Episode 521 Scott Adams: “Fine People” Zombie HOAX, Reframing Immigration, Lawyers

Date: 2019-05-07 | Duration: 51:31

Topics

AOC Twitter parody account (clearly indicated as PARODY) banned “Fine People” HOAX promoters attempting to spin and maintain HOAX WaPo HOAXers are ignoring Steve Cortes, Joel Pollack, me My blog on “fine people” HOAX predicted WaPo article President Trump hyperbole is psychology CREATING POSITIVE RESULTS In contrast, “fine people” HOAX is destructive for the country Enemy press tries to paint positive-result hyperbole as “lies” POTUS uses hyperbole to drive POSITIVE results for America 600 attorneys sign deceptive misleading letter Trick 1: How many attorneys DISAGREE? Data point taken out of context to create a perception
Trick 2: President doing his job…can’t be obstruction of justice Knowing now, what HE knew back then (witchhunt) it was his job to manage Comey and others Trick 3: “He would have been indicted”…but NOT convicted The “persuadables” are the only people who should be polled Team people (GOP or DEM) can’t be persuaded Mexico and the America do NOT share a border Drug cartels control border territory in Mexico REFRAME #1: Whiteboard Border wall is between America and murderous drug cartels REFRAME #2: Whiteboard Immigration Plans with estimated acceptable levels of crime Objective priorities list for murder, rape, GDP, drugs 1. What’s your plan cost? 2. What’s the estimated crime reduction?

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

[0:02]

[Music] bum-bum-bum-bum-bum
hey everybody good to see you it's time for a coffee with Scott Adams hello Andrew Chris come on in there are still seats available if you hurry somebody says have you thoughts I know you've been thinking about it well I don't know what the topic is I probably do have some thoughts and I probably been thinking about it but you know right now it's time for that special special moment in your day the day that tells you today is gonna be a good day if this is going so well I like to think the rest of the day is gonna go well - it starts with a little thing I call the simultaneous up it starts when you grab a cup or a glass or a mug it might be a Steiner a tankard or a chalice it could be a thermos might be a flask fill it with your favorite liquid and join me now for the simultaneous sip I like

[1:02]

now for the simultaneous sip I like coffee savor it enjoy it it's good stuff well we got a lot of crazy stuff going on today I barely know where to start let's start with a parody account for AOC that was apparently suspended by Twitter it was called the AOC press account and it was clearly labeled parity with the actual word parody but it got banned I usually wait a little while because I like to see what it was that got AB and exactly I don't know if the problem was only that it wasn't labeled clearly clearly enough in somebody's opinion I will tell you that even though it did say parody clearly and specifically I have to think a lot

[2:05]

and specifically I have to think a lot of people were fooled into thinking it was real because it was such a good parody that you could you was hard to distinguish from the original which is why it was so good I had even called it out on my Twitter as being one of the best parody accounts I've seen one of the best because sometimes you really couldn't tell you just couldn't tell they were the account would always say insanely stupid things but there were there were the kind of insanely stupid things that you could really imagine she might have said so it might be the first parody account that's ever been removed for being too true to the original even labeled parody now I would say if we don't learn more about what happened this would certainly be an obvious overreach in terms of you know blocking certain types of voices but I

[3:05]

blocking certain types of voices but I have to think that the main reason they got blocked was maybe not written in the Terms of Service but rather it was just so good that I have to admit I've read I've read that account a number of times because I followed both the parody and also a or C and I couldn't always tell and I would have to actually you know look at the profile and say okay is this the parody one or is this the real one I can't tell and I would actually have to check every time to make sure it was really a parody but so we'll be watching that I don't know if there's more information to come I don't know if that decision will stand but certainly on the surface it doesn't seem to be consistent with Twitter's own rules based on what we know I always like to say it's fog of war wait two days and see if any of the data changes all right you may have noticed that the the anti-trump press is

[4:08]

noticed that the the anti-trump press is getting a little agitated at the fact that the the fine people hoax has been so completely dismantled now if you've seen who was it was a daily beast or BuzzFeed I get those two confused but neither of them are serious publications but one of them came up with the you know push the hoax again the Washington Post had a big article today pushing it Jake Tapper retweeted that with a with a pull quote and so we're seeing massive pushback now just just just listen to these facts and see how you process them so the the Washington Post does a very long article saying that the president and his people are trying to rewrite history about the Charlottesville fine people hoax in other words Trump is saying I said the right thing and it was reported wrong and it was hoax

[5:09]

wrong and it was hoax now they go through the the whole thing blah blah but interestingly they do not they do not back the original hoax so the original hoax was that the president called the neo-nazis fine people it's a whole article debunking the debunking the debunking but they don't really talk about the main point instead they they throw a lot of confusion at you until you start to think well that maybe the problem was that it was organ and this is obviously it is a problem but it was organized by neo-nazis racists and so that's the problem I remember that was never the fine people hoax claim the claim right they they've changed it so it's so it's a different claim that they can try to try to support now that claim is a little bit off point because it's a true

[6:12]

little bit off point because it's a true fact and as Jake Tapper mentioned in his retweeting of the Washington Post article he pulled out the fact that it's true there was organized by neo-nazis it is however not relevant to the prior to a primary point it's very relevant to understanding the whole situation so as context it's a hundred percent relevant but in terms of the fine people hoax not relevant because we do know that non racists who were not with the neo-nazis and not with the organizers and in fact didn't know it was just supposed to be neo-nazis so the New York Times reported it I've actually talked that length was somebody was there was not a racist and was surprised to find out you know what what the nature of the event was and it all ended very quickly as soon as people got there the trouble had already started so the president having specifically mentioned his assumption

[7:13]

specifically mentioned his assumption that there were people there just about the statue it doesn't matter to the main point who organized it he said my assumption is there are people there I mean in pretty clear language he said people there on both sides of the statue and then he called out in very specific language I'm not talking about the organizers I'm not talking about the neo-nazis I'm not talking about the white the white Nationals so he said that specifically I'm not talking about them so he very clearly were saying that his assumption was there were some people there who were not part of the the organized group and that was in fact confirmed by New York Times reporting and my own reporting because I've actually talked to somebody who attended so yeah so it doesn't matter but they're trying to make it sound true while simultaneously debunking the original claim and they're trying to act as though it was true all along or true ish

[8:16]

though it was true all along or true ish or true if you if you look at it at a concept level or true in some indirect suggestive way that there might be a racist whistle it's also confusing and what about the day before and he was he was not so clear so it reads like a bunch of word salad trying to make a point and missing Joel summed it up perfectly in the tweet in which he pointed out that the that they've already abandoned the central claim the central claim that he call the called the the neo-nazis find people and they're trying to make it seem as though his lack of specificity in his first statement where he just he said he was against all all bigotry and and made it a general statement that the fact that he didn't single out the neo-nazis

[9:17]

that he didn't single out the neo-nazis by name in his first comments means that that's sort of a racist dog whistle that's what tried to suggest now why would the president have to call well that specific group this is Joel Pollock's observation and I love it why would the president need to call out the neo-nazis specifically when he has made a statement that clearly includes them all bigotry is bad well he would have to call that out because the press created another hoax the original hoax is that the president has been whistling at this group that's not true that's the first hoax so the second hoax that he's whistling that he'd that he's whistling to them again by not mentioning them by name is based on the first hoax it's not based on facts it's based on their first hoax that everything he says is a secret whistle once you believe that hoax then it

[10:20]

once you believe that hoax then it starts to make sense hey why didn't he mention them by name well if they had never started the first hoaxes nobody would be confused by the fact that he said bigotry which should have included every group you know it gets everybody was it was a great point I thought so but here's here's the most interesting thing about the Washington Post article it's obviously being written because there's being pushed back from the president and his supporters on on that hoax now how does the Washington Post write a very long article on this topic without mentioning me
me how did they write that topic without mentioning Steve Cortez who's been hammering it in the press hammering it uncie annette tweeting about it how did they do that without mentioning jewel who has been writing articles

[11:21]

who has been writing articles about it and tweeting it especially recently how did they write that article without linking to my blog post that explains the entire sequence and how the hoax is created and how they go down the hoax funnel they actually can't show the context of their own article the context of their article is not just what the president said and Kellyanne Kellyanne Conway said about it that's not the whole the context the context is that his supporters and that there's a there's a big pushback that's a big big big part of the story they just left it out yeah they can't put that in there because it would completely demolish their entire argument so my blog post on the fight the fine people hoax explains exactly what the Washington Post did in the article before they did it that's

[12:23]

the article before they did it that's the clever part so the clever part of my persuasion in writing it as a hoax funnel is that the the hoaxers always start at the main claim he called the fighting it was neo-nazis find people ok the transcript says he didn't very clearly he said the opposite of that but we'll just move down to well he should have known or you know is he secret whistling or why didn't he say it differently how do you explain why didn't those people leave you know so it just it just goes down to smaller and smaller claims until it's just vapor and if they were to point to my blog post it would predict their article before they wrote it my blog post tells you what their article is going to do before they wrote it it's kind of devastating so of course they can't mention that but when you see the pushback this heart they're they're desperately trying to cling to that hoax because if they and

[13:26]

cling to that hoax because if they and by the way they never call it the fine people hoax given all the number of us who've called with that it's got a hash tag the fine people hopes they never refer to it as the other people call it the fine people hoax they say things like well they're trying to rewrite history when you put it in those terms and you say somebody's trying to rewrite history you're trying you're trying to get to the conclusion without the without the argument so if you say to me Scott you seem to be a cartoonist if I if I deal with the facts that's one thing but if I say oh trying to rewrite history I've gone right past the facts too to an unsupported conclusion so when the Washington Post says that the president's trying to rewrite history

[14:26]

president's trying to rewrite history they don't they don't back that claim because rewriting history would be dealing with the specific hoax who was he talking about when he referred to the fine people and he was very clear show the whole quote said I'm not talking about the do disease and the white supremacists enough about that I heard the news that the president was thinking about having some kind of a three-way nuclear deal he floated this idea with Russia and China in the u.s. to get their nukes down China has put the kibosh on that idea because apparently China we has a few hundred nukes where the US and China has thousands each and so China fairly reasonably says why don't you work on your own nuclear problem because you know get down to our level and then we'll talk essentially so I don't think China is wrong about that because they're saying eh if the US and

[15:27]

because they're saying eh if the US and Russia has so many more nukes get down to our level and then maybe we something to talk about they didn't say it that way but that's that's the the inference now I would say that the president's instinct to have a three way nuclear deal is a mistake so it's a persuasion mistake here's why it it gets too specific about the nukes personally I think the lowest risk that we have is that the US Russia or China would try to Duke each other because of mutually assured destruction it probably isn't the biggest problem you know we can imagine that big and if something went wrong it would be the biggest problem of course but probably that risk is pretty well controlled because we're not intentionally going to love a nuclear weapon at each other it just won't happen and it seems to me that the

[16:27]

happen and it seems to me that the president would have made more progress saying let's make a three-way deal for the benefit of North Korea that's the three-way deal you want to get going because if you make that one work it's small everybody has the same interests there shouldn't be that much difference between what Russia China and the u.s. want in terms of North Korea we would like them denuclearized we'd like them to be prosperous and not a problem we'd like them not to be messing with our countries so if we could get something smaller there was a defense related military-related agreement even the small one they had Russia US and China as signatories we could gain confidence that the three of us can work toward solving these smaller problems working against the terrorism threats and keeping the world a stable place when when you've got three

[17:28]

place when when you've got three countries that are the winners let's say you know they're not the only winners in the world but they're there they're dominant countries militarily in Russia's case they're not dominant economically they have a smaller smaller economy than Italy apparently but militarily and in terms of their punching they you know they punch above their weight so we're three countries who should make a pact not to fight with each other and make a pact to solve our mutual problems because we you know we would pretty be pretty effective and for the three of us said all right we're just going to work together and solve these problems anyway so I think smart the star smaller and then the nuclear question becomes less relevant you know what what are the odds that China Russia and the US would be working productively to solve North Korea and then also nuke each other you know it guess it gets you to the wrong place somebody says that's a bit naive

[18:29]

place somebody says that's a bit naive now the the naivety that I imagine you were speaking to is that each of these countries would pursue their own best interests and historically if they thought that hurting the United States in various ways would be part of their self-interest so I acknowledge that if our mental frames of how how the three countries were approaching it stays exactly the same as it has been that any agreement would just be BS because nobody would intend to follow it they would decide to things like yeah yeah yeah then they would just keep doing all the bad things they do now I'm not in favor of that agreement I'm in favor of using a small agreement with North Korea to build trust and show that working together can solve usual problems so if you do it small you might be able to start changing the framework where people say it's just not helping us to poke this other big country that can poke us back what what good did it do

[19:32]

poke us back what what good did it do Putin to interfere with US elections did that help Putin I don't think so right all right enough on that somebody asked me why do I this is a common question I'm getting so once I've taken people down the define people a hoax funnel and they come all the way it out the end and they realize they've been hoaxed they come at me on Twitter and they say this as somebody did this morning why do you spend so much time on that hoax the fine people Oaks but you don't spend time debunking the president's lies as they call them and then he shows me an example of a lie and the lie that he says I should be debunking is that the president is claiming he added 8-point he created 8.9 million jobs but there's a study that says it's some small number like trivially small number and he says why don't you debunk the president's claim that he made the economy gain all those

[20:33]

that he made the economy gain all those jobs why are you only doing the other the other hoax to which I say there's a real big difference between hyperbole that is used to boost the GDP so every time the president says he's done something good or he's doing something good or something he did makes a difference it makes people feel confident they buy more they invest more and that's what makes the the GDP go up the economy is a psychology engine the president works directly on the psychology of it and he is you can see right in front of your eyes he has he's a big part of why it's at the highest point it's ever been now I unlike other people do give Obama credit for creating the strong base and for getting us off of the the edge of the cliff he did those things I don't take that away from them but growth when you're coming out of a hole it's got it is sort of easy to

[21:36]

of a hole it's got it is sort of easy to get that's the easy growth so I give Obama full credit for keeping us from falling off the ledge getting so strong base and getting the easy wins you know it's easy to put somebody back to work if they're already trained for exactly that job this part of the the economic the economic climb is the hard part if you're hiring somebody today you're probably hiring somebody who is not trained for the job and might not even be able to get a job on during normal so you're trying to hire the hardest to hire people and so if you have good good performance when you're already good that's hard that's the hard stuff and the president has delivered that so so the reason that I that I talked about the the Charlottesville find people hoax is that is destructive to the country is

[22:36]

is that is destructive to the country is driving us apart it's causing a racial divide that's not real and it and it's going to convince people it's real it's terribly destructive the Russia collusion hoax terribly destructive to the country the president saying that he's doing great things for the economy a hundred percent positive unambiguously completely on point exactly if you were gonna create a president like just invent one and you could do it invent a president you would invent this president to be in charge of the economy I'm not talking about every part of his job but if you were to invent a perfect character for the times and for this economy which is already doing well you could not pick a better person than President Trump with his hyperbole which keeps our sense of the economy high which keeps the economy high it is not

[23:39]

which keeps the economy high it is not unrelated these are direct strong points likewise when the president says you know Isis is defeated but it turns out that you know they're they're still scrappy a little group is hyperbole but do you want Isis to think they're doing fine or do you want the potential people who might join Isis to hear the president say yeah we just wiped him out there's not much left we're just mopping up the rest which message gets you to a better world for the United States well that's a lie hyperbole that's entirely positive when the president's white supremacy doesn't think it's the biggest problem in the world and people say why are you saying that why would the president make it a tiny problem in terms of statistics not in terms of how it affects us emotionally but if you look at all the ways people die in this country there are far more bicycle

[24:39]

country there are far more bicycle accidents than there are waist supremacist or even or any other kind of terrorist acts right so it's it's a tiny problem the president tried to describe it as a tiny problem so the people who might be drawn to it look at it and say well that's not really a growing thing maybe I don't want to be part of that so the president downplays things that he wants less of he he tends to exaggerate things he wants a more of and he's managing the public's impressions of things directly so you can't compare that to a negative hoax a negative hoax to tear the country apart is literally the opposite of what the president does when he uses his hyperbole and he yeah he let's say he drifts from the the fact-checking I I know did today that were what six hundred attorneys who

[25:40]

were what six hundred attorneys who signed some kind of a letter saying that they believe that the president would be guilty of obstruction of justice if you were not the president did you catch the trick six hundred attorneys and signed a letter saying that if President Trump were not the president he certainly would have been indicted for obstructing justice there are two tricks there do you see em both trick number one how many how many attorneys disagree if you don't know that you don't know anything do you does it matter how many people signed a petition if you don't know how many people were opposed to it doesn't matter it is a data point taken and the context to make you think that most attorneys would agree complete deception now if there were a poll of attorneys and 80% of them were on the

[26:40]

attorneys and 80% of them were on the same side I'd say oh that's that's telling me something that's real information no matter how big that number is six hundred a thousand it doesn't matter unless you know how many are on the other side if it's roughly even then all you know is its political statements is it roughly even I don't know but there's a second trick did you catch it so the first trick is it doesn't matter how many are on one side you have to know how how many are on the other side or you don't know anything there's literally no information except that there are some people who were on one political side for sure you're here's the other part they say he would be indicted if you were not president do you know why he wasn't indicted because he was president and if you're doing the job of a president it's not obstruction of justice to do your

[27:43]

not obstruction of justice to do your job so a lot of what they were saying were clearly indications of obstruction of justice were also a president who knew that there was nothing there and he was you know he was managing to that fact that there was no substance to the claim now was that his job were we the people would we the people have been better off if he could have made this go away absolutely absolutely was firing no by the way I'm not saying that that was his intention I'm just saying that if it had gone away we'd be better off and I'd be happy with my president because we now we know now why he knew all along which is that it was a witch hunt so so if the president fires Comey that's the president's job likewise so anyway the the main point here is that when the when the lawyers say he would be indicted if he were not

[28:43]

say he would be indicted if he were not president the answer is that's what everybody says both sides say that the fact that he's the president means that it was his job to manage these people which means it's not clearly obstruction and if it's not clearly obstruction you're not guilty of anything in this country in this country you need evidence of a crime that's beyond a reasonable doubt or we say you didn't commit a crime the president because he was the president these were within his job descriptions and therefore it's not clear that there would pass the Supreme Court etc anyway that's the Dershowitz argument I hope I didn't get it wrong which is that you can't can't find obstruction of justice with a president who is doing the job of a president so that was a tricky thing in the news I would call that a hoax wouldn't you wouldn't you say that's just a clear hoax because they leave out the number of people who who who think

[29:46]

the number of people who who who think he would not be oh and by the way here's the other thing they say if he were not a president he would be indicted that's that's three tricks right I believe it's actually possible that he would he could even get indicted even even as president could he be convicted do you think do you think this president could ever be convicted by 12 jurors for doing something that's clearly in his job description and the only evidence that it was a crime is that we imagine what he was thinking which isn't the thing that's not evidence you can't imagine what people are thinking and it was a witch hunt and he knew it was a witch hunt he didn't he didn't have to wonder the president was the only person who knew for sure it was a witch hunt everybody else sort of maybe thought well I think it isn't I think it is but we don't know

[30:46]

it isn't I think it is but we don't know he actually knew so know when so there's the three tricks they say 600 attorneys but you don't know how many would have had the opposite opinion they say if he weren't present but of course the fact that he was doing the job of a president makes it not obstruction of justice so that's a trick word and then lastly they say he would be indicted well maybe but he wouldn't be convicted there wasn't the slightest chance you could get 12 jurors to convict him given the set of facts there's not even the slight chance so that would have been that would have been a more honest way to say it he couldn't have been convicted let's talk about oh the president's approval has reached 46 to 50 percent depending on what poll you're at apparently it's even higher than Obama's not that anybody should be proud of that I don't think Obama's approval was so

[31:47]

I don't think Obama's approval was so high most of the time but if you reach 50% approval s President shouldn't we call that a hundred percent approval think about it if I said to you we did a poll to find out who approves the president and I asked I asked my headphones and the headphones do not approve whether the president should I include the headphones in my poll and say okay I asked the headphones and they did not approve of the president know you'd say that's stupid you say why are you doing a poll of headphones and by the way headphones can't speak and they don't have opinions that'd be dumb makes no sense likewise when you do a poll and you ask a hardcore Democrat what do you what do you think of this Republican president does it matter which President it is I mean really does it matter it does not right so why do you include in

[32:49]

does not right so why do you include in a poll an opinion poll people who are not operating on the basis of opinion they're simply on a team the only people who matter are the persuadable z' which is probably this thin sliver of people who could at least demonstrate that they voted for presidents on different sides of the aisle so in the last 20 years wouldn't that be interesting would you like to see a poll of people who have voted who have voted Democrat at least once and Republican at least once for president in the past 20 years and just ask that group what do you think of this president do you think it would be 50 percent because you would be taking out of it all of the people who first of all definitely would say yes just because he's Republican they would be eliminated but you would also be taking out the people who would disagree with him just because he's a Republican these are not real opinion

[33:50]

Republican these are not real opinion polls because an opinion poll would be talking to people who form opinions these are polls of people who do not form opinions they adopt opinions there's a big difference there simply they accept opinions that are presented to them that's not really having an opinion all right enough about that let's talk about immigration immigrations better understand still for some reason we've got this great crisis at the border that the news just decided doesn't they don't want to talk about it because obviously the more the news talks about the humanitarian crisis at the border the better it is for Trump because it's just proving that everything he's been saying about that danger is true but we're still stuck and so I'm going to go to the white board and suggest some reframing ideas to get us off of 0 on the immigration question number one

[34:51]

the immigration question number one reframe there's going to be two reframes here's the first one as we've learned recently we do not have a problem with the border between Mexico and the United States because Mexico and the United States do not share a border if that's the first time you've heard that you might have some trouble believing what I'm going to tell you right now but you can do your own do your own research Brandon Darby would be a good place to start you could google him Brandon Darby dar bee why and he writes about this travels here all the time and he will tell you that the the border zone and this is not drawn to scale but the the border zone that would have been between Mexico and the United States is no longer controlled by Mexico this is actually controlled entirely by the cartels at least the parts of the matter right there are some rocky places that nobody

[35:52]

there are some rocky places that nobody cares about but the parts that matter are controlled by the cartels because they make money by controlling the people who try to get across the border so they charge them they charge them basically an access fee and you know a safety feed to get across the border they also do a lot of raping and God knows what else so we've been talking consistently about a border between Mexico and the United States when no such thing exists and I'm not using hyperbole have you ever seen the Mexican army operating on the border have you ever wondered will the Mexican army you could just sort of put some people there they could stop this tomorrow couldn't they well why wouldn't they why wouldn't they want to stop it dad I'm sure they have good reasons for not wanting stuff the reason you don't see the Mexican army in this territory is because it's not their country they don't own this territory and it wouldn't be safer for

[36:54]

territory and it wouldn't be safer for them to go there the Mexican army can't enter another country without starting a war and that's exactly what would happen so every time that we say we're talking about the border between Mexico and the United States that's simply not true in in any real-world way it's true in a technical way it's true if you look at the map it's true if you see whose embassy claims the territory it's true in a technical way but we're not we don't live in a technical world we live in the real world and in the real world we don't have a border between Mexico and the United States it just doesn't exist now if you're trying to sell people on a border borders what's easier we'd like to build a big scary wall between Mexico one of our closest allies who are filled with people we like who just want a better

[37:54]

people we like who just want a better life for themselves that's what we've been trying to sell we've been trying to keep out people we like who are you know the country of Mexico is very much an ally at the United States most of us personally know people who came from Mexico and we love them I love the people I know who came from Mexico Mexico has a lot of loss of people so if you're telling me to spend twenty five billion dollars keeping these awesome people from getting good jobs and helping our farmers well that's not much of an argument like that just sounds kinda racist honestly sounds a little racist doesn't it it's like well they're awesome they just want a better life they're allies but they're brown so it must be the brown part that wants you to wants you to keep them out now I'm not saying any that's true I'm saying the way we process it is it's hard to get

[38:56]

way we process it is it's hard to get people to understand why you need a wall to keep your friends away cuz Mexico is our friends in general well you do need a wall to keep the head chopping cartels away in fact I was going to draw this bigger so I could draw a little severed heads a little little severed heads lay ground and there are a lot of severed heads and dead bodies in this territory in Mexico in general alright so that's the first reframing we should just stop the saying we're building a border between Mexico and the United States because that doesn't exist it's not real in any important way here's another reframing I talked about this but it helps to make it visual excuse me while I awkward lis turn my amazing whiteboard around there we go yes it's a whiteboard with two sizes now this is a I'm going to show you here is just sort of that an example don't take this too

[40:00]

of that an example don't take this too literally say so this is at immigration plans this this is the way that the united that the citizens of the country need to see the argument presented so that we can be part of the decision and maybe move it off off the log jam situation it's in we should figure out what the major plans are and let's say just for simplicity let's say there's a do-nothing plan I put it as zero it's not really zero we still spend money on it all the time but there's something like a business-as-usual plan where we do nothing beyond the baseline I'd be zero then there's a Democrat plan I'm just throwing an example number and maybe they say over ten years throw five billion dollar hole set cetera if we're talking about whether we

[41:02]

cetera if we're talking about whether we should have a wall or not some some somebody's telling me that this is cutting out isn't it interesting when it cuts out let me see if we can get the audio to work yeah I know I'm just waiting just waiting to see if it comes back all right I'm looking for your comments to see if we have okay you're back let me just summarize in case you missed some of it so the idea is that we the citizens would like to see this border debate broken down in a way we could understand so that the citizens can participate in persuading the government and whatever the way they want there's sort of a there's always a do-nothing plan which is the the baseline spending I set it as zero but of course is now zero the democratic plan where they wouldn't spend as much

[42:03]

plan where they wouldn't spend as much and they might put or an electronic surveillance and they might put more of it toward the humanitarian parts and let's imagine there's a GOP plan which takes care of everything from Iver fi to you name it and it costs a lot more whatever that number is I'm just putting in numbers for an example then you would say what are the things that are the most important and again these are just examples I'm not suggesting this is the order of importance or that it is complete I'm just saying this is how you would this is how you would express it you say it for each of these plans what would you expect over 10 years in terms of drug overdoses so the zero plan would be the same amount of drug overdoses we have these guys would be kind of similar and then maybe you decrease a little bit if if you thought it would really make a difference I don't know if it would number of sex assaults how many how many

[43:04]

number of sex assaults how many how many rapes are you getting in the baseline how many rapes would you get into the Democrat plan how many under the GOP again murders GDP unemployment rate and maybe you could maybe you could come up with a few other things now somebody saying papers please and Eve Arif I if you're talking about that you need a wall or e-verify if you're talking about the details I would say that's how you get the log jam because as soon as you talk about the details people disagree in the details they don't know the details don't understand that you just can't get there from here what you need is just three plans let's say the Geo plan GOP plan has a merit-based system they've got all kinds of things built in alright we don't need to do know the details we just need to know what's a good cost and then what do you think you're gonna buy with this and then have some kind of independent groups look at it of course they will disagree on the

[44:05]

it of course they will disagree on the estimates but we should have estimates the the exact accuracy of the estimates is less important than that there might be a difference that's identifiable so for example let's say let's say just take sex assaults the do-nothing plan gets you a hundred thousand just making up a number but probably a hundred thousand rapes in ten years I don't think that's even high right don't you think if you do nothing your plan is to have a hundred thousand rapes that's what you're planning for the Democrat plan depending on what it is maybe that would be a smaller number maybe not much smaller and the GOP plan is not going to eliminate it but if you stop the caravans you stop most of the flow you can make an argument that you could cut it by 25% cut it by 50% all right and you could be way off maybe you thought you would cut rapes by 50%

[45:05]

you thought you would cut rapes by 50% but you only cut it by 25% this still might be the best plan so you don't have to be exact in these estimates but you do need to see what are the priorities and what's the best guess based on ask you experts for how that would play out if you don't break it down into this simple forum and you start arguing about the details oh we need to verify we need you know our farmers need workers what about this what about guest workers those are all good things to talk about but we as the public we just want to know two things what's it gonna cost and what are we going to get for it if you give us more than that then we're too many cooks are getting into the into the soup so let the GOP say we want to put these these steps in there these elements these changes let the experts figure it out let the experts figure it

[46:07]

figure it out let the experts figure it out we're not experts we don't know where a wall belongs we don't know when a fence works and what situation we don't know if a wall might help sex assaults but it doesn't help at all on drugs we don't know but there are people who could make those estimates let's see them otherwise we're just spinning no it's pretty clear at this point that our we can solve this problem and if the government can't solve it what do you do what do you what do you do if you're in a company and you're a worker and you and your co-workers can't agree on something you just can't agree then you don't know how to go forward what do you do you kick it up to the ball oh sorry you kick it up to the boss if you can't figure it out you ask the boss to to be the decision-maker in this case the public is the boss where are the ones who are going to fire these politicians

[47:07]

who are going to fire these politicians in the voting booth if they don't do the job for us so if they can't get it done and they've proven that they can't it's obvious it's obvious that the Congress is not the right body to do this they don't have they don't have their resources the will the personalities they just don't have what it would take to solve this largely because of politics so they got to kick it upstairs you got it you got to turn it over to the boss and the boss is you or at least most of you who are American voters yet you are the ones who are gonna have to solve this but you can't help until somebody's given you the PowerPoint presentation as as you would to your boss here's the simple thing we're gonna we got three plans now here's the beauty the GOP does not need to wait for the Dems to come up with a plan they don't have to wait they could just say here's

[48:09]

have to wait they could just say here's our plan and here's what we're gonna buy with this money half as many rapes etc they can just plug in the Democrat plan as best they know it because there's sort of the bones of a general consensus of you know don't build a wall put this much money in for electronic stuff and better better checkpoint security etc we we kind of know what that would look like so just plop it in there let the let the Democrats revise it if you put in the Democrat plan and the Democrats collectively let's say Nancy Pelosi if Nancy Pelosi says no that's not a good look at a Democrat plan just say we'll put in whatever plan you want just tell us what the plan looks like which which parts do you want to change and then just put it in there so if you wait for the Democrats to make up land you will wait forever you have to plug in their plan as best you can understand it to

[49:11]

plan as best you can understand it to give the voters some kind of an option and let them let them revise it if they need to which I'm sure they would so here's how I that's how I would get us off of off on zero on this you got to kick it up to the people and the only way the people are going to understand it Justin first of all explain that it's not a border between US and Mexico Mexico we freaking love Mexico Mexicans I love Mexicans DJ how many Mexicans I know like you know I live in California do you have any idea how many Mexicans and people of Mexican heritage that I know personally a lot they're great I not met a lot of people who have immigrated here the stories about the criminals and blah blah blah and there is crime and there's a lot more of it closer to the border where I'm in Northern California you really just get the people who wanted a better life they want to work for it and they're not complaining really awesome people I mean

[50:13]

complaining really awesome people I mean really really good people
Mexican here and you're all good people there are criminals so we can't ignore the fact that there are criminals but in general as a general statement awesome people somebody says yes we are so I see some people agree with that statement
yeah I mean I have such good experiences with that community that I have whatever is the opposite of bigotry like I start to think well like extra good and then I think okay I shouldn't be thinking that way but but my impression of the people who have come from Mexico is that they're kind of extra good but I don't think I'm allowed to say that yeah we talked about the aoc

[51:17]

to say that yeah we talked about the aoc parody account and I think I've said what I need to say and I'm going to cut it off here I'll go back to fighting the fine people hoax and I'll post this and see if it makes any difference I will talk to you later