Episode 501 Scott Adams: The Coup in Progress, CNN Destroying Climate, Those Pesky Russians

Date: 2019-04-21 | Duration: 44:23

Topics

Fentanyl classified as a WMD, Weapon of Mass Destruction Will we occupy Mexico militarily and take out the cartels? Cartels have financial incentive to reduce fentanyl deaths Will the cartels keep Fentanyl out of terrorist hands? It would be self-preservation by the cartels Cartels linked to terrorists…that’s the end of the cartels Terrorists, like the cartels, keep their atrocities below a certain level Below the level that triggers an American military response A Russian person sourced the Steele dossier, Kremlin connected? Narrative: Kremlin was trying to help Trump Confusing Fact: Steele dossier was rabidly anti-Trump Why are Clapper and Brennan not in jail? a coup was attempted on our President, are they innocent? They were in key positions of knowledge and power Did Joe Biden collude with Russia? Joe was on the “team” that attempted the coup CNN and HBO are pushing anti-nuclear propaganda They and the left leaning press are pushing wind solution Are they demonizing SAFE nuclear, to promote wind? Shouldn’t we pursue BOTH, wind and SAFE Gen IV nuclear? We don’t know which is better, so pursue both One…maybe both will provide our best path forward Caller challenge: He will change my opinion in 90 seconds Topic: the death penalty Challenge accepted

Please donate to support my YouTube channel:
https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays
I also 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

[0:08]

hey everybody happy Easter I hope you've got your cup of your mug your tankered your Stein your thermos your flask I hope it's full of your favorite liquid I hope it's coffee I got I have my coffee and now it's time for the simultaneous zip please join me
oh somebody wants to change my mind 90 seconds e well maybe we'll do that later I got plenty to talk about today there's news all over the place number one uh there's I think there were eight churches attacked in Sri Lanka for Easter eight bombs went off presumably Islamic terrorists and and I asked myself what is going to stop more and more churches from being attacked and at the same time we're seeing a story about uh apparently the

[1:11]

seeing a story about uh apparently the government of the United States is considering labeling fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction now not because it kills a lot of people who try to take it recreationally that's bad enough but the government is actually concerned that it could be used as simply a weapon you take a bunch of it and you do some bad things now some of you know that my book called the religion War which I wrote back in 2003 what year did this come out let me
check um why don't I see the year of my own book oh well I think it was around 2003 and I predicted that the future of uh the future of the world which would be somewhere around now according to my prediction because it was a near future

[2:13]

prediction because it was a near future not a distant future prediction uh and and by the way this book is uh fiction but it holds predictions in terms of the story and the story was that the the bad people uh the Islamic terrorists would start using hobby sized drones to attack anything they wanted and that ultimately those drones would carry chemical weapons because they're light the obvious chemical weapon that they would carry is fentanyl I would say the odds of a weaponized drone carrying fentanyl is close to 100% eventually close to 100% so this predicts that the uh the likely inclusion of such attacks since they couldn't be stopped very easily would be an allout war of extermination in other words only one religion would win uh and they would be heading toward extermination unless the hero of the

[3:15]

extermination unless the hero of the book can change something so I'll leave that a mystery but I'm wondering if we might actually get to the point where it might be illegal to um to use the internet if you have a religion a certain religion could it be we'll reach the point where you're just not allowed to use the internet because it would be too dangerous to give you access to the internet if you're a certain religion um that would sound like a horrible horrible outcome but all of our future outcomes look horrible because if uh if if we have a full out religion War we could lose a billion people that wouldn't be out of the out of the realm of possible a billion people so let's hope that doesn't happen um and let's hope we get a handle on fenel now if fenel was labeled by our government a weapon of mass

[4:15]

weapon of mass destruction how would we act differently toward the cartels because it's not as obvious as it would seem you think to yourself well if the cartels have these weapons of mass destruction then wouldn't our military be able to go in and just kill them all and the answer to that is not so clear because militarily and defense-wise yes we totally would have the right to do it and the ability to do it but the cartels might be the only thing keeping terrorists from using fenol think about it who would be who would be worse off if Sentinel was ever used as an actual weapon of mass destruction if somebody tried to use it to kill a bunch of people all at once who would be who would be the big losers in that besides the victims the cartels the last thing the cartels want is to lose their their

[5:17]

cartels want is to lose their their income model which is that if they keep the fenel deaths under a certain level and it's ones and two Z's everywhere that the the military of the United States will not move against them because it looks like a drug problem the moment fenel transitions from a drug problem to a military problem the cartels are going to be destroyed because we would move our military end we would we would occupy I think we would actually occupy Mexico if there was no other if there were no other option and fenel started to be used as a weapon of mass destruction so the cartels probably have a pretty strong interest in making sure that no fenel crosses the US border unless it's going to be used to just kill one person at a time with overdoses I mean they would prefer that that person stay alive because then they're repeat customers so in the the

[6:18]

they're repeat customers so in the the weirdest most corrupt and sick way the cartels are probably our best protection against massive fenel de so long as we're willing to accept say 50,000 individual overdose deaths a year if we're willing to allow that every year the cartels get to stay in business we don't attack because we call it a drug problem and everything's fine but one fentanyl attack that got identified as going through a cartel doesn't matter how big the attack is could be a small attack that didn't kill as many people as they hoped but just one terrorist getting through with fentel over the southern border that came from uh Mexican labs and the cartels I think we would move against them militarily I think we would occupy that's what I think so we'll see if that happens

[7:22]

think so we'll see if that happens um here's the question of the day have you noticed that every time there's some uh Russian in the news somebody involved with the Muller report let's say every time you hear about a Russian whether it's the Russian lawyer or Russian whoever who talked to whoever don't we always say that that Russian is connected to the Kremlin it's just automatic right oh this Russian is totally connected to the Kremlin therefore Putin is directly or indirectly behind everything but there's one exception there is one Russian Russians they're they're part of the same story that have never been alleged to be connected to the Kremlin until I just saw an article that's starting to suggest it in the New York Times Chuck Ross article I just tweeted and the idea is wouldn't we assume that the Russians

[8:22]

is wouldn't we assume that the Russians behind the the steel dossier whoever fed that misinformation wouldn't you assume assume that they were associated with the Kremlin cuz that's the most likely people associated with the Kremlin but here's the problem if the Kremlin was Pro was providing the steel dossier information that was 100% anti-trump And what are the chances let me ask you this what are the chances that a a Russian national if there were any Russian citizens involved I don't know that we know that yet there was a Russian speaking a native Russian speaking person who is apparently a source for steel but we don't know who that person's sources were in addition um
um so what if what if this was like every other Russian connection it was connected to the

[9:23]

the Kremlin wouldn't that destroy the entire narrative that the Kremlin was trying to help Trump because the story that I'm seeing is just not fitting with the Russians are all trying to help Trump now somebody saying it could be Ukraine and maybe we'll find that out but wouldn't we shouldn't we at least be speculating every 5 Seconds the way we speculate on everything else shouldn't we be speculating the most obvious thing that the steel dossier was Kremlin connected and if that could be demonstrated to be true and maybe we'll someday know that wouldn't it prove that Russia's motive was not to get Trump elected you can't have both of those things being true the current narrative is that oh yeah Russia was definitely trying to help president Trump that was their motive but the moment you tie the steel dossier to the Kremlin that motive

[10:27]

steel dossier to the Kremlin that motive disappears and nobody I feel like it's this big black hole where it's the most obvious thing we should be talking about because the answer to that question could be the answer to everything you know that everything would would make a different would make sense a different way if we knew the answer to that question was the steel dossier connected to anybody connected to the Kremlin if so if so then that means that Russia was just mess with us and wasn't didn't really care who won because at that point Trump only had what a 5% chance of winning according to everybody so why would they try so hard to take out with somebody who had only a 5% chance of winning well would be because they're not trying to change the result so much as they're trying to cause trouble now um the other thing that I don't see the news discuss even though it's been

[11:29]

the news discuss even though it's been reported so we know it's a fact is that that little troll Russian troll Farm did uh anti- anti-clinton memes but also anti-trump memes they did both how come that's not you know why is that not reported every time that troll agency is mentioned why do we say the troll agency was to help was to help Trump how can you explain that some members of that same organization were making anti-trump memes were they trying to help Trump by making anti-trump memes did they think that someday they would be caught and that you know 10% of them being anti-trump would help them say no no we're being fair somebody saying Chuck Ross has literally said all of this that may be true given the article that I just saw but why isn't that the headline why is

[12:29]

but why isn't that the headline why is that not the the main thing people are talking about um the other thing that's amazing is I'm trying to figure out how much is confirmation bias on my part and how much is just a mystery and I'm going to ask you the question that probably all of you are wondering why are Clapper and Brennan not in jail I actually don't know the answer to that question does anybody here know that because it's one thing to have some random pundit go on television and say well I suspect or I speculate this happened or what if this happened that's what pundits do but when two you know very recent heads of our intelligence agencies who were literally in charge when all this Russian stuff happened when they when they run an obvious coup against the United States and I think at this point how could you not call that a coup because the two

[13:32]

not call that a coup because the two people who knew the most should have been Clapper and Brennan they should have known the most about how this Muller investigation was going to end up they should have known that it would end up the way it did which was there was no direct connection if those two people didn't already know that it's a big problem if those two do not say every time they mention the steel dossier or that the Muller report was in any way influenced by the dossier if they don't say in the same breath but you can't trust that cuz that might have been a Kremlin operation if they're not saying that it feels like there's some jailable offense here now I'm no I'm no expert in the law but I assume you know Bob bar is looking into this and if he's not if he's not we should get rid of get rid of him I mean if bobar is not looking into this he should be fired and

[14:35]

looking into this he should be fired and I'll even go further if president Trump allows this not to be followed up on then he should be voted out of office I can't support president Trump if he's not trying to put cou attempt people under the greatest scrutiny they could be nothing illegal I'm not asking for anything illegal to happen I want the legal system to handle it but they should be pretty aggressively going after the people who are obviously the just it's it's just obvious that they were Central to it however I will say that I'm not entirely convinced that all of the the people who you could imagine were part of this massive coup attempt I'm not convinced that they were all talking to each other because they wouldn't necessarily have to there might be clusters that talk to each other so you could imagine that you know some of the FBI people talk to each other you could imagine that Clapper Clapper and Brennan might

[15:37]

that Clapper Clapper and Brennan might have talked to each other you can imagine the clusters of people talk to each other but it's a little hard for me to imagine that they've actually communicated across all those domains to have this one massive anti-trump coup attempt I think everybody just knew what they needed to do everybody did what they could do every body watched the news and they said okay they're handling it this way in the news so I'll I'll do my thing it feels like everybody just sort of knew what to do uh similar to any resistance movement it doesn't necessarily have to be coordinated from the top it could be little cells sort of like terrorist cells so I would say that the coup is more like a series of terrorist cells operating independently that's my guess um why is there no reporting on how bad the Russians are at interfering with us

[16:37]

interfering with us elections I've said this about terrorists too if you made me a terrorist for a week I could do more damage to whatever country I was trying to damage than any terrorist has ever done I could do that in a week I'm sure of it I'm not even guessing I'm sure I could personally do more terrorist damage in one week than any terrorist has ever done to any country I'm positive I could I'm not going to give you suggestions but it wouldn't be that hard so I'm wondering why the terrorists don't do a better job it it makes me think that the terrorists at least at the central planning level don't want to do too much of a good job because it would activate our military to do a lot more than we do so it feels like the terrorists are just trying to you know improve their brand if you will and and help things domestically I

[17:38]

will and and help things domestically I don't think they really plan on taking out the United States because long before that became a possibility the United States would mobilize and they would do such horrible things to whoever was behind it and anybody who might be behind it that I can't see it would be a good strategy so likewise when I look at the Russian uh interference in the election I too accept that the Russians attempted to interfere but why did they do such a bad job of it how did can you tell me that they were Russian hackers who were experienced enough to do all this hacking and yet they couldn't do a better job than everything collectively we've seen that they did cuz those memes look like a high school project they were not scientific they were not well made they didn't look especially American I mean it was the the worst job of interfering you've ever seen now let's go to the what the question that's

[18:38]

let's go to the what the question that's been bugging me for a while and here's a question I don't know if anybody's talked about it in the way I'm going to talk about it we've seen a lot of attention to the fact that President Trump uh publicly I think it was during I can't remember if it was during the debate when he looked at the camera and he said Russia if you have those missing emails you know would' like to see them in
in essence now the surface level of coverage of that is hey the president asked Russia to get those emails and within days the Russian hackers actually hacked into the DNC was it and got a bunch of emails now here's what I ask you if a candidate from the United States says in public public tongue and cheek but serious as well because he I'm sure he'd like to see the emails if he says in public hey Russia if you got those emails I'd like

[19:40]

Russia if you got those emails I'd like to see them now let's say Russia hears that because of course they do what is Russia's best play what is their best play is their best play to say oh excellent it looks like Trump's on our side let's do something for him and then we got a we got a partner we're GNA collude with this guy did Russia say that because that's the way it's reported right it's reported as though Russia said yes Trump can be our friend we'll do something for him because he asked for it and then we're working together and then you know Russia has a little control over him yay do you think Russia thought about it that way if you put me in Russia and this situation comes up let's say I'm Putin and I hear the news that the president looked at the camera and said hey Russia you got those emails love to see them here's what I would do and I'm not Putin but I'm apparently smarter than every

[20:42]

but I'm apparently smarter than every pundit who's talked about it if I'm Putin I say you know what would really mess with them is to get those emails there's nothing we could do worse to Donald Trump and simultaneously maybe to Clinton but there's nothing we could do that would mess up their system more than actually doing what he just asked us to do in public there's nothing we could do that would be better to mess them up than doing what he asked does that sound like they were on his side because it's it's being reported uncritically that he asked for these things and Russia did it and therefore they must be on his side if I were the if I were the Russian who had heard that request I'd say oh we can totally mess with them let's actually give him what he's asking for if we can if we can make this happen

[21:43]

if we can if we can make this happen this is going to be freaking awesome that it's going to rip their country apart because they're actually going to think that he's working with us this is amazing let's just do this thing and screw Trump big and screw the country in what world did Trump did Putin say yeah he asked for it in public let's give it to him they're going to figure out it was us that should work out that should work out fine I can't even imagine Putin going through that that process but it's easy to imagine him saying yeah let's just mess with him if you can get those emails this would be great just get those emails that is going to make them crazy that makes far more sense as a hypothesis than that they were publicly getting these emails to to help Trump at the same time they were doing the steel dossier maybe maybe might have been behind that don't know why isn't

[22:43]

been behind that don't know why isn't anybody talking about it except one article in the New York Times all right I wonder how much uh mileage Trump could get by accusing Joe Biden of colluding with Russia think about it could Trump accuse Joe Biden because he was part of the administration of colluding with Russia I feel like he could and you know it wouldn't be like a strong connection or anything but the Trump Administration included Clapper and Brennan it included Obama it included everybody who who who was putting together this this conspiracy Joe Biden was on the team who planned a coup against the United States it feels like uh he says Scott you're confusing two sets of email yes

[23:45]

you're confusing two sets of email yes let me clarify the Hacked emails were the Democratic uh were the the the DNC I believe that um Trump asked for Hillary's email which which we've never seen But as it's reported they're they're treating him like they're one and the same the way it's reported but you're right there's a clear distinction those were different email situations and if I got any any of that wrong let me know all right um let me see do you do you remember when all the Democrats were waiting for the Muller report before they decided uh before they decided if
if um if they wanted to remove the president through impeachment they all said well well let's wait till that we get that uh report and then we'll decide and then the report comes out and the report says that Russia kept offering to collude and

[24:47]

that Russia kept offering to collude and the administration turned them down every time that's it and from so they get they get information from the report that's all the wrong way and so then they say okay all the new information we got pushes it in the other direction away from impeachment so we'll impeach it it kind of tells you everything you need to know about the value of actual facts completely useless nobody cares about the facts uh Trump asked Russia to give emails to the Press it's the same thing it doesn't matter who they gave it to it would end up in the press all right um have you noticed that CNN has gone anti-nuclear power so CNN is running coincidentally a special about

[25:48]

coincidentally a special about Chernobyl do you know why CNN is running a special now about Chernobyl Chernobyl is it because Chernobyl is in the news no is it because Chernobyl there was something new that happened in Chernobyl no oh I'm sorry it's HBO HBO is running the special but I thought I saw that wasn't CNN also running something about that um oh it's an Ann it's an anniversary well so somebody's saying CNN and HBO so I'll need some clarification
all right but CNN did run um a a survey thing like a little quiz on their page and the quiz allowed you to pick what you thought would be the most um powerful thing we could do about climate change and then they give you the answer and the answer they give

[26:49]

you the answer and the answer they give you is that nuclear power would be just a fraction of as useful as wind power for dealing with climate change that's right they they give you a quiz and then they tell you the right answer is that wind power is many times better in terms of a solution for climate change than nuclear power that is about as misleading as you could possibly be now it is true you could make an argument which is that nuclear has some issues and you know nuclear plants in the past have been hard to approve Etc and they they've had certain risks so all of that is true if you were to take a straight line and say okay how much how much uh could you get from wind power you know what how quickly could you ramp up wind power and turns out you could ramp up wind power very quickly so they say and I believe that's true seems like wind power could

[27:49]

that's true seems like wind power could be ramped up fairly quickly but you still got to store it and I don't think I don't think we have a solution for what happens when the wind doesn't blow so in other words you have two solutions that both require a major technological set of improvements in order to work there is no such thing as a wind power solution unless you also have massive battery storage which has not been solved by technologists we don't know how to make batteries economically and at the at the scale that you need we don't know how to do that likewise Generation 4 Tech uh nuclear does need to iterate a bit to figure out which Solutions work which are the safest of the several Solutions but it all seems within an engineering domain meaning that if you test and you iterate you definitely are going to get

[28:50]

iterate you definitely are going to get a better end result it's something that is very much an iterative process you do more iterating you get better results same is probably true for wind and batteries but who is able to predict which of those things we haven't yet solved will get solved first who is it who is smart enough to see the future and say oh yeah we'll definitely solve the batteries problem before we'll solve you know a good design for Generation 4 that can also get get approved easily that's a hard prediction uh Bill Gates says nuclear is the way to go a lot of smart people who have looked into it say nuclear's the way to go I say if you're not doing both of them you're stupid let me say it again if you're not doing both of them you're stupid because we don't know which one will will be solved better if if you ask me um do I

[29:51]

solved better if if you ask me um do I know for sure the generation 4 nuclear will will always be the smart way to go compared to wind and figuring out how to get batteries that work I don't know that but I'm positive you don't know it either I'm positive our government doesn't know it and I'm positive the scientists don't know it no matter how confident they feel because they can't really know the future but I will say that if you're not doing both of them and solar too if you're not doing all of it and doing it hard you're not really trying so don't pretend you care about climate change unless you're doing all the things that we think are potential and you're doing them hard so anyway my point is it seems that CNN and maybe the the left leaning press may start to say some negative things about nuclear now because they know they need to if um I

[30:53]

because they know they need to if um I I've said this enough in public that I'm sure somebody's noticed the moment that uh the Trump Administration says publicly they they've done a lot of things behind the scenes the energy department is promoting Generation 4 Etc so the government is actually doing Generation 4 promotion you know at the at the industry level you just don't hear about it publicly but if if Trump for example came out and said well climate change may or may not be the problem you say but it doesn't matter it still makes sense to go hard at all these Technologies for energy we should push art in all three solar uh wind and nuclear um if he did that he would take the argument away from a political perspective if the president said let's go hard on all three of these why would we possibly not go hard at all of them uh if he said that it would completely ruin the the

[31:54]

that it would completely ruin the the argument against him for climate change and he wouldn't even have to accept that climate change is real that's the beauty of it he wouldn't even have to say that he knows is real or isn't he could just say this makes sense no matter what no matter what you should go hard at all three of these and I worry that the left leaning press is going to start demonizing nuclear just to take that away so that people would be afraid of nuclear and they won't be able to hear know you're thinking of your your grandfather's nuclear power that stuff has some risks the newer stuff is closer to zero it's going to be a hard sell once once the Press gets people worked up about nuclear all right

[32:58]

today um there was somebody here who wanted to convince me of something in 90 seconds and I have to say it was a good pitch because now you're causing me to put on my headphones and I don't remember who it was but I'm going to change headphones hold
on all right so whoever it was whoever it was who said you wanted to change my mind in 90 seconds of all that's a pretty good
pitch there there isn't much you could have said that would cause me to change my plans and you know and and take a call uh but when you say I'm going to I'm going to change your mind in 90 seconds and you're talking to somebody who's uh talks about persuasion I don't I don't even care what the topic is I just heard that and I thought I wonder if they could change my mind in 90 seconds and I I don't even know what the

[33:58]

seconds and I I don't even know what the topic is but uh I don't remember who was promising was it Dan let's see um I want to find out who I forget I should have watched the uh the name of whoever said they were going to change my mind Dan was that you who wanted to change my mind okay you very much what's the topic and what are you changing my mind from and to well essentially it's to do with the death penalty I just need about 90 seconds to to talk to you about a few things wait a minute wait a minute what what side do you think I'm on in the death penalty well I was going to get to that I I um how could you change my mind if you don't know what I my current position is well that I was going to ask you uh just uh just something that you said a few weeks back um about uh uh fentol and you called for the death of the people who produced the Fentanyl and it sort of took me by surprise so I looked up I Googled um I Googled what

[35:01]

looked up I Googled um I Googled what was Scott Adams position on the death penalty and uh if unless it's changed since then that's fine it'll render this conation mov so let me let me clarify I'll tell you I'll tell you my position fine I'd like to see the uh people in other countries who were the big fenel dealers I would like to see them killed ideally China killing its own citizens and ideally ideally Mexico killing its own citizens but in terms of big dealers in the United States I would be in favor of the death penalty for the the big dealers like the really high quantity ones not not the not the buddy who you know gave a friend some Fenty so uh that's my position go ahead change my mind 90 seconds okay well it it just involves really uh just um describing a few scenarios that you would consider and just a a question or two after that and then that should be it okay so all right uh all right to in order to establish a baseline I just let's make sure we're

[36:01]

baseline I just let's make sure we're agreeing uh on the on on what we're talking about let's just say that you're walking down the street on a bright sunny day and you were to see me uh approach a woman and her child and brutally murder that those people uh if I'm arrested and tried and convicted in a state that implements implements the death penalty would you agree that I should be put to death under the current laws as a death penalty case uh if the law says put to death then that's the law right okay well that that's in keeping with your statement and I understand that uh now I would ask you to repeat the same exact scenario but in this instance instead of seeing me walking down the street committing the crime uh you see a beloved family member perhaps like an uncle that you that maybe raised you you love him and you see him for whatever reason it's a scenario so you're you're seeing your uncle now commit this horrible crime and would you still be in favor of the putting him to death no cuz I would kill him as soon as I saw it

[37:01]

him as soon as I saw it happen I'd kill him myself um I understand yes so yes so the answer to the question is yes of course I would be in favor that okay that's in keeping with your statement and I actually fully expected that you would that you would say that but okay final scenario is is the one that I think might persuade you to change your mind uh there's a brutal murder that takes place in the neighborhood your uncle same uncle uh was seen in the vicinity vicinity around the time of the murder he also had opportunity all right turns out he knew the victim and he was known to have some sort of ongoing feud again for the purposes of the scenario uh your uncle is arrested and tried and convicted of the murder uh and he sits on death row there's only one problem um you are the only person who knows that your uncle's innocent you're the only one uh your uncle is convicted and put on death row okay and for for the for the reasons of uh shotty police work missing evidence lying witness inup lawyer corrupt right

[38:02]

lying witness inup lawyer corrupt right he's unfairly okay he's unfairly jail he's unfairly thing and you're the only one who knows that and after 10 years of you visiting him in jail the state puts him to death are you okay with that scenario no no let me clarify at the time but for someon let me clarify let me answer the question yeah let me answer the question I am not in favor of the death penalty when uh we don't have physical uh proof that the person was on the scene of the of the uh of the murder right so if we if we don't have the uncle's DNA we don't have a video um you know that that wouldn't be enough so no I would not be in favor of the death penalty unless there's a clear unambiguous connection putting the person at the scene at the time yeah okay that's fair but now now here's the Crux of the issue you are aware that there have been innocent people put to death under the death penalty innocent people known to be innocent yes yes I'm aware of that so

[39:03]

innocent yes yes I'm aware of that so you know that there's been people recently released that have been spending years in jail now here okay I'm I'm not seeing how any of this has anything to do with the point so you're way over your 90 seconds get to the point okay the point is this if there's a mother sitting in a prison talking to her innocent son she knows she's innocent he's innocent okay and he's going to be put to death and you have to do say it without an analogy because anies analogies are nonp persuasive so everything that's suppose you imagine there's a story it's good for making a point but now you're at the point where you have to change my mind so just make the point without without a story all right okay so it to me saying that you support the death penalty in in this in this case means that you're actually okay with the occasional innocent person being put to death and you have to tell the mother that look I I need to have revenge for the all these deaths so I want to kill more people and I know that your son was innocent but I I I'm I'm actually okay with your son being put to death if we can just stop with all this

[40:05]

death if we can just stop with all this death and just let people stay in jail for the rest of their lives at least we give a chance to I would say look na Myers you didn't you didn't do it without the story well so so so make make the point right without a story just say your point right my point is are you okay with saying that you're you before that you support the death penalty which means that you are going to support the occasional innocent person being murdered by the state yes you have to you you are you okay with that yeah of course that that's you how could you be in favor of the death penalty without being in favor not in favor of but without acknowledging that some innocent people will be killed of course well that's not that's not a very nice thing to to to to to support I don't think I mean well that's why that's why Dan I say that I'm only in favor of it when you can guarantee that the person was on the scene of the crime at the time of the crime so short of that I would not

[41:08]

the crime so short of that I would not be in favor of so most of your examples most of your the odds hold on hold on hold onry the under my scenario the odds of somebody being wrongly um wrongly killed by the state goes from way too high to really really small but possible and so like with with any other major policy uh that the country does Somebody almost always dies it's anytime you make any kind of a you know big change on anything that's a life and death issue sure people people die so you really can't unfortunately you can't say that the possibility of somebody nice dying uh should stop you from doing it we don't we can't we don't use that standard for anything yeah but unless you stop the death penalty you you you don't have to kill more people you can keep them in jail and look up Nathan Myers and Clifford Williams they spent 43 years in jail for murder one of them was actually on death throw and I'm

[42:09]

was actually on death throw and I'm gonna gonna cut you off because now you're you're off topic all right all right so uh
uh boom all right um so my uh my death penalty opinion is nuance and that makes it look like um I we generally think that people fall into one of the two sides because there's usually a no death penalty or yes death penalty and I'm not on either of those exact sides I mean yes death penalty in the worst situations especially if multiple people are being killed and if we can guarantee through physical evidence that there's no question that the perpetrator was on the scene at the time those are my two situations that would take the risk down to not zero but very close to zero and I would say that the benefit of making fentol a death

[43:11]

the benefit of making fentol a death penalty situation for the big dealers not the not those typical Street stuff but for the big dealers is that it sends a message to society that this isn't like other things you know if you put a death penalty on something you're sending a communication about the the size and the extent of it and for me killing a few innocent people it might happen would be way bigger benefit um in terms of communication than not doing it so that that's my my opinion and yes I do accept that it would be rare but just like every Big law change we have that has anything to do with life and death people die um so you can't you can't make a change because of that anyway thank you for trying Dan I appreciate the uh the point I will tell you that if you've watched me for a while you should have known that leading with an analogy to some completely different situation was never going to

[44:13]

different situation was never going to change my mind but but it was a good effort just the same so thank you and I will talk to you all later