Episode 519 Scott Adams: 85% of CNN’s Political Coverage, Deserving Sports

Date: 2019-05-05 | Duration: 1:02:01

Topics

85% of CNN’s POLITICAL coverage…is fake news and hoaxes Red-pilling statistic challengers with the “fine people” HOAX Somebody should create a fact check list of CNN lies? Quillette’s Claire Lehmann tweet about trans athletes De-escalating fears of Chernobyl type nuclear disasters Chernobyl, Gen 1 safety systems, primitive 1960s era Gen 3 nuclear designs are safer by design and time proven Gen 4 nuclear designs have even safer concepts 430 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel Israel in response, “mowed the lawn” Demands to jail AG Barr…because CNN can’t read Was it an organized coup plot to take out President Trump? Lots of questions for top people like Brennan and Clapper How much did Obama know, and when did he know it? Biden’s election chances are…zero? He doesn’t have a natural group of locked in voters Kamala would attract woman and black voters Buttigieg would attract gay voters Biden is just a weak version of President Trump

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

[0:09]

bow-bow bow-bow bumbum hey everybody come on in happy Sunday yes Chris I believe that was you who reminded me it was time for me to do coffee with Scott Adams and so here I am I wasn't watching the clock well good morning mark hello Joe Alan Brad come on in grab your cup your mug your glass your Stein your chalice your tankard yours that are miss your flasks filling with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that I like to call the simultaneous end if you missed it there might be more later so something very funny happened in my life yesterday my Twitter life not my real life yeah my artificial life on Twitter

[1:19]

so in response to I guess it was Anna Navarro who well there are so many stories about this one tweet let me just focus on one thing so I made a provocative claim in a tweet in which I said that 85% of CNN's political coverage remember the words political coverage well as hoaxes and fakes new fake news so I'm gonna say that again because my exact words are gonna matter to the story I tweeted that 85% of CNN's political coverage was hoaxes and fakes in the fake news now how do you think that was greeted by the many thousands of people who read that tweet and don't think the CNN has fake news
well I can't tell you how many people how many people tweeted back at me sarcastically and let me let me ask my

[2:23]

sarcastically and let me let me ask my friend Dale to come tell you what people said about my estimate that 85% of the political coverage was fake news and hoaxes they said something like this oh you're just making up statistics show me your sources can you point me to a source that says that 85 percent of CNN's news a snake and you can use got me point me to a source scene now do you see what I did there did you notice that what Dale said can you point me to a Sawyer source that says 85 percent of CNN's news is fake that's not what I said what I said was 85 percent of their political coverage was fake so a few fun things happened for some reason a large number of Democrats were cognitively

[3:23]

number of Democrats were cognitively blind to the words political coverage and they would say to me can you show me a source that says 85 percent of CNN's news is fake to which I said cheekily because I thought it would be funny I didn't say that why did I say I didn't say it because I didn't now I did say 85 percent of the political coverage was fake news and hoaxes so then people started yelling me online because it's so obvious that I did say that and they would tweet my tweet that said 85 percent of their political coverage as hoaxes and fakes they would show their own question that changed political coverage to CNN's news and they would say I'm gonna save this tweet I took a screenshot you liar you can see it right here how wrong

[4:25]

you can see it right here how wrong you are and I would recommend to them because it was funnier than explaining what they were doing wrong I would ask them in my tweets to find somebody who could read to explain the difference in those sentences to them and they would just get angrier my god can't you see you liar you liar these two sentences are exactly the same this one that says these words and this woman has different words are exactly the same they actually couldn't tell two simple sentences that were different they couldn't tell now I believe that these are people who were educated sufficiently educated that if you gave them a test on a quiz or something they'd be able to tell that those sentences are different and they mean different things but in the political context they were cognitively blind to

[5:25]

context they were cognitively blind to the sentence yeah literally they were looking at it and they couldn't see some of the words I you know their perception was just erasing those words so that was the first thing that was fun and I of course enjoyed letting them twist and yell at me because they were doing it in public and they were they were doing it at such a crazy way so eventually some Trump supporters who could read came in and set them straight which just happened a few minutes ago so that's funny but the other funny thing is the number of people who asked me for my source I said to tweet this is 85% of see events political coverage as hoaxes and fake news and you have to see my you have to see my Twitter feed just to see how many people came and said oh yeah I'm not sure that number is real I'm not sure you have a source for that so the first funny part is the confirmation that people can't tell the difference between

[6:25]

people can't tell the difference between real news and fake news obviously I made that number up I don't know how more obvious it could be that I just made the number up and the number of people who challenged me to support that number it just makes your head spin but what is wrong with these people how is that not obvious that I just made it up but it gets better so instead of just saying okay I just made it up we're instead of you know playing it in I don't know anyone of different ways I could play it I decided to give them my source so so reply to all the people who are asking for my source I pasted in I said well this could get you started or words to that effect this week' you started and I pasted in a link to my own blog post about the fine people hoax now you I know you're all smart enough

[7:26]

now you I know you're all smart enough to know they're linking to my own blog post about just one hoax is really not an answer to show me your source for the 85% of fake news there's not really responsive but it puts the critic in the awkward position of either reading this lengthy blog post I wrote which is pretty long and learning that their entire worldview has been wrong because if you just read that one one thing you're gonna have some questions about sia them so even though it wasn't the answer to the question I found it hilarious and what it did was it opened up this little portal where probably for the first time people people who were you know CNN Watchers we're seeing reality for the first time and people got really quiet when I sent it to him now a lot of wouldn't read it they'd say that's your own blog post that's not a source and then I would say but the blog post points to the sources for the blog

[8:29]

post points to the sources for the blog post and it's those sources you can go check yourself so I ended up red pilling all these critics who came in to mock me for not having a source which of course I don't have but it but it caused them to be exposed to some thoughts that should have probably dismantled their worldview if they read it now many of you have read that blog post you know that I it I talked about that what I call the hoax funnel where they start with the the big claim and then when you debunk yet they just go to smaller and smaller claims until they get to the bottom of the funnel and they're just asking questions like well but have you explained this then and how can you explain this and of course those questions have easy answers but on Twitter somebody gave me an assist to put a really good ending on the funnel because when people get all the way down the funnel I'm noticing that they're starting to do what al sharpton did

[9:31]

starting to do what al sharpton did which is to say there are no good people who could be in favor of keeping the Confederate statues except that a Reuters poll showed that 44% of African Americans would like to keep the statues I'll just let I'm just gonna let that sit there for a while so after I've taken people down the hoax model the very last fact which I added as an update is is a screenshot showing that 44 percent of African Americans are okay with keeping the Confederate statues and by the way I I don't know if that 44 percent number is accurate but I'm sure it's more than 20 percent you know probably I can't believe it would be so inaccurate that at least 20 percent don't have that opinion and so it puts

[10:31]

don't have that opinion and so it puts the critic in the position of saying that the African American community 44 percent of them are not fine people which is racist which I am enjoying pointing out so they double 44 percent to 80 percent I don't know what that means but the point is that I had the great great fun revealing a little bit of truth to some people who apparently haven't seen what truth looks like now I also for some of those people I responded that my statistic for the 85% of their coverage was was based on I said just Google Russia collusion add that to the 25th amendment hoax which CNN had been selling us for months for a while and

[11:32]

selling us for months for a while and then and then I showed my blog post about to find people hoax which also at the toward the end it includes a whole bunch of other hoaxes so there's a lot of hoaxes but then I then I I wondered has anybody created the CNN fact check because there's a fact check for the president but is there a fact check for CNN has anybody done that because I would be quite curious if somebody could compile the list of CNN lies because wouldn't it be handy that every time somebody says the president lied that we could just send them a screenshot of a huge list of all the things that CNN said about the president which we now know to be lies it would be very interesting we should just and and I'm not saying there would be 10,000 of them but maybe but what you could do is maybe put here here's how the list would be

[12:34]

put here here's how the list would be funny the list of the CNN Fate news that turned out not to be right and next to it a Google search that included plus CN n so CNN had to be in the story and then plus whatever the term was so whatever the search term was that most represents that piece of news such as Muller report or whatever and then how many hits it gets they were from CNN because pretty much all of those were fake so that would be interesting of course would not be scientific it would not be directly comparable to anything the president says but it was certainly close the conversation alright yang's am always bribing people with their own money to vote for him that's the funny spin I I think what that refers to is Andrew yang running for president who's talking about giving people a universal basic income now that now the universal basic income means you

[13:37]

now the universal basic income means you know somebody who's paying for it so so he you might be the first candidate who figured out that he can bribe the public with the public's own money now it's coming from different people because the rich would be paying for that for the universal basic income of the poor but why is he the first person to think of that I suppose other people have said let's raise your taxes so can you know and distribute the income so I guess they've all said that so I revise my statement he's not the first person to do that just the first person to do it that way alright let's talk about something else
so I saw a tweet today from Claire lemon she's a founding editor of kwillet7
and she tweeted this morning about trends transgender athletes she said the issue is simple in sport the women's category is a protected

[14:38]

the women's category is a protected division men's sport is basically an open division no one's saying that anyone should be excluded from the open category just they're women and girls deserve to have a category that they can win in so this is her closing argument is it's just that women and girls deserve this is the key word they deserve to have a category that they can win in to which I replied in my tweet nobody deserves anything if your argument is this somebody deserves something that's not a reason nobody deserves anything you've abandoned all all reason if you're relying on somebody deserving something now of course my critic said well are you saying that you don't deserve to get paid for making dillert to which I say no I don't deserve it it's just that the

[15:39]

no I don't deserve it it's just that the capitalist system allows me to get paid for it that's it I don't deserve a single penny I get I work within a system that presents me money and if it did not present me money for doing my work I wouldn't work now I earned it meaning that within the capitalist system I I created a product and I sold it but I didn't deserve it nobody deserves anything if you're trying to win an argument by putting in the word deserve that's like putting in the word with Fair which also can't be can't really be defined because everybody has a different subjective impression of what would be fair in any given situation so then other people were arguing with me they'd say yes but if you let the women you know if the

[16:40]

if you let the women you know if the women don't compete both of that now what was the argument some other argument that it would ruin sports or something or no somebody else said that the that the purpose of sports is to determine who is the best right that was another argument I heard today on Twitter that the purpose of sports is to figure out what's the best and if you add the transgenders and with with the women's leagues you would not have achieved your purpose of finding out who's the best at the sport to which I say that's not the purpose of sports sports don't have a purpose I mean not that purpose who in the world thinks that the purpose of sports is to find out it was the best do I need the young I mean there are lots of reasons that

[17:41]

I mean there are lots of reasons that people play sports and those reasons are probably there's some biological there's probably something built into us about competition about symbolic battle you know about status there's probably all this biological stuff built into us I would say that if you were a scientist the better way to say what is the purpose of sports it's probably that we can't help it I don't think as a purpose I don't think we can help it I think if you if you erased human beings memory of sports so there's suddenly none of us ever knew what a sport even was we would just invent it again because we would we would have symbolic battles that would eventually evolve to have rules and we wouldn't want to hurt each other because we're the same you know same tribe or whatever and eventually it would just turn into sports again because we're biologically somehow we seem to be very

[18:46]

biologically somehow we seem to be very highly designed to want to compete to want to figure out who has the best you know DNA and that sort of thing but I certainly would not say there's any holy like moral benefit to sports now it is unambiguously clear that if you take a hundred people and you put them in sports I guarantee you that five or ten is a hundred people are gonna have a really good experience which might last them and help them for the rest of their life five or ten and at the hundred the other ninety five ninety to ninety to ninety five people lost so their experience of sports were reinforcing that they're baddest stuff this seems important to other people so I think that sitting on the bench which might have been half of those hundred people I think they learned that they were forced

[19:48]

think they learned that they were forced to do something that they didn't want to do and didn't happen Justin didn't have aptitude just to humiliate them so that other people could have a better life so let me put it this way if you take a hundred people and you put them in sports the purpose of 95 of those people is to help the other people have a better life to help the 5 proceed 5% of the people who were born through no effort on their own part tall fast good reactions good athletes they had good genes and they were lucky enough to be you know maybe a family situation where they had some support and the other 95 people who didn't have that good luck get to participate in honoring the people who are lucky at their expense Sports is well I don't want to use an analogy but sports is a deeply horrible thing for everybody but the few people

[20:50]

thing for everybody but the few people who are the this is the heroes and the winners other people get get disabled for life people get terrible injuries they yeah they they have lots of problems but I'm not gonna argue that it isn't fun it's it's totally fun and exercise is good but sports are you know not always the the most effective way to exercise anyway so that's my point sports as I said before sports in its regular forum is a giant pile a pile of manure adding a little extra manure to a giant pile of manure doesn't make it not manure it's just more manure so the transgender issue I argue if you're arguing about fairness or who deserves anything or or the purposes for winning none of those are real we just make up a bunch of rules because we're

[21:50]

bunch of rules because we're biologically apparently we have some kind of imperative that's just built into us that we want to do that sort of thing and that people enjoy it and it it allows people to rise up on the backs of all the people who were not good sports all right so I would say if you were going to summarize that the purpose of sports is losing and in giving up things to other people who were lucky it's about transferring it's about transferring resources honor and social status to people who are already lucky because they were born to be good in sports it's the worst thing in the world all right it's not the worst thing in the world I might have exaggerated let's talk about something else let's talk about nuclear energy I believe that the zeitgeist has decided that nuclear energy is going to be a much bigger part of our conversation now some of it I think is just in in the air and has

[22:52]

think is just in in the air and has something to do with climate change being a topic etc now of course there's a March nighter who's been doing an amazing job promoting clean safe nuclear energy generation four in particular there's Mike Sheldon Berger who is doing a great job writing articles and promoting he's more about generation three but still very safe but mark and I were playing with some analogies this morning some some ways to describe why it is that Chernobyl is in people's minds as what nuclear power is and how do you get him off that and so we were playing with a few ideas and I thought I'd just throw them out for a little a be testing alive I think I think Mark is still on the on this periscope so you can mark you can you can watch this in real-time so the the framing that we were we were going for is that first

[23:54]

were we were going for is that first pointing out that Chernobyl was designed before computers now when you hear that and you say if somebody says hey nuclear power is dangerous what about Chernobyl if the first thing you say is Chernobyl was designed before computers it's sixties technology all right if you go beyond that you're probably you're going further they need to because nobody in the world is gonna hear that something was designed before computers in the 60s and they're not gonna say okay that's that's my model for understanding you know 2019 people will pretty much abandon that being a good comparison as soon as you say that's before computers before computers but then the second part of that was let me let me trot this out so Chernobyl I think would be a generation one I guess

[24:55]

think would be a generation one I guess would be what you would call it so you know there are early versions but if you're trying to say what does generation 3 and also generation four which is starting to come online what are those look like in terms of safety and the the image that we're playing with and I want to test this out is that generation three would be like an egg surrounded by a hundred miles thick bubble wrap so that's how to think of generation three yes there's an egg but it's covered by a hundred miles of bubble wrap generation four is like that except you replace the egg with a steel ball bearings so even if all the bubble wrap fell off a hundred miles of bubble wrap yeah just ball bearing would fall on the ground nothing would break so that's that's just a mental image just testing that

[25:56]

just a mental image just testing that out if you have any you have any feedback on that let me know because remember the public isn't isn't in a position to understand the technology so as soon as you say well you know one of them uses this kind of acting blah blah blah cooling all the blah nobody can even hear that it just means nothing but if you if you give them these three points to think on Chernobyl was before computers the sixties of course I had problems generation three egg with a hundred miles of of bubble wrap in generation four is still 100 miles of bubble wrap but instead of an egg it's a ball bearing even if all the bubble wrap disappeared tomorrow pink the ball bearing would just fall on the ground nothing breaks all right well so we'll try rest think about that for a little while see if that means anything somebody says you mean to say

[26:59]

anything somebody says you mean to say before computers were applied to the design of nuclear reactors yes that is exactly what I mean yes I know that technically computers were designed yeah designs yeah yeah and the AK I know I know I know computers were designed to before the 60s but they were not in use the way that we understand it now if you're just trying to explain it to a citizen saying that the sixties is before computers is close enough but your your your technical correction is absolutely accurate there were technically computers long before that Chernobyl was designed by vodka-soaked Soviets I was I was trying to work out an analogy to say that the Chernobyl was like three drunks juggling hand grenades but then I thought oh that's I don't know yeah that still

[28:00]

that's I don't know yeah that still sounds dangerous so you don't want people to think in terms of accidents you don't want them to think in terms of danger so that's why the bubble wrap and egg imagery works a little better because those are such safe comfortable things bubble wrap egg all right the other topic I wanted to talk about was does anybody know who invented the phrase trump derangement syndrome does anybody know who came up with that I was wondering who is the inventor that my understanding is that it's based on prom based on there was a bush derangement syndrome before that and there might have been other derangement syndromes but I'm wondering because I remember coming up with Trump hysteria so I think I used hysteria first yeah you know a

[29:03]

I used hysteria first yeah you know a lot of people probably get a credit credit that to me and I was an early adopter but I think I was using a yeah there was Bush derangement syndrome before and then somebody made the connection and put Trump in there but I don't know who said it first somebody saying Crowell Heimburger yeah anyway if anybody can figure out who said that first that rush limbaugh stefan molyneux all right well we don't know it'd be interesting to know who came up with that somebody says Adam Curie dr. Phil I I think people are probably crediting me for it unfairly now I do think it might have been more than one person because since we already there was already you know in the universe there had been Bush derangement syndrome it seems likely

[30:04]

derangement syndrome it seems likely seems likely that more than one person came up with it independently but maybe we only heard from one of them first so it may not be a clean situation where there was just one author of that well I don't I personally do not claim I don't claim that I created it I think I was using hysteria instead of derangement first but I'm not positive all right so while we're talking about this stuff 430 rockets were fired from Gaza Israel there have been a several deaths number of injuries and Israel has struck back targets in Gaza and they usually say that they're attacking you know Hamas weapons depots and you know military assets stuff but you know who knows how accurate that is but they also apparently they attacked a training compound in command center located

[31:06]

compound in command center located inside a mosque so Israel took out a mosque now if you look for the news about this it's it's sort of this little sidebar it's not even on the like main news page there's like this you know there's the news and then a little sidebar there's like and you know a calf lob well and a woman thinks that she is you know Jesus and Israel's attacking Hamas you know it's all it's all the the lesser news of the little sidebar and I thought to myself have we ever have we ever been in a situation where people cared less about Gaza and the Palestinians and Hamas and that whole situation over there it feels to me like Israel is just pounding some people that nobody supports anymore except Iran and

[32:11]

nobody supports anymore except Iran and most of the Middle East is is against Iran so yeah every time we talk about peace in the Middle East even if you imagine it's not possible which is a you know always a good bet hypothesis I don't know that the problem looks the way I used to look because now it just seems like Israel just mows the lawn this military term it's like it's not like a problem this is threatening that Israel won't be there tomorrow they just have to occasionally go and both along so it's probably a reasonably it's probably a reasonably good indication that maybe a Middle East peace deal is possible the the minimum requirement for Middle East peace is that rain becomes less AAA and nation that

[33:12]

rain becomes less AAA and nation that the others can work with let's put it that way I don't know how that happens but it would be nice to give them a chance to do that alright
[Music] Sharia somebody says Sharia law is practiced in America why is this not concerning to all probably the reason that lots of things are not concerning because it's small there can't be too much Sharia law happening in this this country now I've got it I want to run by you a provocative thought about immigration you hear people saying hey open up the borders let everybody come in and then you hear other people say close up those borders and only let people in who who have some kind of merit those are the two main positions but I was wondering about this let's take aa Tomales so Guatemalans are

[34:16]

take aa Tomales so Guatemalans are streaming north because of economic conditions we have the most booming economy of all time well depends where you who you compare to but our economy is booming we probably need more workers ideally we'd like the most qualified one but there's so many jobs that are farming and manual labor we probably just need a lot of lot of workers everybody everybody agrees with that it's a question of how many we need at the same time Guatemala's economic problems how much would they change if the number of able-bodied workers was reduced by half in other words if the Guatemalans streamed into the United States as such a rate that anyone who remained in Guatemala had a good chance of getting a job doesn't it solve two problems

[35:23]

now keep in mind you before you get triggered by this question keep in mind I'm in favor of strong borders and merit-based and I am not in favor of unlimited people just screaming across the border even though our economy can can employ a lot of them I'm not in favor of it I'm just asking the question is it a self solving problem in other words there would certainly be cost there would be crime coming to the country or all of the bad parts that we know of we know of right but wouldn't it also be a problem that solves itself in other words if you just didn't do anything a number of people would move from Guatemala to the United States it would cause a certain burden and expense etc but we would also employ them and over time they would become integrated into the you know the productive world and and be additive maybe not day one but eventually immigration becomes additive if you reduce the number of

[36:25]

additive if you reduce the number of able workers in an economy in Guatemala that didn't have enough jobs doesn't the wage for the people who remain start to get better don't the people who remain all have jobs and they don't have to take care of their relative anymore because the relative when to the United States so the question is is the any but I don't know if anybody's making this argument but it feels like you can almost ignore the problem I'm not suggesting that this is just an intellectual and intellectual experiment if you ignored the problem you would absolutely be doing something that would hurt some members of the United States crime losing jobs competing for jobs you know all the usual things you know about so I'm not suggesting it because the United States does get an option of doing what's good for the United States even if it's not so good for some other country that would like to come here and I'm totally in favor of being selfish

[37:26]

I'm totally in favor of being selfish you know up to some point and that's a good point but I'm just asking the question if we ignored it which I don't recommend for all the reasons I just said wouldn't it solve itself just basic economics of supply and demand I don't know the answer to that question but it feels like you would over time anyway don't be too afraid of that question you don't have to worry about anybody taking that seriously all right I think I've talked about the main things I want to talk about have you noticed that the the news oh yeah so the news is pretty much all word news about hey somebody used a word or a sentence in a way we don't like and then they take that out of context and they change it until something but they can make news and if the latest one is this this William bar stuff and I hadn't really looked at the details but Andrew McCarthy did this great article in

[38:28]

McCarthy did this great article in National Review that I think I may have tweeted it or I just read it I can't remember but he talks about the fact that everybody's that the anti-trump errs are saying bar lied because when he was asked if Muller's if he knew what Muller's team wanted he said no but then it's also a fact that he he had talked to bar and he knew what borrow on it and so when he answered he was answering about the team and he didn't know what Muller's team wanted but he did he did know what Muller himself wanted who he's known for thirty years and talked to all the time so it seems that bar correctly answers the question with no conflict whatsoever and it is being reported of course as that he lied to Congress and needs to go to jail they actually actually what bill bar did go to jail over fake news literally they just you know they just interpreted to

[39:29]

just you know they just interpreted to his clear sentence to mean something else and decided he should go to jail because CNN can't read that's actually happening like there's actually a conversation in the country as to whether the Attorney General should go to jail because CNN can't read I mean I all think I'm oversimplifying that I'm alright I don't know really a comment here about hunter Biden which is so horrible that I'm not gonna repeat it but I might have laughed about it it's pretty horrible one you know one of the things that one of the things that the world doesn't understand or maybe we pretend we don't understand that when

[40:30]

pretend we don't understand that when we're talking in public but everybody understands it personally there are things that I laugh at in my private conversations let's say if Christine and I are just hanging around and and nobody else is listening or it's just you know me and one friend yeah in a private private conversation I will laugh at things because they're terrible it's because they're so over-the-top crazy terrible no and I don't mean death you know I'm not talking about like actual death or something like that but just concepts that you couldn't say in public things that would be too terrible to say out loud things that would be so wrong headed so so mean so uncaring so lack of lacking of empathy that you would never say these things in public but in private they're really funny as long as those nobody's getting hurt you know there are things that you would say to one person that you know is fine with it

[41:31]

one person that you know is fine with it that would be so horrible you would never want somebody to hear it who could be hurt by the idea they might feel insulted but let's let's not pretend that it's not funny in private I think you can laugh at things that are horrible in private and still be a good person you know what you do in in the outer world how you treat other people that's just a different conversation I like to treat other people as well as I can I mean I try really hard to treat people well unless they unless they're trolls who are coming after me of course and then his game up yeah example is that he came he saw he died that's a good example yeah so that's Hillary Clinton talking about the Libyan Muammar Qaddafi so she joked about him

[42:31]

Muammar Qaddafi so she joked about him in public he came he saw he died now that's the sort of thing depending who you're talking to that might have been hilarious privately but when you say that in public man that's bad that is so bad I would argue that maybe even not maybe but definitely president Trump's quip about McCain I prefer people who didn't get caught I'm sorry that's hilarious in private in private that is actually a good joke in fact it's the same joke that Chris Rock used in his stage performance he used exactly the same joke about John McCain so we know it's a joke and we know it's funny because Chris Rock knows what's funny but the fact that Trump said it in public first of all it it makes me like Trump more not less because it was provocative it was funny it was pretty

[43:34]

provocative it was funny it was pretty clever it changed the frame but it didn't work you know I think you'd have to agree that even though I thought it was funny the Trump said it in public it was a mistake you know I'm not the guy who's gonna say that every single thing Trump does works or that he should have done it that was a pretty clear example of a joke that didn't land and can didn't get him the result he wanted it was just a mistake but in private pretty darn funny publicly inappropriate alright I've got nothing else to say nothing oh I do have one other thing to say I've been saving this but I think I'm ready to talk about as we're watching the Russia collusion investigations with an S that never end we've developed two views of the world two movies and I wonder if they're both

[44:37]

two movies and I wonder if they're both wrong one version of the movie is that there were these fine people in law enforcement who were just doing their job they were just doing their job and they they of course they were looking into rush inclusion because there were enough Russian contacts that it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do now within this movie you'd have to explain what did struck mean when he was texting lisa page and when they were talking about the insurance policy well the obvious way to explain what that meant is that all of these people were just doing their job they had reason to suspect there might be some Russian problem collision wise and the insurance policy would mean what I told you way before we knew even what Lisa Paige said about it I told you it probably means in context that they were actually worried

[45:37]

context that they were actually worried there was rush inclusion and the insurance policy was that if Trump gets elected which they thought was very unlikely and if there's some Russian collusion which they also thought was unlikely because remember struck said there's no there there they thought he wouldn't find anything but if you put those two facts that they thought Trump wouldn't win but they thought that there might be some Russian collusion there if he did win the insurance policy was to make sure they had an investigation they could spot that early so that's one movie so one movie everybody was just doing their job they had real things to worry about there were real Russia connections they were in aged in Trump derangement syndrome meaning that they did hate him they did which he hadn't become president and they certainly were not biased in his favor but they're just doing their job now within that movie yet we'll get to

[46:40]

now within that movie yet we'll get to to Massoud and the other movie is that it was all a big plot everybody was in on it they were trying to overthrow the government and they got caught and then they're all gonna they're all gonna go to jail once the IgE and Bill Barr get done with them now I'm gonna suggest that there's something maybe a hybrid of those two that the world is not ready to see so in other words it could be that the reason that the good people in the FBI yeah according to this movie I'm not calling I'm not calling them good or bad so this is not my personal judgment I'm just describing the movie so the movie people like Stockton page and McCabe were doing the job but could it be that there was the Clinton campaign working with at least one person or maybe a few to insert this steel dossier into the

[47:42]

insert this steel dossier into the system because people were smart enough to know it would cause a chain reaction which would cause the people who were not in on the conspiracy to have to work on it so there's a it's entirely possible that there were there was you know one or two or maybe some small number of people who actually were conspirators who were trying to get this steel Doce into the system which would open them up to and to look into all things Trump just hoping they'd find something whether it was Russian whether it was something else they'd find something I think that's the most probable explanation I expect that there were a few people trying to do some weaselly things but that those people may have been driven almost as much by Trump during and syndrome as by the fact that they supported Hillary or to put it in another way there may have been people

[48:42]

another way there may have been people who were supporting Hillary who didn't really care about Hillary some of them thought they probably would get jobs or would do better issue is elected but I'll bet there are some people who weren't so much Pro Hillary as they were my god we've got to stop this monster because I watched CNN if I watch CNN I'm gonna think that Trump is a monster and that I as a good patriot should find a way to stop it I suspect it's gonna come out that way I suspect that you might find some bad behavior at the top and the people who were directly involved with the steel dossier may they've got some things to answer but I don't know that they had meetings in other words I would be very surprised I would be very surprised if rod Rosenstein is ever accused by the IG or any legal process for being in on a coup attempt so let me

[49:47]

for being in on a coup attempt so let me draw the line there I don't believe rod Rosenstein will ever be credibly accused of being in on some kind of a plot I think it's unlikely the struck and page will be it will be credibly found after we know everything that can we can know that they were actually part of a plot I think they didn't like the president I think they were biased against them that was a big problem but everybody in the country was biased one way or the other there was nobody working from the FBI who didn't have an extreme bias one way or the other so you couldn't really hire somebody within a biased but when you get up to yeah when you get to Bruce and Nellie or then I start to have some questions but they could also be explained by just earning money Nellie or had a job it could be nothing more than she was just doing her job in the way that she thought would makes the

[50:49]

the way that she thought would makes the most maker maker bosses the happiest it could be nothing else but you start to ask questions at about that level then when you get to clapper and Brendan well then things start looking a little different it's not as obvious to me that bread in and clapper didn't know the full story the whole time it's not obvious to me that Brandon and clapper really believe Trump is there is the you know the thing that will destroy the world or if they just referred Hillary Clinton because it was good for them so that that's that's where that's where you know things could be different so for those of you who believe that it was a conspiracy all the way from Brennan clapper through Comey Rosenstein you know mccabe struck page

[51:50]

Rosenstein you know mccabe struck page for those of you nelly or Bruce or for those of you who think all of that was an organized plot ask yourself if you think they actually were colluding with each other in other words were they actually meeting and talking about what to do well some of them yes said you know it seems clear that some of them were talking but were they all or whether did they all just know what to do Comey asked an interesting question he said if Comey said and remember the hoax funnel you started at the top with a statement of the fact and then was debunked you end up at the bottom of the hoax funneled by just asking questions that have easy answers this is Comey Comey said if we were out to you no harm Trump why wouldn't I have leaked or somebody have leaked that we were investigating this Russia stuff before the election because apparently they

[52:50]

the election because apparently they were when they did talk about Hillary Clinton's investigation which some say hurt her I doubt it but some say hurt her in the election and they also had station about Trump but they didn't mention that one and they didn't leak it so Comus Comey says how can you say that we were around to get Trump when we we could have so easily damaged him is there only one reason it was there only one way they answer that question is the only answer that they weren't trying to get Trump is that the only way you can explain that they didn't leak that no it's not the way the best explanation for why they didn't leak it is that they didn't think he can elected and then it wouldn't matter remember nobody thought he would get elected they didn't need to leak it because they were gonna get the same outcome whether they leaked it or not and why would you take on the extra risk

[53:51]

and why would you take on the extra risk of a leak you wouldn't need the extra risk of a leak now somebody says as an insurance policy for Strock and Paige just doing their job as it was assigned to them would be the insurance policy so they weren't breaking any laws in just doing their job if comeon company had leaked they would be breaking the law and they would break the law to change nothing because in their mind Trump was still probably not gonna win and then of course the Hillary situation was something we already knew about so he was just updating something we knew because it was already out there so he can't really compare those two situations the Hillary was already out there Trump thing was not known by anybody leaking that would have been a pretty big crime and certainly would have affected the election somebody says

[54:54]

have affected the election somebody says what do I think was Obama's involvement well I would be super surprised if Obama was in on some kind of a plot on a detailed level because I tend not to believe that about the the top person in general but was Obama involved in decisions which if we knew exactly what they were and what he knew we would be distressed by that probably yes did he know that there was such a thing as the steel dossier and that it was full lies and that it was being inserted did he know that the FISA system was being gamed a little bit you know did you know one of those things mm probably not probably not the slaughter meter is at a hundred percent maybe higher somebody just asked me in the comments the slaughter meter being if nothing changed and of course things do change but if nothing changed between now and

[55:55]

but if nothing changed between now and Election Day Trump would wind running away now Joe Biden is is his lead in the polls against his rivals and Democrat Party he is growing he was that like 38% or something he's like completely dominating one of the chance that the Biden can beat Trump I think is zero I would say that Biden would be the least likely to be Trump of
maybe of all 16 competitors so the problem is that he doesn't bring with him a natural a natural group that he can lock in so that the beauty of something like Cory Booker Kamala Harris or even Buddha judge is that they can lock in a voting group and guess something like 95 percent of them you

[56:57]

something like 95 percent of them you know Buddha judge would get 95% of gays don't you think you just lock him in but he might not get the black vote Kamala would get the woman vote pretty much dominant woman vote and probably the black vote so it seems to me that she could just show up and she would be as competitive as Hillary was which was nearly enough whereas Biden I don't think the black vote is gonna come out for Biden do you I don't think the gay vote necessarily comes out for Biden you know maybe if they is the only other choice is something they don't like but and Biden is the human gaff machine and he does seem sort of sleepy compared to trump yo in the matchup is just terrible if you're gonna match up with trunk here's sort of matchup math

[57:59]

with trunk here's sort of matchup math if you want to match up with Trump you don't put against him a weak version of Trump Biden is just what you end up with if you take away all of trumps best assets Biden is not as funny doesn't have the energy he did Biden doesn't have four years experience of being president so interestingly Trump is more experienced at being president and will be you know twice as experienced by Election Day so Biden is you and Biden makes the same mistakes that are attributed to Trump so Biden will say things that sound sketchy and racist he touches people in a way they shouldn't touch which completely takes the takes the grab him by the whatever your thing away Biden is just the worst matchup and I think Democrats are gonna figure it out now of

[59:00]

Democrats are gonna figure it out now of course it's it's never good to make a prediction that assumes Democrats figure things out but I think maybe the pundits will help them you know maybe it will become obvious I I think the the race I would most enjoy is Biden versus Trump because it would be fun I mean that would be just plain fun watching that happen whereas if he took somebody like Cory Booker or like Kamala kamas I think the stronger choice that's the problem because she's not a weak version of Trump she's just a whole different product and you've gotten real decisions Hey so she's locking she would lock in the black vote the woman vote just automatically just by showing up and then all she has to do is not make a mistake and she's already in Hillary Clinton territory I think I think Biden the odds of Biden self-destructing are

[1:00:02]

the odds of Biden self-destructing are probably 75 percent and then another 25 percent that it won't be self-destruction it will be Trump destroying so anyway that's where we are now the slaughter meter is that over a hundred percent because there's nobody who could beat Trump who's in the it was in the race not with this economy not with anything that's going on now I do think I guess say this as clearly as possible if on Election Day Trump doesn't have something that looks like a at least a serious proposal for health care whether you like it or don't like it that's a lesser question but if he doesn't have one he doesn't deserve to get reelected I shouldn't use the word deserve if he doesn't have a health care plan even I wouldn't be able to support him and I'm you know I've been supporting this president for a long time but if he shows up without a health

[1:01:04]

time but if he shows up without a health care plan that's an that's a you didn't show up for class now I think you will I think there will be something you know that looks like at least the framework of yeah I shouldn't use the word dessert but it but at least be a framework then you could say yes or no to if we don't have that then I would say he's not running for president he's he's on the ballot but there's only one candidate so I I'd probably be at least tempted to support the candidate who had a real plan for one of the biggest issues I doubt I would change sides but you know III don't think I could give a full-throated support to Trump's reelection unless there's something that looks like a health care framework that that use pushing alright that's enough for now I'll talk to you all later