Episode 355 Scott Adams China Trade, AOC, Government by Torture, Climate Change Challenge

Date: 2018-12-30 | Duration: 48:15

Topics

A shutdown is a way to torture random government employees The winner is the side willing to torture them longer CNN pundit angrily declaring “walls don’t work” Rule of Life: Friction ALWAYS works Who will say it first? Politicians provide budgets, that’s their job Engineers decide what’s needed What will happen to stocks, once China trade deal is set? Climate sides both talk in isolation, never debate each other The two sides aren’t disagreeing with each other They’re talking about different things Tony Heller talks about unaddressed skepticism Temp data has been rigged, fudged Historical records disagree with climate data Why isn’t anyone challenging him, is he correct? 97% of climate scientists are all on the same side That’s spin, 97% agree on specific components Obama’s Ambassador to Syria… President Trump is probably doing the right thing Turks are a threat to the Kurds, but… Kurds are in diplomatic contact with Syrian government Kurds are in diplomatic contact with the Russians Israel will have more options in Syria once US is gone Do they have different rules of engagement? Maybe the US just needs to get out of their way? North Korea hasn’t given up their nukes So what? The US hasn’t given up anything major either Negotiation process is for both to give up something major Everything that matters is trending in a good direction The 3 countries with the most to gain from getting along United States, Russia, China We are NOT natural enemies Only psychology and history maintains our screwing each other

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

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:03]

head snipe how are you hey everybody come on in here it's a beautiful Sunday morning where I am anyway where you are might be different but I know you're all here for the coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous up and I will not deny you any longer raise your mug your cup your glass your stein your tankard fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous up what happened to my Twitter account someone says nothing I hope it better still be there so I saw the news that Alexandre Octavio Cortez has changed her Twitter handle so I think it was something with 2018 in it and she

[1:06]

something with 2018 in it and she realized she had to update it and so her new Twitter handle is at a I see so one of the smartest things that Alexandre could do let's call her to a over C is have a cool nickname there is great power in cool nicknames and she is sort of just given herself one aoc I think other people were using that and she's just adopting something she knows works but let me tell you a story when I went to college the first week of college I got a nickname and my nickname was W just the letter W and there's a story behind it I grew up in a town called windham i wore a shirt that had a big w on it and my my roommate nicknamed me w so for

[2:07]

my my roommate nicknamed me w so for four years even some of my closest friends didn't know my last name or even my real name so for 40 years I was just W when we played sports we had a little soccer team co-ed soccer team we would play on weekends and stuff and when people were calling out to me they'd be calling out W W and because because I had a nickname I was a little extra cool or a little extra interesting there was something about a nickname that just added a little bit of an x-factor to it and I wasn't the only one there were other people who had nicknames and the people who had nicknames that stuck and that were generally used just yeah they did they stood out a little bit there was just something special about them because they didn't have regular names they had nicknames so it's clever

[3:09]

they had nicknames so it's clever for Alexandra to to assign herself at least a Twitter handle there's a OC because that will probably help make that her nickname and I wasn't surprised if in two years you see you know think of other people out of nicknames alright LBJ JFK MLK who else can you think about anybody else in politic Dr so if you think about it the people who have nicknames that are three initials do pretty well HRC there's another good one alright here's another story so do you remember years ago you don't remember this but before the American Revolution our system of government was a monarchy so we had it we had a king King of

[4:10]

so we had it we had a king King of England or the revolution then the revolution happened and our business model changed from a king situation to a republic so it's a democratic process but it's basically a republic and lately I don't know if you've noticed that our system of government has changed this fairly recent change oh yeah our RPG is another 1-2-3 letter name but our system of government has changed and if you haven't noticed our system of government is now basically dependent on which side the Democrats or the Republicans can torture random government officials the longest that's what a government closes that's what a government shutdown is the the government shutdown reminds me of a sci-fi it reminds me of there was an old

[5:14]

sci-fi it reminds me of there was an old Star Trek episode where there were two civilizations to two different planets and instead of fighting militarily for years they had decided to hold some kind of I don't know a lottery or something to decide you was winning and then the losing team would have their citizens line up to be executed but in a painless way so they'd figured out how to make war painless and I thought and of course the the point of the episode or so I took it to be the point is that is that things can become absurd very easily you know war is absurd enough by having a representative war where people light up to be executed if their team loses some random contest you know takes it to the next extreme but now with the government closed down correct me if I'm wrong but

[6:14]

closed down correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the the government process is which team is willing to torture random government employees the am I wrong about that because whoever tortures some of the longest is going to get their way so in the old days it was sort of a you know the King made the decision and then we changed to a new system where you know voting mattered so kind of mattered who you voted for the Republic but now we're in a new system at least between elections we have a new system where it doesn't really matter what the public wants does it I don't think it matters and we can't vote in between elections so we the public are just watching the government work and what the government has decided is that they're going to decide on a major policy by seeing which side is willing to torture random government employees the longest whoever whoever

[7:16]

employees the longest whoever whoever can make these government employees twist for the longest without paychecks gets to win now can you think of a more absurd way to run a government you know you can understand you know how we got to this place it all makes sense but how did we get to a government where it's a contest to see you can torture random people the most and then that one will win a policy that has nothing to do with the random people the people who are being tortured are not even relevant to the question of building a wall there are literally just other people that for you know a coincidence of history we can torture them by by denying their paychecks for as long as as long as this goes on so it's it's just sort of crazy that we've we sort of evolved into thinking that any of this is okay how

[8:18]

thinking that any of this is okay how not okay is this that our government process depends on torturing random employees I'm not even exaggerating am i you know tortures hyperbole but you know what I mean we're making them very very uncomfortable stressed inconvenienced you know there might even be health impacts I mean it's a pretty big deal so how did we get here alright uh uh every once awhile I'd like to turn on CNN for entertainment and today there was a punted on their arguing very angrily that walls don't work now how much further into uselessness can you fall to say that walls don't work in what context did a wall ever not work okay can you you know name ten walls and then

[9:22]

can you you know name ten walls and then how many of those ten walls that you named didn't work zero how often does a wall that work I don't think that ever happened now of course they may be confusing whether it works with whether it stops a hundred percent of all the people and all the drugs now of course no wall is going to stop a hundred percent of the people or a hundred percent of the drugs or maybe even any of the drugs but friction always works if you make something harder fewer people are gonna do it that is guaranteed now you could argue that well it won't reduce reduce it enough to make that worth the pay you're worth the cost you could say other other mechanisms are better but they were actually arguing that drones and electronic stuff would be more effective than a wall to which I

[10:24]

be more effective than a wall to which I say who did that study and and is that going to be true for every segment of the border which is very long and very different at each place who who comes up with the idea that the electronic you know drone mechanism is going to be better than a wall in every section along the wall that that's just generally true it borders on stupid doesn't it I don't like to use that word very much when it comes to politics because I think it's a lazy way to it's sort of a lazy way to look at politics to just say that the other side is being stupid but unless you're an engineer who has actually studied the border at all the solutions and you seen tests where people have test walls versus whatever the other mechanisms are you don't really deserve to say your opinion in public it seems

[11:27]

to say your opinion in public it seems to me that we're very close to the time and I think it will happen after the new Congress ISM in office so here's my prediction on the wall funding first thing that has to happen is Nancy Pelosi has to be the majority leader so we have to wait for her to get sworn in or nothing's gonna happen right she can't really negotiate from this position so she needs to be sworn in she needs to become the leader so that has to happen first and there won't be anything that happens before that what's that happens she's in a position to negotiate somebody is gonna say let's turn it over to the engineers and stop being engineers we're just politicians I don't know which side will say it first either the Democrats will say it first or President Trump or Republican will say at first but whoever says those words will end the stalemate they just have to say the words and the words are some

[12:29]

say the words and the words are some version of this politicians should not make engineering decisions let's see what the engineers say and then take a look at their recommendation but we need a budget either way so let's let's get as much budget as we can that makes sense given how much you can actually spend in a year and try some stuff and if the engine engineers are uncertain maybe we can try a little wall here a little a little drone over there and compare see which one works best maybe that's the process forward but until until Pelosi's in charge and she can negotiate on until somebody says those words let's let's turn it over to the engineers you won't have a solution I don't think alright the president tweeted very encouraging words about the China trade negotiations in the

[13:30]

China trade negotiations in the presidents of telling of events there's been major progress in every area of interest now every area would be trade in all the different categories of trade but it would also be intellectual property and I assume fentanyl so it sounds like according to the president that they have progress on all areas and things are looking positive I tweeted every to me to that and said I cautioned to wait until China weighs in because until you've heard China's version of events you don't quite know the whole story China did weigh in with a more generic statement but also positive it was something about how China is committed to work through the storms as they called it they're committed to work through the storms to work productively with the United States so there was no negativity in that except that it's a

[14:32]

negativity in that except that it's a hard process yeah and everybody agrees with that so it's possible and again you should never take stock advice or investment advice from cartoonist and this is not investment advice but it would be hard to imagine the stocks would be lower after the trade deal gets stuck I can't imagine any scenario in which the China trade deals starts to you know get wrapped up and stocks are substantially lower this year after that it's almost guaranteed to give the stockmarket a boost from a low point so if you were going to predict let's say I'll do this as a prediction and not a financial recommendation so this is not a financial recommendation but as a prediction I'm almost positive that the stock market will be appreciably higher

[15:34]

stock market will be appreciably higher by the end of this year this would be the China deal gets done which I think everybody thinks will get done eventually it might take a while now here's some fun things I tweeted a challenge on Climate Change as I've complained many times the problem with deciding what you want to think about climate change is that both sides talk in isolation and you rarely see them on the same stage and when you do they don't really debate debate each other rather they each say their piece and then they sit down or take some questions but you don't see anything that looks like an actual debate now part of the problem it's taken me a while to work through understanding the topic but part of the problem is people are not talking about exactly the same stuff the people who seem to be disagreeing are not exactly disagreeing with whatever the first person said they're just saying something new and the the new part of it is just a new

[16:35]

the the new part of it is just a new thing so they don't really disagree and so we watching it don't really have enough to go on for example so I so I tweeted four links that I thought captured - the best - in my opinion the best - skeptics in terms of the the points they're making and to solid pro science Pro climate change you know people on the side that climate change is a problem so one of the sources was NASA so there's a NASA site where they make the case and you know the case the case is very simply that you know co2 is going up at the same rate as temperature and that it's spiking sharply and that although temperature has changed throughout history we're seeing an unprecedented spike that matches exactly with the co2

[17:36]

spike that matches exactly with the co2 this is the the NASA story and that there's ice melting and you know we can see the effects of it already etc and then there was a bloomberg piece in which the bloomberg piece did a good job of debunking the debunkers so so the bloomberg piece was addressing the skeptics who say no no it's not co2 is volcanoes or it's sunspots or it's some other thing and it showed a number of graphs to show that those things are not correlated with the temperature so most of the skepticism I think was let's say persuasively handled by the brew Bloomberg article so 80% of what you hear in terms of the skeptics what they say is like oh you forgot to count this or it's really some other source the Bloomberg thing did a good job of sort of wiping them away but there's one skeptic and one line of skepticism that

[18:36]

skeptic and one line of skepticism that is not addressed by the NASA data you know the NASA page and was not addressed by the Bloomberg article so there's a gap and Tony Heller who's a well-known skeptic in this field he's the best representative of this unaddressed part and the other just part is he doesn't say that climate change is being caused by other things than co2 that's that's a different set of skeptics and if you conflate what Tony Heller is saying which is going to be about the reliability of the temperature measurements if you conflate him with the other skeptics then he looks crazy too because he gets associated with he gets associated with skeptics were not credible right so most of the skeptics of climate change are just tinfoil hat crazy bastards you know I get I get tons of people sending me charts that they apparently made at home of why the

[19:38]

they apparently made at home of why the climate is really connected to sunspots or some other thing and none of these charts have any credibility they're not source right etc so so there's a whole bunch of non-credible skeptics but Toby Heller is a special case
right so I'm gonna say as clearly as possible while I'm plugging in the power to my phone that I'm not going to claim that Tony Heller's arguments are right I'll just tell you what they are so his claim is that the temperature data has been rigged in other words actually just illegitimately fudged to create the impression of sudden warmth and his argument if I can summarize it goes like this that we do have records of from less a press reports of what NASA and other sources were reporting was the

[20:38]

other sources were reporting was the temperature in the past and we could see that those past reports of what the temperature was no longer agrees with the current database of what the temperature was so in other words the the public record from the same sources clearly shows that they used to say it was warmer but they fudged the data according to Tony to make it look cooler so that the modern day would look like it had increased quickly now here's the fun part what is the counter to his argument there's a counter to the sunspot people there's a counter to the volcano people there's a counter to most of the skeptics and there may be a counter to Tony Heller but I haven't seen it yet so if you've seen it tweet it to me and I will update that list but notice notice

[21:42]

will update that list but notice notice if you will and I say this with not because of how should I say this the thing I'm going to say next is said with all due humility I'm trying to say this without looking like I'm just complimenting myself because the I don't want that to distract from the point the point is that a tweets from a cartoonist in other words my tweet with these or Lynx is so far the best debate in the world on climate science it's the best debate in the world on climate science and it's not even good because nobody else has even attempted to look at the arguments and try to get them in context and try to figure out okay if you're saying hey where's the person who's saying eh isn't true can we find that person and if they do say that what is

[22:44]

person and if they do say that what is the counter to the skeptic have you ever seen anything like that I haven't so the closest we've come to trying to drill down on this is my tweet and I put that forward as as something I would love you to fact check and tell me I'm wrong I would love to tell you I would love you to tell me it's God's God's got you just you just don't know much this has been debated very well and here's a link to it and you can see that exactly what you wish would happen the point in the counterpoint about the same topic it's it's all it's already been done show me the link I've never seen it and I've seen a lot of stuff on this topic it seems like that's exactly what I would see if it exists they existed it would be the first thing people with 70 so so here's my preliminary ruling on climate science and my ruling will be on the persuasiveness of the arguments not

[23:46]

the persuasiveness of the arguments not the truth so my claim is that I'm not qualified to know is climate changing is the temperature going up I don't know is it is it coordinated or correlated with co2 primarily the humans cause I don't know no no here's but I can talk about persuasiveness so independent of what's true what looks persuasive and I would say that the current advantage is with the sceptics but not all of the skeptics the skeptics who are saying it's a volcano no they are not persuasive the skeptics who say as sunspots they are not persuasive there's another set of skeptics who say look at my graph from the past and you can see that the the warming in the past and we're talking about distant past is in the history of the planet they they'll say look it's

[24:47]

the planet they they'll say look it's very consistent the co2 follows the heat the heat goes up first and then a hundred years later the the co2 rises so therefore the causation is backwards here's what's wrong with that why did that suddenly change because the whole point of climate the hockey stick is that at the moment meaning the let's say the last 20 years in the last 20 years there has not been in a hundred year lag between the rise in in one and the rise and the other meaning co2 and temperature so if the skeptics are saying look we have proof that first you have temperature go up and then eight hundred years later you see the co2 rise well how come it's happening at the same time now why is there no a 100 year lag why is co2 going into the air at the same rate according to the climate scientists at the same rate all right so somebody's saying not true

[25:49]

all right so somebody's saying not true well if it's not true that the co2 in the temperature are quite aligned at the moment in our current day if that's not true then that goes to Tony elders argument that some things have been you know maybe the data has been fudged well I don't think even he makes the argument that one is following the other so I would say the argument that one follows the other is first of all true from a scientific perspective in the sense and you can fact check me on this I believe it's true the co2 can raise temperature at the same time it's true that a rising temperature changes the environment and releases more co2 so I think they both happened but we don't know exactly the really relationship there now the other link in my for links was somebody discussing how the 97% of climate

[26:50]

discussing how the 97% of climate scientists degree is bogus now here again here's the argument the argument is that 97% of climate scientists are on the same side and then you look at the critic who says no no no the 97% are really just people who have an opinion that the temperature is going up right and that co2 has a role which is very different from saying everybody's on the same page right so the critic has the stronger argument there because he's pointing to details and you can you if you look at the critic it's a stronger argument but where is the response to the critic where is the person who looks at the critic it says okay I see what you're saying you're saying that these are not all in agreement but you're wrong because XYZ where's that now lacking that I give the credit to the last argument which is the critic so the

[27:52]

argument which is the critic so the critic has made a reasonable league credible sounding criticism of the 97% and then I haven't seen but maybe it exists I haven't seen a critic of the critic and without that do you really know anything I would argue that the the lack of it might you know raise raise your alarm but the lack of that argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist it just means that I for sure it means that I haven't heard it but beyond that you can't be sure all right I hate to bore you with all this climate stuff but in many ways it's the most interesting thing in the world because you've got a few things going on one is that this is either a giant psychology you know ambassador Rhea or it's the biggest problem in the world either way

[28:54]

biggest problem in the world either way it's really interesting and and I think that there's also a good argument by the way from the critics who say that warming temperatures have historically been associated with you know good things for humans the humans just do better when it's warmer and that there will be as many places that turn from inhospitable to hospitable or even more of them then there will be places that are already too warm and adding a little extra warmth will make them unlivable so that gets to the argument about the economics can we really know that climate science is even good or bad we cannot know all right let's talk about
what else was happening oh the Middle East so I saw a certain

[29:54]

oh the Middle East so I saw a certain article written by the previous wasn't the ambassador to Syria under under Obama so this is an Obama appointee no friend of President Trump right so he's an Obama appointee and he knows a lot about Syria because he was the ambassador and here's what he says which is quite different from what you've been reading in the mainstream news so this guy who knows more than any of us know about Syria because he served there and he's no friend of President Trump that's important says the Trump is probably doing exactly the right thing and here's the context that he adds he says that first of all there's no long term scenario where the u.s. you know has to live in Syria to protect part of their population it's not our country we don't belong there unless got a specific mission which is largely done so from a conceptual level I think

[30:57]

done so from a conceptual level I think he agrees that we don't belong there if there's a way to get out with them too much pain now how the how do you get out of course is the tricky part and apparently the Kurds are already talking to the Russians and to the Syrian government and apparently they've always been in contact so the Kurds have never cut off you know diplomatic contact with the proper government of Syria so it may be that getting the Russians and the Syrians to give them some protection against turkey attacking on Syrian territory might actually be a pretty practical thing to do because the only ones who seem to you know desperately want them all dead is the is the Turkish the Turkish forces so Syria of course has fought against the Kurds that's my understanding but they would certainly be happy for the Kurds to say okay you win you know

[31:58]

Kurds to say okay you win you know you're the government just make sure we don't get slaughtered now could you trust anybody over there yeah probably not
not so there's a trust problem but the other thing that the prior ambassador to Syria said is that the patch of land where the Kurds are is kind of worthless so apparently the oil wells there are are almost tapped out and the oil is not a big part of the Syrian economy anyway so it's sort of a worthless piece of land that we don't really need to protect and probably the Kurds can get some kind of protection elsewhere and then beyond that we're gonna keep our bases in Iraq so if we need to come back we can come back but the interesting thing is that I think the president and maybe you know Jared Kushner I think they're playing a bigger game it looks like they're trying

[32:58]

bigger game it looks like they're trying to line things up for a much larger agreement that probably depends on on pushing I ran into you either agreeing with us with whatever we want or at least getting out of the way now when you hear that the u.s. is removing the forces from the area and that Israel has a free punch anytime they want in other words there's nothing stopping Israel from just you know continuing to bomb things in Syria if they're bombing people who would be you know a danger to them in the future so probably Israel is gonna get a little bit savage as as we pull out which by the way is going to take a while we're not going to pull out until we've figured out how to do it you know in a way that works but I think Israel is just gonna start mopping up anybody who added an Iranian connection so you know

[34:00]

added an Iranian connection so you know any any Hezbollah types I think Israel just will will mark them and take them out one by one and maybe we just need to get out of the way because the other thing I wonder about is does Israel have the same rules of engagement that US forces do now I realize that our forces had more relaxed rules of engagement under Madison Chow but don't you think Israel has even let's say even more permissive rules of engagement meaning that the best thing that could happen over there might be for the US forces to just get out of the way because Israel's not gonna cut any corners right they're gonna they're gonna take care of business because you know they're their existence as a state or as a country depends on it so I think that they would be far more aggressive than we would now here's the interesting thing if it's

[35:01]

here's the interesting thing if it's true that you know Iran and Qatar and you know whoever is aligned with them they all seem to be on the ropes right now
now the the the people who are aligned with Iran are all losing it seems to me and Iran seems to be losing because the worst thing that could happen from Iran's perspective I would think is for Russia to have more control in Syria yes you know Russia is not going to want Iran to have as much control there so that seems like a natural competition there
Trump is shifting the ally relationships that is true and here's the here's the part that gives me the most optimism about the Middle East right now it has to do with the players and I've said this before but I thought if I keep going back to this imagine in your head President Trump in the same room with

[36:05]

President Trump in the same room with Putin Netanyahu the crown prince of Saudi Arabia in Solomon and just think about how capable those people are and also how flexible they're going to be and have a strong they are as leaders and how willing they would do how willing they would be to do things that other people wouldn't do so so here's what you have you have the highest level of tolerance to risk and willing to think outside the box and just really smart right I'm not sure I don't know how important China is to the Middle East at the moment that's sort of a sort of an empty spot in my knowledge with other empty spots but it seems to me

[37:05]

other empty spots but it seems to me that we have exactly the right leaders even if you don't like them you know even if you have your problems with those leaders you can imagine them in the same room and it all looks good because they're in some ways they're all the same personality they're all they're all smart and bold and they're willing to take a chance they're willing to work with whoever they need to work with to get something done they're all practical I don't know it's the most productive group of leaders they have ever been on the same side trying to solve the same problem and I think I would bet on them so I'm gonna bet that things are gonna be good in the Middle East meaning that meaning the trend will be good there of course will always be problems but that the trend will be positive North Korea still has nukes let me explain North Korea if you are in a long-term negotiation with somebody

[38:07]

a long-term negotiation with somebody what you don't do is give up your stuff first you make sure that you're giving up things at the same rate as the other team is giving up things the United States has not given up anything that says bigass North Korea giving up their nukes now we have given up some things we've stopped doing her we've stopped doing our wargames we've you know we've had summits we've you know given prestige to North Korea so we've given up things but there's nothing we've done that says big as them giving up their nukes and it makes sense for them to hold out because that's the big that's the big prize if they give up their nukes we don't if they give up their nukes tomorrow why would he we've and give them you know any kind of let's say trade deals or you know maybe aid and rebuilding if they gave up their nukes we would just stop caring and they would get nothing else so I think they're

[39:09]

get nothing else so I think they're using it for leverage but keep in mind but at the same time that North Korea you may or may not be fussing with their nukes to take them to the next level without testing them the United States capability is improving at the same time the United States isn't sitting around just waiting for North Korea to improve their nukes every day that goes by the US has better eyes on North Korea better intelligence on North yeah better targeting information on North Korea better plans and better technology so no matter how quickly North Korea is developing their nukes we're kind of developing things pretty quickly on our end too so it's not clear that they're getting some kind of military advantage that's significant so I would say that how much should you worry about them still having nukes not much at all

[40:09]

much at all because even even if even if we went all the way to the end of the process and North Korea still had nukes why would they aim em what else what why would North Korea aim their nukes at the United States when we just basically said okay we don't want to be your enemy anymore it just doesn't make sense it would be a huge expense that would you know their economy and give them nothing nothing there's nothing to gain from it there used to be it actually made a lot of sense before to threaten us because we threatened them and it was you know make things a little dangerous for us but at the moment I don't see any benefit that they have and I can't imagine they see it either so we could get to the point where north and North and South Korea try to you know work together better for 50 years and then someday 50 years from now North Korea says you know why do we even have these nukes what the hell good are they

[41:11]

these nukes what the hell good are they they do nothing for us let's get rid of these things so I'm not worried about North Korea's nuke because all the things that matter are going in the right direction and and weirdly the nukes at the moment don't really matter because they don't have a reason to use them against us as long as things are going in the right direction and I don't see that changing
alright I'm just looking at your comments unsealed indictments not interested in them I'm not interested too much in the legal speculation stuff but I would note that it seems that the the legal stuff as has slowed down oh there was a story today yeah you heard the rumor that there was some rumored secret tape of President Trump when he was working on The Apprentice alleged to

[42:13]

was working on The Apprentice alleged to have used the n-word and that it was on it had been recorded and somebody had the tape and I just saw an interview with some reporter who just spent a whole bunch of new yorker' I think we just spent a whole bunch of time trying to find that tape and apparently talk to all the right people and all the right people said I don't know of any tape so apparently that's fake news so it is fake news that there's some kind of tape of the of the president using the n-word and should we be surprised that that was fake news no we should not be surprised at that at all yeah what about amaurosis tapes well we for those what we yeah Amaro so just disappeared didn't she somebody wrote a article on North Korea all right

[43:18]

wrote a article on North Korea all right the what's the headline from the New York Daily News today
I'm just leave your comments here yeah and and as the reporter for The New Yorker said if someone had that tape at an organization where it's mostly enemies of the president if someone had a tape like that imagine how much they can sell that tape for thoughts on the new Russian nuclear technology well my understanding is that the new Russian technology would help them Swart our missile defense that's on their border but I ask you this our missile defense isn't that good it's not

[44:18]

missile defense isn't that good it's not like anything changed right Russia had the ability to new Europe and the United States at the same time and Russia still has the ability to nuke anything it wants at the same time so the new the new technology of the Russians is impressive assuming it works but I don't think it changes anything on the ground because I don't see the now iron Iron Dome I doubt that's a hundred percent effective Iron Dome just catches as much as I can and if you've got a nuclear transaction with thousands of nukes it doesn't take too many of them to get through to have a bad day

[45:29]

yeah the other thing that was in the news is their Putin I guess Putin made some kind of a statement to say that he wanted to work better with the United States in the coming year and that they wanted to cordon a better on a wide range of topics now that's the same language that you're hearing about China so the u.s. is trying to cooperate better on a wide range of topics with China at the same time Putin is saying hey we'd like to have you know better relations and agree on a wide range of topics of common interests I've been saying this for a while and I'm starting to convinced myself the following it might happened the three countries they have the most reason to get along are Russia China in the United States and the three of us should have some kind of an understanding that we're not each other's enemies because we can't be you know none of us can defeat the other none of us want to try why are why are we picking on each other with the small

[46:30]

we picking on each other with the small stuff you know we've got the three biggest you know military is in the history of civilization and we're just we're just doing small ball stuff you know with each other so it feels like everybody's gonna understand their best interest is to just stop treating each other as enemies because we're not we're just not natural enemies we have a natural reason to coordinate and to be friends we have all the natural reasons to be friends and we have no natural reasons except psychology and history to be enemies we just don't need it nobody is better off this way there's no way that Putin is saying to himself I like it I like it that we're always doing stuff to them and they're always doing stuff to us that's just the way I like it
it there's no way he thinks that there's nothing that Putin would like better than to not be at odds with the United States I have to think that somewhere in

[47:31]

States I have to think that somewhere in their respective deep states that the leaders of both the United States and Russia maybe can stop their deep state people screwing with each other yeah maybe the leaders don't have as much control as we'd like them to have I'm a little bit confused about why we treat Russia especially as an enemy I understand that they're doing bad things but why what the hell what what are they trying to gain unless they're just paying us back for whatever bad things we're doing to them that we also don't really need to do all right that's all I got I'll talk to you later