounce of objectivity would understand he was not literally saying that the women and children coming across the border were MS-13 murderers. He was talking about the fact that some of them were criminals, and "some" is too many. That's how he should have said it. He should have said, "Most of these people are great people just trying to get a better life, but there are way too many criminals in that group and we can't ignore that." Something like that might have been optimal.
I'm careful about saying that the President made a mistake by saying something outrageous, because at the same time I have to acknowledge that saying outrageous things is his technique. It's the reason that he sucks up all the energy. I can't say for sure that it even was a gigantic mistake, being a little careless in his wording so it sounded like all immigrants were being cast as criminals. You still have to ask yourself: well, that is the reason he got all the attention. I don't know if it was a mistake. You just can't tell because there's no way to score it. You can certainly say it haunted him. You can certainly say it gave tons of ammunition to the other side. You can certainly say it created an easy trend for the other side to paint him as a racist. But he did win. You have to be a little humble about looking into the past and trying to say he should have done something differently.
The history that used to exist was that the President thinks immigrants are "all a bunch of criminals." That's how the anti-Trumpers framed him and he has put up with that framing for a long time. There have been many times where he has clarified, but because the clarifications are never as interesting as the original provocation, we don't remember the clarifications. The original provocation—his announcement speech—was our history.
He's changing history right now. How is he doing it? This caravan is such a big event. It's in the news; it's in our consciousness. The President's talking about it a lot; he's tweeting about it a lot. So now what we think about immigration has morphed. It's now morphing to more about what's happening at the moment because you're always more persuaded by what's happening now. You're also more persuaded by the visual and the scariness of it. The old history of what Trump said about immigrants is now being rewritten in your mind by what's happening at the moment, because the new stuff is overwriting the old stuff.
If you watch the way he's talking about it, he has corrected his original misstep. When he talks about the caravan, look at the way he talks about the criminal element within it. Now he says, "If the reporters wanted to go into the group, they would find that within the group there are criminal elements and even some people sneaking in from the Middle East." I don't know if that's fact-checked, but that's the claim. He now is using the caravan to rewrite history about what was his opinion about the percentage of criminals coming across the border. He's rewriting it.
It doesn't seem like you could rewrite history, but keep in mind history doesn't exist. History is a mental thing. You could say that the things happened, and that may be true, but history is just a mental process. The President can rewrite history because he's rewriting your mental process. He's rewiring that. If you are watching the caravan situation, you will see that over and over again he talks about the caravan being big and that within it there are criminal elements. That's the new frame that he's put on it. He's hitting it over and over again so that it's now harder to remember, and less credible in your own mind, that he ever said anything different. It's a big, big deal that's completely ignored.
## [Executing Chinese Fentanyl Lab Owners](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=1672s)
Fentanyl, China continues to do its thing. Most of you know that I've advocated that if the United States can determine who within China is running these fentanyl labs—and I understand there are lots of them, illegal labs—to the extent that we can figure out who they are and where they are, we should be encouraging the Chinese government to come down hard on them and ideally execute them. They are behind, or at least supplying, the raw ingredients that they know are killing 30,000 Americans a year. That should certainly be an executable offense in China.
I've also gone farther than that and said that if China won't act, we should directly execute them. We should execute Chinese citizens in China to the degree that we know for sure that they are professional drug lab operators. You're seeing some comments here saying, "You're insane, you'll start World War III," etc. Here's what I say: we're already in World War III. They're killing 30,000 people a year. In two years, Chinese fentanyl will kill more people than we lost in the Vietnam War—Americans anyway.
Somebody's saying, "Without due process?" Yes, I'm saying that in a war, you don't use due process. In a war, you do not make sure that somebody is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a war, you kill whoever you need to kill. You're asking yourself, "Hey, if you were to kill somebody on foreign soil, wouldn't that start a war?" Well, here's the good news: we don't have to wonder about that because Putin already did it. Putin already showed us that you can blatantly kill somebody on foreign soil and, if that person isn't especially important to the overall government, you're going to get away with it. Putin killed critics and we still didn't start a war with Russia. Saudi Arabia just killed a law-abiding journalist right in front of the world and we're still not going to start a war with Saudi Arabia. Nobody else is either.
The question of whether a foreign entity can kill somebody on your soil, get caught, and still not cause any major problems has been answered. We already have the answer. You can kill people on foreign soil. Here's the key part: the other people are killing people that we think should not be killed. I'm suggesting that we kill people that even the Chinese government thinks should be killed. In other words, they would kill them themselves if their government was functioning properly and nobody was bribed. If the government of China worked properly, they would execute these exact same people. It's against their law, but probably there's corruption and inefficiencies.
The odds of starting a war because we killed Chinese fentanyl dealers in China, I believe, is approximately zero. You could kill a few and find out. Just kill a few and see what the reaction is. They're not going to go to war over one, and they're probably not going to go to war over two or three. We could probably kill dozens. Suppose it became a national headline: "My god, China is accusing the United States of killing somebody on their soil." Then we have to report why. Why did we kill somebody on their soil? Well, same reason we killed Bin Laden in Pakistan. Do you remember when Pakistan went to war with the United States because we killed Bin Laden on their territory? No, you don't remember that because it didn't happen. Why? Because even Pakistan doesn't want Bin Laden. Sure, they complained; they're supposed to complain to keep their sovereignty. It's good form to complain about it, but they're not going to war about it, and they've got nukes.
China is going to cover this up faster than we would. Even if a Chinese newspaper wanted to report that story, the Chinese government would stop it. They don't want a story that says the US is killing their citizens because those citizens are responsible for the death of 30,000 Americans a year. No chance of war. None. Not even the smallest chance.
People have argued, "Scott, if you say that you can blame China for supplying this deadly stuff, shouldn't you also be in favor of killing alcohol makers in the United States? Shouldn't you be in favor of killing car manufacturers because they know that their cars kill people? Scott, shouldn't you be in favor of killing gun manufacturers in the United States because guns are killing people? Isn't it the same reasoning?"
Here's my answer: those are different situations. What can a different situation tell you about your situation? Nothing. There's something wrong with your brain if you're asking about gun makers and cars and American products which are, wait for it, legal. They're completely legal. If those things were illegal—if guns were banned and some manufacturer was making them anyway—that would be different. Here's a better example: it's illegal to make a bazooka or an automatic weapon and sell it to the public. You can't do that in the United States. If we found that there was an underground company making fully automatic weapons, or making drones that spray toxic chemicals to kill people, or making IEDs for terrorist attacks—in other words, illegal companies—would I advocate killing the operators of those illegal companies? Yes, absolutely.
If the Chinese government came and killed somebody who in this country who was a known terrorist, it wouldn't start a war with China. My point is that countries don't go to war because you solved their problem. If we kill some of the owners of their fentanyl labs because for whatever reason they're not doing it, we're solving their problem too. You don't go to war because you solved another country's problem. You just leave all the analogies out of it.
I am okay with tariffs on all Chinese drugs. I'm okay with any kind of maximum pressure on China. Other people are arguing that you're not going to change the supply of fentanyl by killing the dealers. I agree with that. No matter how many fentanyl labs you close, no matter how many you execute, you won't change the supply because it's too easy for another one to pop up. That's not the reason I'm advocating killing them. I'm advocating killing them to size the problem. It needs to be treated as a war. One of the ways to get people to understand the size of it—so that they'll put the right priority on it, so that they'll put resources on it—is to treat it this way. It's like a big bleeding wound; you've got to put the tourniquet on it. All I want is to kill enough people that we understand that what the labs are doing is so bad that it has to be treated as mass murder. If we treat it as a "drug problem," we completely lose the magnitude of it.
## [Fentanyl vs. Handguns: The Nuclear Scale](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=2346s)
Let me use an analogy to make my point. A handgun is a weapon used to kill people. A nuclear weapon is a weapon used to kill people. Should our laws about handguns be the same as our laws about nuclear weapons? Answer: no. Even though they're both weapons to kill people, the size and scale of a nuclear weapon makes it an entirely different situation from a handgun.
Likewise, if you're looking at our laws for heroin, laws about cocaine, laws about marijuana—those are like a handgun. Not so much marijuana, but the lower level opioids like heroin and cocaine; they can kill people like a handgun can. But fentanyl is a nuclear weapon. If you're treating the nuclear weapon the same as you're treating the handgun, you're in the wrong conversation. Everybody who says to me, "Hey, why don't we legalize fentanyl because somebody did something with heroin," you're using handgun laws to make decisions about nuclear weapons. That said, I am totally in favor of anything that can be tried small. If you can do a trial in a city or a state where you relax the laws and somehow you protect people and treat them instead of putting them in jail, I'm in favor of trying every small thing you can try.
## [Is George Soros Evil?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEvn4f3U_4&t=2471s)
Let's talk about George Soros. I feel bad about this. I've asked on Periscope a few times for somebody to explain to me, or send me a link to something that would describe, why people think George Soros is the devil. It's not because I haven't read things about him; I have. But every time I read it, I keep looking for the part where I'm supposed to understand that he wants open borders or no borders or something that would make him as evil as he is portrayed by the right. Then I read the article and it doesn't quite sell it. I think, "It wasn't that article, obviously. I'm just not reading the right articles."
I kept thinking I would at least accidentally run into something about Soros that would tell me his Open Society, or whatever, was a menace to the world, and that there would be an explanation saying, "He's doing this, and you can tell that if people do this it will lead to this bad result." That has to exist, right? I asked people to explain it to me. People would resort to generalities and I thought to myself, "Maybe everybody thinks somebody else knows what he's doing." They can't quite explain it themselves, but they've heard it so many times.
There are stories about him being a Nazi collaborator, which was apparently true when he was a child. Being a Nazi collaborator when you're a child doesn't mean you are a Nazi; it just means you didn't want to get killed. I certainly don't blame him for being a 14-year-old who did what he was told so he didn't get killed.
People pointed me to Lee Stranahan, who apparently is one of the most knowledgeable people on the question of George Soros. He was nice enough to make a video explaining his view. I don't like to watch long-form videos. I know it's ironic, but I usually don't have half an hour to sit down and absorb something long. I asked if he could just summarize it. Just put it in a tweet. I don't need the details, but just in one, two, or three sentences, tell me what he's doing that's so bad.
It seemed to me that if you can describe anything that's real in a few sentences—watch me do it. I'm going to describe any problem that's a real problem with just a few words. China's trade deals are unfair. I'm leaving out the details, but just telling you that gives you the basic idea. I could say ISIS are a bunch of terrorists who want to kill us. Totally understandable. Fentanyl coming from Chinese labs is killing 30,000 Americans a year. That's a problem. Climate change: people are worried that climate change is warming the world and will destroy our climate. One sentence and I understand what's wrong. I still need the details, but it only took one sentence to give me the general idea.
People are saying "open borders." As far as I can tell, that's just false. I think people are interpreting that literally as "no borders," as in no countries. I don't believe there's any indication that Soros wants to get rid of actual borders. If I'm wrong, it's been five years and nobody has sent me a link that would support the fact he wants to get rid of borders. I think he might want to have better systems for bringing in temporary workers across borders, which is exactly what the President wants.
I asked Lee on Twitter to just tell me the basic problem, and he did. This is the part I feel bad about, because I know he's a legitimate guy doing legitimate stuff and has lots of followers. But when he tried to summarize it, it was generalities. When I see generalities, I call that word salad. I asked him if he could link me to somebody who would explain it in a written article, just because it's faster, and Lee actually said that he's probably the one who knows the most about this topic and that there aren't good articles that tell the story.
What do you do if you're me in this situation? I wrote a book called *Win Bigly* in which—I don't know if I said it as explicitly as I'm going to say it now—you get the idea that if somebody can't explain fairly succinctly what the problem is, it might be imagination. In other words, a mass delusion. A tell for a mass delusion would be that everybody's afraid of it, but when they go to explain what they're afraid of, it doesn't make sense. You can't agree with it or disagree with it; it actually doesn't make sense. That's the key. If you're looking for a Salem witch trials situation, or Trump Derangement Syndrome, or anything where you're wondering "is this real or is this a national hallucination," look for the word salad. Look for the inability of anybody involved to succinctly explain what's wrong.
You can see it in the comments. Your comments have enough space for you to tell me what's wrong with Soros. Somebody says "he's a currency manipulator." That is true. It's also legal, and it's also not the reason that people are complaining about him. "Read his book *Open Society*." That's an example of you being in a hallucination. It's not an example of you making your case. If you were making your case, you'd say, "George Soros killed a baby," and I'd say, "Oh, he did? I don't have the details, but now I know what your problem is." If you say "read his book," you are indicating to me in the strongest possible way that you don't know what the problem is. If you can't explain in one sentence what the problem is, it's not in his book.
Somebody says, "He's a proven anarchist." That's not true. "He funds Antifa." Does he? He funds a variety of interests, but funding Antifa is not the worst problem in the world because Antifa really is not terribly important in the big picture. Does he fund Antifa because he wants them to take over the world? Does he fund Antifa because he wants to take over the United States? Or does he fund Antifa because some parts of what they say, he agrees with? He might be against racism, for example, as is Antifa. The most cogent argument is that he's accidentally funding bad groups. That's pretty vague.
Apparently, somebody said he's funding Black Lives Matter. It seems to me that funding Black Lives Matter is very similar to being against racism. He doesn't have to agree with everything the groups do. If he agrees with the main thrust, he can't be responsible for the actions of every single person in Black Lives Matter, but he can say, "Yeah, I think police brutality is something to worry about. I think racism is something that needs to be addressed more aggressively." That's not exactly a monster.
Somebody says, "I can't watch this anymore, he's a Nazi." I believe he is not a Nazi. I believe that most of you have been duped. I hate to say it; I think most of you have been duped by the Soros stuff. Being against racism and being for Black Lives Matter aren't the same thing, but there's no indication that Soros has bad intentions. Does anybody think that in Soros' own mind, he has evil intentions? Or do you believe that he has good intentions for the world, but his idea of how to get there is different from a lot of other people's ideas? I've seen no evidence he has bad intentions.
He destabilized currencies, yes, completely legally. The trouble is that everybody in the high finance world is doing stuff that, if you were to look at it from a fairness filter, you'd say they ought not be doing that. A lot of it looks like just people doing shenanigans. Somebody says, "I think you're just playing with us." I'm challenging you. To be very clear, there's no trick to what I'm doing right now. I am telling you that I don't see a compelling reason to think he's the devil. I see the reasons that you might not agree with some of the organizations he's funding, but they're sort of trivial.
I know you don't like hearing this topic because it disagrees with your preconceived notions about him. Let me be very clear: I'm not defending him. I'm saying I don't know much about him, but it's very telling that those of you on here can't come up with a coherent problem with him. There's a lot of people signing out on this topic. If you want to make your George Soros case, I'm open to it. If you think I was giving you an opinion on George Soros, you're wrong. I was telling you that I'm puzzled by why your opinions about him are so unpersuasive. That's not a coincidence. I'm going to talk to you all later.