Episode 410 Scott Adams: Green New Deal (GND), Universal Basic Income (UBI), Trump Tweets

Date: 2019-02-10 | Duration: 1:03:38

Topics

Green New Deal (GND) contains Universal Basic Income (UBI) UBI is money for free…for everyone, even if “unwilling to work” The payoff for working remains: more resources and a better life It’s almost guaranteed that in my lifetime, UBI will happen UBI is to allow minimal survivable life capability, a safety net like…Social Security, food stamps, welfare GND might not contain anything that’s practical or possible But GND is directionally positive The Congressional border budget plan won’t be supported… …by the border control experts Congress is NOT a functional body for this issue Declaring a national emergency solution…supported by the experts Congress isn’t able to provide a solution supported by experts CNN isn’t as rabidly anti-Trump lately, what changed? 8,000 lies in two years supposedly, did any of them matter? There’s no examples of damage from POTUS hyperbole Trade wars are stupid! Hmm…new deals are better for us Old China trade deal allowed stealing our intellectually property New deal is stalled, cause they want to continue the stealing “Presidential Harassment” is smart, good framing
Elizabeth Warren’s apology tour is beyond cringe worthy She comes across as weak and apologetic

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

[0:05]

pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom po hey everybody come on in here happy Sunday it's time for coffee with Scott Adams I'm Scott Adams your host why does god Adams talk about Scott Adams in the third person how annoying that is when Scott Adams does that well as most of you know I do it because it makes you it makes it hard to look away so all the people who send me messages and say why do you talk about yourself in the third person it's so weird and creepy to which I say this is why because you can't look away it's a mistake that holds your attention all right we're gonna talk about a few things today we're gonna talk about the unwillingness to work you know what that's all about I'll get to that in a minute but first I want to read president Trump's great tweet so he's talking

[1:08]

Trump's great tweet so he's talking about the so-called green New Deal that the Democrats have put out and 15 hours ago he tweeted this another from the President of the United States here it is I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their green new New Deal look it would be great for the so-called carbon footprint to permanently eliminate all planes cars cows oil gas and the military even if no other country would do the same brilliant now of course he's being sarcastic and he is framing this in a way that I haven't seen frame two before so this is a this is a terrific reframe of the idea because if you hear their their idea in isolation hey we want to save the planet and you'd be good to people it doesn't sound nearly as impractical but the moment you say you realize that

[2:10]

but the moment you say you realize that if we do this and other countries don't do this they will have a military and we won't they will have a big economy and we won't the moment you put it in terms of international competition the whole thing is ridiculous all right now that's the most defensible argument against the green New Deal we don't live in isolation the things we do are influenced by what that will do to the rest of the world and what the rest of the world will do to us if we do that thing so I haven't heard anybody else put it in this frame which is it's not practical because the rest of the world isn't going to do it and they would put us at a disadvantage to other countries that's a pretty good argument and a good reframe now the most fun thing about about this whole situation with the green new deal is if you're following this there are two movies about one

[3:13]

this there are two movies about one element of the green New Deal and let me take you to the two buoys and then I'll pick a winner which movie is closer to true all right so you got two movies in one of these movies there was a phrase unwilling to work which appeared on a OCS website as part of the frequently asked questions answers sort of a cheat sheet to give you a summary of what's in this green New Deal now the green New Deal is a separate document from the Chi sheet so we're talking about two separate documents right one was on a OCS website and it was sort of a summary and then there's the larger document which is the proposal itself it turns out they're different in one important way this phrase unwilling to work in the context of universal basic income so one of the things that the AOC website said

[4:15]

of the things that the AOC website said for a while until they took it down we'll get to that so so temporarily a OSC's website had a summary in which it said part of the proposal and it turns out the proposal doesn't have this in it but it said so initially that they were proposing a universal basic income in other words writing a check from the government to a citizen who was either unable to work or and here's the fun part unwilling to work and when there was a big reaction to that as you might imagine they took it down now there are two versions of reality here and we're trying to sort out which is the real one and I'll help you do that in a minute one version of reality I'll call a movie one says that the green New Deal did mean to include a universal income for people unwilling to work in other words

[5:16]

people unwilling to work in other words somebody just had to say I'm unwilling to work and the government would start writing them checks and outrageous right crazy stuff and when they put this and when people saw this that it was really part of their thinking even though it wasn't in the final document people flipped down and said my god you're thinking this crazy idea and as soon as you got caught you deleted it because of the reaction you know it's only it's only the reaction you've got too embarrassed when people saw it see it took it down and then here's the fun part you you tried to Gaslight the public gaslighting means that you tell them something that is obviously true is false until you make them think they're crazy so so the gas lighting in this movie is that the people who were behind the green the New Deal say no no that was that's not part of the green New Deal

[6:16]

Deal nope that is that is not that's not there even though it clearly was in the document and that has been well established all right so in this movie a crazy idea was floated when the public saw it they got such a bad reaction to it they just said no nope it never happened never happened no such thing as unwilling to work in the green New Deal nope did not happen alright is that likely compared to the other movie now here's the movie as described by a OCS chief of staff his version goes like this that the the FAQ of the part that was wrong there were many versions of it there were many drafts of the green New Deal and in one of the drafts at least one draft at least one author we don't know how many other people but at least one person thought that this raised

[7:17]

person thought that this raised unwilling to work should be in the draft but other people did not and it was not part of the final of green New Deal but by accident by accident the wrong copy got on the website and people didn't notice it until the critics noticed it and then they said whoops that was an error that was never meant to be on the website and indeed it's not in the final document so you can see that for sure we didn't mean it and and in this version they told the truth hey we made a mistake which of these two versions is the most likely now I'll tell you the worst opinion now let me not offend you right away let me let me let me go after this a little bit of softer it'll go down better one of the ways that you can determine truth from fake news is the

[8:18]

determine truth from fake news is the level of ridiculousness of one movie versus the other if you've got two versions of events that both describe what you saw and they both fit the facts as you've observed one of them is insane and the other one is perfectly ordinary which one would you choose as being the likely explanation for the facts one is extraordinary and what is just totally normal well if you pick the totally normal one you're gonna be right about 95% of the time maybe not every time because every now and then something extraordinary does happen but if you're looking for extraordinary everywhere you're gonna be wrong about 95% of the time all right let me let me tell you how this movie I know you don't want to hear this here's the part you don't like but it's also the reason you watch these periscopes movie 2 is by far the most likely

[9:19]

movie 2 is by far the most likely description of events and let me give a little background on it so you know why how how common is it for people to have multiple giraffes and then when the final one is ready people don't reread the entire draft again and you end up with a wrong draft how normal is it for people to not realize there's something in the in a draft that they didn't notice because they don't reread the entire draft every time totally normal if you've ever worked in a big corporate environment in fact my own job I'm always doing drafts and and you know looking at versions of things completely normal that they would accidentally put a draft up there and say whoops that they had something in it that we didn't really mean to be there so this is far more normal than then that they then the version that they intended to put it out there and then lied about it right gaslighting is something that the

[10:23]

right gaslighting is something that the president is accused of all the time in my entire life I've never seen a real situation of gas lighting I've never seen it I've seen people accuse people of gas lighting all the time in the past years though happens all the time
so gas lighting is the most extraordinary situation and unless you absolutely are positive that's what's going on don't ever think that that's the likely explanation so as soon as you hear I I'm sure that this was gas lighting 95% chance you're wrong and I don't even care what the situation is you could take the same analysis to any situation somebody says although I was just an ordinary accident and somebody else says it's gas lighting the ordinary accident is almost always going to be the real explanation people don't gas light it's just not a thing it's something you imagine is a

[11:24]

thing it's something you imagine is a thing because people are wrong about things people do lie about things and it looks like gas lighting probably never has happened in your lifetime you've probably never literally never seen it I've never seen for example now you probably also or many of you saw a Tucker Carlson interview in which Tucker said to a media matters person who was defending the green new deal said you know let's talk about this unwilling to work thing and what did the Media Matters say he said that's not in there and Tucker was confused it's like that's definitely in there I'm reading it it's right on a o C's website it says it indirect words and then the Media Matters guy goes no that's not in there it's not in the green new deal turns out the media management matters guy was accurate the actual document the green new deal the one he's read it's

[12:26]

green new deal the one he's read it's not in there so he wasn't gas lighting he was actually telling you the truth it's not in there and has never been in there it was on a overseas web site temporarily which they called a mistake and then they took down so what you thought was gas lighting was somebody actually just telling you the truth it's not in the green new deal now he didn't probably didn't know that there was a bad version on the web site when he was talking about it and thus the confusion there were multiple documents now how crazy is this idea to give some of the universal basic income for somebody who is unwilling to work I'm gonna get you a little bit more some of you are gonna be a little angrier when I'm done with this universal universal basic income in other words writing a check from the government to a citizen for being unwilling to work is not nearly as

[13:29]

being unwilling to work is not nearly as crazy as you think on first look and that's probably why they took it out my best guess and now I'm going into speculation all right so I want to make a clear distinction you know between what is my opinion versus more of a speculative thing probably there is a smart argument for paying people who are unwilling to work you know let me give you a flavor of what it might look like and probably people realize that when you take it out of context of it's better argument and you can't really have context in a summary that's what the FAQ was it was just a quick bullet point summary of the plan in the bullet point summary you can't really defend and explain paying people who are unwilling to work it's too hard of a concept it's a hard sale so even if there was a good intellectual argument for that they would have been wise to

[14:29]

for that they would have been wise to have considered it and then taken it out because it was unsellable all right but let me suggest to you this imagine not to in the not too far future might be five years might be ten years when the the robots are doing a lot of the work and let's say you've got a situation there for every ten people who could work there are only seven decent jobs and the other jobs they're barely worth doing because you're by the time you paid for your childcare let's say and your and your commute it just wouldn't be worth the job so for every ten people there are only seven jobs that are worth doing who do you want doing the seven jobs do you want the seven jobs to be done by people who want those jobs because the people working are gonna have more resources more pay a happier

[15:29]

have more resources more pay a happier life than the people who are just getting a universal basic income don't you want the seven out of ten who want to work to be doing the work why would you ever want someone who is unwilling to work to have one of those few jobs they're not going to do much of a job and they're not going to be happy about it
it so if they're not happy they have the job and you're not happy they have a job why do they have a job all right so the first thing you have to understand is that it's tough to soar down to somebody who is who can't work from someone who is unwilling in a practical sense anybody who is unwilling will simply claim they're they're incapable they'll say I've got a mental problem they'll say I've got anxiety they're gonna say a lot of things and so for in the practical sense you almost can't sort out who is unable to work from someone who claims are unable to work those would be the unwilling now what about

[16:31]

would be the unwilling now what about the people who could work but the only jobs available are such a long commute and we would require so much childcare expense that it's not worth working if the alternatives is to get this universal basic income so we may we might be very close to a time when universal basic income is a thing because the robots are doing all the low-level jobs and there just aren't enough good jobs so somebody's has to be the unworking group and they we're not going to let them starve probably just because there aren't enough jobs so the socialist version is that rather than forcing people to work you just go with the situation which is there aren't enough jobs and I'd rather have people willing to work and willing to make more money by working than getting universal basic income all right so that's one vision of it that and by the way I'm not saying you should buy this I'm not I'm

[17:32]

saying you should buy this I'm not I'm not talking you into it I'm just saying that when you first see the idea of paying people who are unwilling to work it sounds freaking crazy doesn't it it goes against everything you know about capitalism it goes against everything you know about incentives but I almost can guarantee you that there's an intellectual argument for for a world that's starting to enter the robot age we're very smart capitalists have said to themselves we should at least test this idea of universal basic income and the reality is we're not going to be able to sort out the difference between people who were unwilling to work and the people who just say that are unwell say they're the we can't sort out who's incapable from who's unwilling because part of your health is your mental health and anybody can claim I'm just not mentally able or or I just can't do these jobs so you might as well

[18:34]

can't do these jobs so you might as well just say all right doesn't matter if you're unable or unwilling if you would rather have a very low level of life that's an option but anybody who wants to work can have a much better life that's the the payoff for working so you you are certainly welcome to say I'm still not sold on that idea the only thing I'm trying to sell you on is that there's probably a larger intellectual economic argument that's not crazy all right that's the only point I'm trying to make there probably is a larger context and argument that's not crazy it might be wrong you might not agree with that you know reasonable people might disagree but I guarantee you there's a larger argument that's not so crazy but it would have been crazy to include it in the draft as a bullet point or even really in the final plan

[19:35]

point or even really in the final plan because it's such a lightning rod it's too easy to argue against it because we're all primed for incentives capitalism and all that stuff so to me the most likely explanation of what happened is that there was at least one person as far as we know it would only take one person to insert that into a draft because people had talked about it and they thought it was maybe a good idea to start floating out there you know getting us ready for a world where where this is going to happen so universal basic income is almost certainly going to happen I would say that we're almost guaranteed that in my lifetime somebody's going to be getting a universal basic income in the world of robots yeah you need the robots to get there probably and that one person had an intellectual argument thought it was time to introduce it but it wasn't the right time and so the larger group said let's take that out that's too hard to defend so the most likely explanation is

[20:37]

defend so the most likely explanation is movie two doesn't mean it's true but by far as the more likely explanation is that they did consider unwilling to work they did have an argument it was too complicated too controversial impossible to persuade and so it left the early drafts and was just taken out but somebody didn't notice and because there were lots of drafts floating around it got on the website when they noticed if they took it off and they just said okay we made a mistake that was dumb we took it off alright they admitted a mistake if you see somebody admit an ordinary mistake and it explains the entire situation go with the ordinary thinking most of the time all right

[21:40]

eub I will almost certainly cause the productive people to be less productive maybe you so here's the thing the universal basic income is designed to give you a minimum survivable life how many people would accept a minimum survivable life probably a lot but I always use this example does it matter now let let me put this in context it seems to me that all of the important things that happen in society that move things forward come from a very small group of people yeah there's a small group of entrepreneurs risk takers geniuses who do all the cool stuff so the top I would say the top 2% of the

[22:40]

the top I would say the top 2% of the performers have this hugely larger impact on the world than all the bullet all the 98% below in terms of big change how important are the let's say lowest twenty percent of performers to the overall success of social of the world compare the top two percent who are really moving and shaking and inventing to the bottom 20 percent who you kind of wish they wouldn't even show up for work right if you ever worked in an office where you looked around and you said to yourself you know if the worst twenty percent of my co-workers would call in sick every day we'd really get something done so when you're saying to yourself oh no I can't live in a world where let's say the bottom 10% or 20% of people unwilling to work just get a check the alternative is they probably work for your company and slow you down

[23:41]

work for your company and slow you down they're not they're not the ones who are making the you know the world move forward
so you're probably not going to be as damaged by it as you think so long as there was still plenty of incentive to work right the only people who are not going to work are the people who weren't going to add much to the world anyway so you're not going to lose that much isn't that what the welfare is there are some minor differences but I can't get into that just drug the people who want to be drugged well that's going to happen anyway right I raised my family I won't pay for anyone unwilling to work I'm not saying you will ever it will ever be popular

[24:52]

ubi Oh we'll make everybody poorer well let me ask you this don't we have lots of people who are receiving services for nothing right now we have an entire an entire elderly class who are receiving more money than they put in with Social Security now would you end that would you end Social Security because so many old people are taking out of it more than they put in they're effectively getting paid by you for not working so there's a lot of stuff you get used to and you probably get used to you be I even though it sounds like a terrible idea from today's perspective not original it's called communism is it it's pretty far from communism in fact the people who who have talked about universal basic income include some of the biggest capitalists in the world you may know that Sam

[25:54]

in the world you may know that Sam Altman who is a billionaire CEO of Y Combinator was recently testing the idea you know literally one of the biggest capitalists in the world was testing universal basic income with his own money he was seeing what would happen if I just pay some people and don't ask them anything in return now I think it didn't work I don't remember how that turned out but I'm not sure that that's that was a successful experiment except in the sense that that we learned something all right it seems to me that we've gone too far too far without the simultaneous it I know you're ready grab your mug grab your glass your cup your thermos your stein your chalice fill it with your favorite liquid and join me for the simultaneous set

[26:58]

somebody says I'm one willing to pay everybody who says they're unwilling to pay for other people who are unwilling to work you're forgetting that you're already doing it and you know you wake up and it doesn't bother your during today and you go to sleep and you don't even notice the elderly are not expected to work willing or unwilling well why not what what makes the elderly why did they get a pass why did the elderly get supported by the young there's no there's no reason for that we just got used to it that's what if the robots don't want to work
Erik Weinstein - what about Erik has he talked about universal basic income it's already a failed model you know here's the problem with failed models and every time I hear somebody say this I have the

[27:59]

time I hear somebody say this I have the same reaction how many times have you heard somebody say we've already tried that and it didn't work it's one of the most common things you hear right we've already tried this whatever it is any plan we've already tried it and it didn't work well you know what also didn't work until it did the airplane you can just go down the list of every major invention everything that eventually worked didn't work first so not working is the starting point for things that work so if you look at something and you note that it never worked in the past that doesn't really tell you it won't work in the future those are not that is not predictive because we tweak things until they do work in the future that's what we're good at humans are good at adjusting the only thing we can say for sure is that

[28:59]

only thing we can say for sure is that the exact way it was tried in the exact situation of the past didn't work that's all you can say you can't say that well tweak this or well the situation has changed we have robots now but we didn't have robots before so it's it's always dangerous to say well it didn't work before so I guess it'll never work in the future everything that didn't work in the future doesn't tell you whether it won't work I'm sorry I watched that sentence but you know where it was going
ubi has never been implemented anywhere lol well lol person haha you mock me ubi has been tried I'm gonna have to get the the Dale hold on this requires a Dale I'll be right back there are some things

[30:01]

I'll be right back there are some things that just require the daily response don't you know you be a husband tried before Scott oh you poor stupid bastard you don't know that it can't possibly work yeah pause that might work because has never worked in the past are you talking about the past where robots were doing a lot of our work is that the past you're talking about you remember back in the past when we had robots they would do all of our manufacturing and building our houses that passed is that the one you're talking about because the fact that something didn't work before robots doesn't tell you a lot about what the world looks like after robots and that's just one example all right so I'm not saying the robots

[31:02]

all right so I'm not saying the robots are the only factor here but the general point is it is very informative that it has been tried in a number of ways and didn't work so I'm not saying that's not important because I'm sure we learned a lot from that Finland is an example yeah so Finland tried it and it didn't seem to be a successful thing I think some other individuals have tried it and it didn't work that does not tell you that it will never work the you know it's certainly gives you reason for pause
it gives you reason for pause and then really good reason so if you're saying let me make it more general point if you're saying to me Scott based on the times that's been tried before and based on what we know about human nature I would say the odds of universal basic income ever working in a widespread way are low the odds are

[32:04]

in a widespread way are low the odds are low that we could ever figure out a way to make that work I would say to you well thank you reasonable person I appreciate your reasonable well balanced approach in which you talk about the odds of something working based on our experience I would call that a good opinion even if it's wrong it's a well expressed opinion here's a bad opinion it hasn't worked the other ways we've tried it and therefore there's a hundred percent chance laughably laughably a hundred percent chance that it could never work under any scenario and under any tweaking in under any future condition that's not a sensible argument it's only sensible that based on what we've seen the odds don't look that good and I would agree with you on that but Never Say Never is what I'm saying all right

[33:04]

banning airplanes let's talk about that banning airplanes now I as I've said before I don't know that anything on that green new deal is practical it could be that there's just not a single practical part of that but they're all directionally interesting meaning that if I had an option of a fast train to go across the country versus an airplane I might pick the train because probably you can get a much better accommodation on a train you know it's probably just a better a better or safer situation so if there were any way to economically build a series of you low-cost train transportation - you know crisscross the country I would love to look at the economics of that because the airline industry is a mess have you

[34:05]

the airline industry is a mess have you flown recently flying is a nightmare yeah we're it's 2019 and flying is no better it's actually worse than it was thirty years ago I think flying is probably the only technology that's gotten worse for 30 years straight so I think airplanes need a little competition so that would be fine for me all right
yeah the dumbest somebody's saying the dumbest people the ones who say it won't work so don't try it that is correct the smart people say let's test it and when the test doesn't work the smart people say let's see if we can tweak it and try it again so if you're not if you're not approaching it that way you're not you're not part of the productive conversation all right
universal basic income with open borders is a death spiral correct that's correct

[35:08]

is a death spiral correct that's correct if you don't have a border security you can't start you can't give away your money I think I think that's a safe thing to say we've seen now that there's no indication that the Congress is going to come up with a plan for the border that is compatible with what the border experts recommend think about it the the plan that comes out of Congress will not be compatible with what the only people who know what's happening the experts say should be done what should we do with that you know one of the reasons to declare an emergency is if there's an emergency the other reason to declare an emergency in my opinion is if there's something the experts want and it's it's well expressed and we understand what they're talking about and we can afford it and the Congress won't do it for

[36:10]

it and the Congress won't do it for political reasons if you have a Congress that won't act for naked political reasons despite the public and the experts essentially agreeing on what a good solution looks like and I think the public would would start to back the experts if we can see specifically their plan I think in that condition the in that situation which is our current situation the president can just say look the the system doesn't work right now there is there's a security issue I'm the commander in chief it's my it's my job to plug our security holes and the Congress is not a functional body because they've become too political on this issue now he can also take some I think the president could legitimately take some responsibility for Congress being locked up because he's he's made it such a brand and he's made it so politicized the border that it makes it

[37:13]

politicized the border that it makes it easier for the other side to just want to Authority in for political reasons so he's got some some responsibilities but he's also not Congress all right Congress doesn't get a pass do not do their job for the people just because they don't like the president that's not a reason we don't accept that as a reason so I think the president can just say Congress does it is not functioning on this question and it's a security question so I'm gonna I'm gonna act in a way that's compatible with the experts if the president declares an emergency and acts exactly in accordance with what the security experts want and it's well within the budget five point seven billion is well within our you know our total budget I think he's completely safe I think Congress just will prove

[38:13]

safe I think Congress just will prove that they can't functions so he doesn't have to say I disagree with Congress or I agree with Congress he doesn't have to say anything like that he just have to say they they don't function if they're ignoring the experts right in front of the public and the public is watching this and right in front of us the Congress apparently is going to ignore the experts think about that they're going to ignore the experts right in front of us you know their bosses imagine that you know imagine if you went to your boss and your boss said well I'd like you to do this because the experts agree and you look at your boss and you look at the experts and you go no no I'm not going to do that well the boss fires you right so it might be time for the president to fire a congress on just this one question now let me give you a bigger picture once again I go on to

[39:15]

bigger picture once again I go on to cnn.com and it's not anti-trump and there seems to be something that's changed I don't know exactly what it could be because the Democrats are having so many issues could be because oh you know I do have a I do have a theory so we went from a situation in which all the CNN coverage was anti-trump to a situation where they're talking about the green New Deal and about the new candidates and more of a positive spin on things which are not Trump but it's more of a positivity about you know the green New Deal and then the new candidates and the excitement there maybe the thing that's changed is that when you're you don't have a green new deal to talk about you don't have anything positive to talk about so CNN talked about what's left which is anti-trump so I think you don't

[40:16]

which is anti-trump so I think you don't need to be as anti Trump if you have something positive to talk about from the other side so it looks like the coverage has just because they have this option now there's there's something positive to talk about I think they'll talk about the candidates and about the green New Deal a lot and that will be good for the president because if you run then the list of things people were afraid of from the president he is going to be insane well we've had two years of nothing that looks crazy right where is it where's the insanity gonna kick in yeah if that's the problem why is everything running so well why are we doing well with North Korea in Syria why are we doing well why are we doing well on everything the economy the you know the prison reform is it's hard to square that with he's crazy and incompetent then there's that he's gonna be a crazy dictator he's gonna act like a dictator but we're watching right in

[41:16]

a dictator but we're watching right in front of us that he respects the Supreme Court decisions he respects the rule of law he's he's working with the Congress because he doesn't have a friendly Congress now so every bit of information refutes the dictator scenario so now the crazy crazy unstable guy thing is sort of no longer believable because we've got a couple years of him in office and no crazy stuff is happening at least not in any any real sense except for tweets and stuff then there's the now he's also told apparently a thousand lies so the president has told a thousand lies according to the fact checkers but after two years can you tell can you point to something where that mattered in other words can you say AHA now Great Britain will no longer work with us no no or AHA

[42:21]

will no longer work with us no no or AHA we can't get a deal done with China no we don't have a deal but it doesn't seem to be anything about the president right there's nothing about the president's promises during campaigns or whatever that is affecting China's negotiation you can't really find any way that his departing from the fact checkers talking about the president you can't really find an example where something was damaged by that your your so-called common sense tells you should be right there should be some damage but there's not now that's what I predicted from the start if you've been following my coverage of this president I predicted from the start that his departing from the fact-checking was hyperbole it was directionally okay and that wouldn't make any difference in the real world because people put it in context that's the president it's what he does

[43:27]

said that and then there was a problem that he would destroy the economy that doesn't seem to be a problem there was a problem that he would start trade wars that would destroy the world but what do you hear mostly about China trade talks now do you remember when the China trade stock trade talks first started the way that the coverage was people would say my god trade wars are stupid trade wars will destroy the economy right that was the main thing you heard trade war is always stupid nobody wins a trade war if you're starting a trade war you're doing everything wrong it's going to be terrible the economy is going to go to the toilet right that was non-stop what do we talk about now when we talk about China and trade every time you hear that what is the thing that comes up right at the top of the list there are theft of intellectual property so we started with trade deals are always bad and therefore Trump is being

[44:28]

always bad and therefore Trump is being dumb for getting into one and it has transformed as we have become educated so what Trump has done whether or not he intended to do this explicitly it's what happened he has educated us from thinking that this was a trade deal which it was in part to something bigger which is you had a country that was just absolutely abusing us by stealing our intellectual property and had no intention of stopping apparently the reason we can't reach a deal with China is because they're only willing to consider deals in which they can easily continue to cheat and I was listening to the coverage of it yesterday and now the coverage accepts that as a fact so we've taken we've taken it from trade deals about trade deals are bad you're stupid to get into one blah-blah-blah-blah-blah that argument has has gone down a little bit too well yeah you should negotiate a trade

[45:30]

well yeah you should negotiate a trade deal to this intellectual property theft absolutely cannot be accepted and will even take a beating on trade meaning that you know the trade war will continue and will take the pain from that because this other issue of the intellectual property theft is so big that you know you concentrate it on that so so even even the most down-to-earth you know just normal criticisms of this president like hey you're starting a trade war that's no good the world has been coming educated to the point where the kind of agreeing with Trump I would say at this point both sides agree with the main premise that you can't allow China to steal our intellectual property and if we don't nail that down with this overall trade agreement it's a mistake so I think China is now or I think that yeah I think that between the Sentinal

[46:31]

yeah I think that between the Sentinal issue from China that somebody's prompting me here in the comments between the fentanyl issue which we see as huge and the intellectual property people get that Trump needed to get tough with China and that he's doing it exactly the right way which is treating China with great respect he always treats them with great respect and and their leader President Xi he treats him with great respect at the same time he's saying as clearly as possible this stuff isn't going to go on anymore yeah we're done with this stuff [Music] sorry technical difficulty so there's not much left to talk about with espresso and then the other thing is the the China the Russia collusion thing is starting to look ridiculous and especially now that the president is pulling out of I guess pulling out of whatever nuclear and missile deals we've got with with Russia so now there there

[47:34]

got with with Russia so now there there are so many ways that the president has acted against Russia and we've gone so long without Muller coming up with anything we've kind of the Russia collusion thing even the people who believed in it are starting to not believe it so what about the Roger stone raid and that's old news
what about Enquirer information on Trump that could surface you know that falls into the category of anything could happen but I can't imagine much that could happen about Trump's personal life that would make any difference yeah if there was some new revelation about Trump did this or that in his personal life I don't know anybody cares

[48:34]

yes so now I see people putting their hope in these various Democrat presidential harassment says the president calls it I do like I do like the president's framing of what the Congress is planning to do with all their investigations I do like that he's calling it presidential harassment because that's that's pretty good description I think that works pretty well
how about the great job Melania is doing you know every now and then I remind myself I remind myself that Melania is kind of great you know the fact that you don't hear so much about her I don't maybe that maybe that works in her favor because she's she's not trying to be a superstar she's just trying to do her level best for the country and I would

[49:36]

level best for the country and I would say she's doing a great job yeah she she probably has more I don't know is it just me or is the fact that Melania puts up with her husband you know the the fact that she's stuck with him and puts up with him kind of it kind of makes me like her a lot more there's something about that situation that makes me respect her more makes me respect her a lot I guess because it's not like she didn't know what she was getting into she's just making the best of a good situation and doing it with the grace I think what about Megan Megan McCain I don't don't really care about that story
all right just looking at your comments what are my thoughts on bado tomorrow

[50:36]

what are my thoughts on bado tomorrow night rally for presidential bid yeah somebody says christina puts up with me good point just one of the reasons she's awesome
well bado is good at getting attention but I don't see him as being a likely candidate for the Dems because he's white and he's male and that's no longer their brand so I can't get I just can't get interested about Biden I can't get interested with bado can't get interested about birdie because I just don't think there's any chance that those those folks will be the candidate
did I see the the Nadler stuff with the AG yeah what you know I only watched some of the clips with Whitaker acting Attorney General Whitaker and Nadler and

[51:38]

Attorney General Whitaker and Nadler and I didn't think that Whitaker did as good a job as he could have done there I don't know that anything was hurt by it but I feel like he could have you could have done a better job I don't know it's specifically why the Scott if you had to vote for a Democrat who would you vote for and why why I love that question that is a great question alright so the question is if I had to vote for a Democrat who would I vote for and why of the people running wow that's a really good question there's nobody in the field that's running that jumps out but I'll take the spirit of the question which is I have to pick somebody so if I had to pick a Democrat gosh

[52:43]

had to pick a Democrat gosh I don't know I would eliminate anybody who's over 70 so I would eliminate Biden and I would eliminate to Bernie just for age and by the way I've said the same thing about Trump and Clinton when they were running that I thought both of them were we're too old now I am happy with the job that Trump is doing but I think just as a general rule we shouldn't have presidents over the age of 70 so probably I don't know I hate to say it but I don't know why I hate to say it
yeah maybe maybe somebody like tulsi gabbard or Kamala Harris I think they're probably the strongest candidates so I was watching the Elizabeth Warren apology tour and oh my god what were you cringing as much as I was

[53:44]

what were you cringing as much as I was watching Elizabeth Warren crawl and beg for the approval of the Native Americans it was hard to watch because she kept repeating like a robot that she understands that tribal membership does not come from just wanting to be in the tribe and having some DNA so we get that you don't need to repeat it over and over again like you're so weak and sorry so I'd say Elizabeth Warren has no realistic chance in part because she seems weak and apologetic over something silly you know I mean I would have more respect for Elizabeth Warren if she went directly at it and said oh my god I thought I was American Indian and I thought I I thought I qualified for some benefits turns out I didn't so I think

[54:44]

benefits turns out I didn't so I think she should just go and right at it and said you know I really I really got some benefits from that perhaps can't tell but it was bad to me but that that you know I didn't do it n of I means I think she could make a stronger case that she didn't do it out of some sense of cheating that she did it because she believes she was Native Americans and the reason I would believe that is because I believed I was Native American until last year when I had by DNA test my family my family also told me that I was Native American with great detail I knew the name of the relative I knew what tribe she was allegedly with turns out none of it was true but I'm not I'm not embarrassed by it

[55:49]

is the Golden Age equal to the green new deal now not exactly the golden age is you could think it overlaps in the sense that I think we're reaching a point where we could maybe cure cancer and change the environment if we want
the poll asks your ethnic and race affiliation not tribal membership okay
somebody says they have reservations about warrant careful about your jokes you don't want to be like Rob Lowe who had to remove his tweet because he joked that Warren would be the first commander-in-chief with you know emphasis on the chief Bart and then he took it down because people said how insensitive of you Klobuchar don't know Klobuchar too much FBI now has your DNA they do my DNA is now in the system so I

[56:53]

they do my DNA is now in the system so I can't I can't murder anybody
Oh somebody says I love the fact you're avoiding talking about Julian Castro I'm not avoiding talking about him he he doesn't raise he doesn't rise to my level of caring I don't think he has a chance of being the nominee but he'd be he'd be the funniest nominee just because he hasn't identical twin and having a President of the United States with an identical twin would be so much fun I mean that alone it would be worth it
[Music] so
humor is now gone because of liberals somebody says that that the humor has

[57:55]

somebody says that that the humor has certainly changed
will psychedelics become legal yes psychedelics will become legal if you ask me when that's harder but I would say that the the science and the you know the way we think you know that the zeitgeist and everything else is moving in that direction yet psychedelics are insanely valuable for a lot of people they're just illegal so if we could fix the illegal part you'd have a much better world let me let me put it this way if I'm 90 years old and I'm not on drugs I'm probably not having a good day if I'm 90 years old and I'm micro dosing on LSD
LSD I'm really gonna like my old age and I'm not joking about that even a little bit

[58:56]

not joking about that even a little bit if I live to 90 and I can micro dose on LSD I'm gonna micro dose on LSD and I'm gonna have the greatest old age of anybody I just won't drive and I shouldn't be driving at that age anyway
how did you like the split-screen will you do it again the so there's this weird situation with a split screen which is so periscope has a split screen option and believe it or not I can't find out the answer to this question the most basic question when I do the split screen can you as the audience see both of us at the same time on the screen the most basic question right it's a split screen technology I've tried it and I don't know the answer to whether or not you could see two people on the screen

[59:56]

you could see two people on the screen and the reason I don't know is because I've been I've had credible reports of both in other words I had report from somebody I personally know who said they watched the test and that there were two people on the screen somebody I personally know who told me immediately after oh yeah there were two people on the screen I could see them both at the same time lots of credible people said that never happened I don't know what to do with that people said no I was there there was not two screens you could hear one and you could see you but you could only hear the other one and then someone else said you get an option of choosing if you're the invited guest you get the option of just being audio or being video and audio and if you select the video then you'll be seen on the screen now I think that's the case but I'm also hearing from people who are very well informed that periscope doesn't actually

[1:00:59]

informed that periscope doesn't actually have that option so I've been I've been told at two worlds that are completely opposites and I don't know the answer but I will tell you that I have two periscopes that I'm gonna use the split screen however it works we'll figure it out as we go on Monday I'm going to split screen with bill Polti and I'm gonna give you some updates on the blade Authority some some really interesting stuff and I'll show you some ideas for what to do with the blade cleared land so bill Polti will join me on one day that's tomorrow and then on Tuesday I'm going to split screen with navall Rafa Conte we've done a periscope before where he was with me in the same room and now we're going to try it try it this way so don't miss those so you'll have two good examples of the split screen Monday and then again on Tuesday

[1:02:09]

it was their profile pictures oh so now I'm getting a third version of reality so someone else is saying in the comments that you can see a picture of the the other person on the screen but it's not live it's a screenshot or just their profile picture so one of those three things will happen tomorrow you'll either only hear the audio you'll see a full motion video with me on the other side or you'll see where you'll see a still picture and me on the other side so it's one of those things
yes I probably will set up another device so I can see what it looks like from the users perspective yes I probably will do that so somebody's saying yes it's their avatar that would

[1:03:10]

saying yes it's their avatar that would actually explain so it's the profile picture
no now some people are saying that it showed on the upper left that's not a split screen a split screen with just a an icon would not be a split screen all right so anyway we don't we don't know the answer but we'll find out tomorrow and that's enough for now and I will talk to you later bye