Episode 522 Scott Adams: China, Iran, NK, Trump Taxes, Socialism, Coffee, and Guns
Date: 2019-05-08 | Duration: 59:21
Topics
Gun control proposal: Make it illegal for Democrats to own guns Why would Dems object? Solves half the problem Another Proposal: ALL gun owners REQUIRED to join NRA They promote gun safety, responsible use, important stuff NRA membership is essentially gun control and safety Jerry Nadler and Congressional Oversight Manufacturing crimes and stalking President Trump People are being manipulated into committing crimes… …without even realizing they’re committing a crime NYT legally obtained some…illegally obtained, Presidential tax info If you understand business and taxes, smart, legal tax stuff If you understand finance, nothing unusual in his taxes China is smart, nobody says they aren’t They’re stalling for time, wearing down the other side Our pending election puts TIME on their side, so stalling President Trump tweets China waiting/hoping for Biden There’s NO WAY China agrees to a deal before election Do we need a deal? Tariffs of 100 Billion sounds pretty good Russian armament sales are a major portion of their economy World instability is extremely profitable for Russia World instability also good for American armament industries President Trump was the TOP MALE recipient of FEMALE donations President Trump, TOP MALE candidate…per FEMALE donors Monmouth University poll says only 10% like socialism Okay…but Dems don’t label what they want as “socialism” Social Media banning people Urgent need for some sort of appeals, 2nd chance process James Woods ban is a perfect test case for appeals process He referenced a famous movie line in a tweet What punishment…if any, does that deserve? Who should get to decide?
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
[0:10]
oh hey Janice Devine Chris you're all the early ones and I appreciate it every time thanks all for coming it's time for coffee with Scott Adams you came to the right place for that because you know what's next I think you do run run get your cup your mug your Stein you're jealous your flask could be a tankard or two thermos it could be any kind of a container but once you filled it with your favorite liquid you know what time it is it's time for the simultaneous up here it comes
good stuff so I'm not going to talk about the latest shooting I'm intentionally ignoring that news except where I say it in headlines so all I've allowed myself to know is that there's another one I'm gonna intentionally not look at any names of people I'm intentionally not going to
[1:12]
people I'm intentionally not going to inform myself beyond the normal human empathy for the victims but somebody named Elmo the locus Wookiee tweeted this morning that Scott Adams that's me once brilliantly suggested well if I may be modest he said I once brilliantly suggested a compromise with the Democrats in which we make it illegal for Democrats to own guns in my opinion this is the most common-sense gun control now of course that's a reference to the latest shooting and of course both sides try to pin it on the other one and and again I don't care about the shooter because I just don't want to know about him don't want to give an attention law enforcement will do what I can but I'm reminded of that idea and what's funny about it if guns can be
[2:12]
what's funny about it if guns can be funny it's hard to be funny after a tragedy but let me let me be respectful to the victims but talk about the topic separately why would Democrats object to making it illegal for Democrats Stone guns doesn't that solve half the problem suppose suppose you wanted a different direction this is a similar suggestion suppose you made it illegal to own a gun unless you're a member of the NRA how about that I mean that would probably get rid of most Democrats owning guns in the first place now the thinking would be that the NRA I'm not a member but I think this is true that they operate in large part to make it safe to own a gun so there would be education and you reminders and access to gun locks and
[3:14]
reminders and access to gun locks and gun safes and essentially trading and information about how to be a safer owner now here's the other thing about joining the NRA and I don't know why nobody ever talks about this I saw as far as I know I'm the only person who's ever said the thing I'm gonna say thanks if you join the NRA you registered your gun does do you think the government can't get a hold of the membership lists of the NRA it isn't joining the NRA gun control I mean it's voluntary gun control you're literally putting yourself on a list of people who almost certainly have more a gun or more than one gun now it's not so specific that it says what gun you own but still how many people have ever joined the NRA without actually owning a gun not every person right there probably people who joined
[4:15]
right there probably people who joined and got rid of their gotten because maybe they had a kid in the house or whatever reason you know they live somewhere they couldn't have it so maybe temporarily somebody's at the NRA without a gun but in general if you join the NRA you you just bought into gun control III don't know what would be stronger gun control than putting your name on a list of people who owns guns and submitting yourself to fairly continuous streams of gun safety information I would call that gun control wouldn't you I mean reason politics aside does that not do a lot of what gun control purports to do anyway so while it would be illegal to say hey you people if you're a Democrat you can't hold a gun it's funny but it's not legal because I'd be treating people differently but
[5:17]
I'd be treating people differently but certainly you could say you have to get a license you have to register for things those types of things are normal legal stuff but nobody likes the government getting involved so let me offer let me offer an alternative let's say this you don't let's say there's a law that says you don't have to join the NRA but if somebody kills somebody with one of your guns you have a higher level of responsibility how about that just say that if you you can own all you can own guns and you don't have to join the NRA but if you do your level of responsibility will be somehow insured against or you know maybe there'll be some degree of protection because at least you did that much I don't know if there's any practical way to work that out but thinking in those terms anyway
[6:19]
out but thinking in those terms anyway that's my thought for the day let's talk about some other stuff have you noticed that thanks to Jerry Nadler primarily the Democrats have turned one of the best parts of our government into something terrible one of the best parts of our government is the checks and balances and specifically talking about the congressional oversight is it my imagination because first of all I think congressional oversight I'm no expert but it seems like that would be an important thing to have and it should be important to continue having it when it makes sense but has Jerry Nadler taken that good thing and turned it into some some weird process where he's become a stalker he's basically the president's stalker and and the other part of the process of this oversight is manufacturing crimes because you can
[7:22]
manufacturing crimes because you can force people into crimes pretty easily if you if you know what buttons to push in these big investigations apparently are very effective at forcing people into accidental crimes crimes that they may not have known they committed if you don't even know you're committing a crime you don't even know and you're a sophisticated person who pretty much knows what's legal and what isn't if you don't even know you're committing a crime do we want do we want our Congress to have the job of manufacturing crime so you've got the president who is working hard to reduce crime that's a true statement right wouldn't you say that the president is working hard I don't know what kind of success he's having but you can see you can see that the other work is there he's trying to reduce down the border he's trying to reduce crime even the first step program is it if everything works out well a way
[8:24]
is it if everything works out well a way to rehabilitate people so that they're less likely to commit more crimes so you see the president whether or not he's successful working hard to reduce crime what did Jerry Nadler do this month pretty sure he worked hard to manufacture crime he's actually creating crime and of other things that people didn't even know we're illegal well I talked to somebody I I fired somebody I thought about this and suddenly you're obstructing justice for a crime that didn't exist in the first place the collusion situation so I and then when we look at the tax returns I'll talk about that but getting a hold of the president's tax returns the thing that Nadler wants doesn't that seem like what a stalker would do what does this talk or do they the first thing they do is they try to hack into your into your private accounts right a hacker tries to get your private information a stalker so the difference
[9:28]
information a stalker so the difference between Nadler and the stalker is this seems to be narrowing right small or smaller and somehow that's still okay with the Democrats they're watching their the Democrats are watching their team turned into stalkers and manufacturers of crimes that didn't need to happen amazing let's talk about the tax returns so New York Times has apparently gone full wikileaks meaning publishing information that was stolen or illegally obtained in this case so we don't know the details but it seems based on the New York Times own reporting that the information was illegally obtained and then provided to the New York Times who does not have any responsibility because they're just a publisher of things that other people stole which apparently is legal enough
[10:28]
stole which apparently is legal enough but not legal enough for Wikipedia for now Wikipedia for WikiLeaks for reasons that are unclear now of course the Democrats had run out of things to say about the president because things were going so well and in the country and they lost all of their their big arguments you know they they watched the Russia clusion collapsed they watched the fine people hoax become more of a laughingstock than a good complaint so and we watch the president give a you know the highest civilian award to tiger woods now nobody said anything about race when that happened or at least I didn't see it which is good I suppose we were growing up a little bit that nobody made a any race related comments about Tiger Woods but as an image is so violates what the Democrats think about this president because it doesn't fit
[11:30]
this president because it doesn't fit their story their story is he's a big ol racist and he's sending racist signals to to his some part of his base but I'm pretty sure Tiger Woods's at least part black and nobody talks about that so how does that make sense because it's optional right the president didn't need to give Tiger Woods in the war it wasn't like the country was asking for it it wasn't it wasn't polling well there was literally no reason to do it except he thought it would be worth doing and it was for golf after all of all things he golf's really well so if you're a Democrat you're looking and all of you are your beliefs just blow up in your face because the economy is good the president doesn't seem to have a mental illness you know we would have noticed by now and you know it's all falling
[12:33]
by now and you know it's all falling apart so they need a new thing and luckily they got this tax thing and of course we're all watching in amazement as something that Trump wrote about in his own book the most public thing that anybody could ever talk about with the president the thing that's been reported forever which is the he took enormous losses and was near bankruptcy at one period and then he worked his way back so the reporting basically the stuff we already knew stuff they he said publicly and often wrote a book about it shouldn't be any surprises but the way they treat it is of course with the usual financial ignorant now the president explained it this way and I'm not going to take his that explanation as we'll say completely correct let's say that there might be some herb hyperbole on both sides here and it's hard to sort that out so I don't know what that I probably is on the president's side but
[13:34]
probably is on the president's side but let's just assume that that there's some there now what the president explained in his tweet that I don't think most of the country understands is that if you have a business in which you're buying expensive assets and then depreciating them and you're and you're building this is the the key parts if you have these two things happening you're buying expensive assets or building so let's say a building is an expensive asset so you're building expensive assets you're depreciating them and here's the second part this is important you're you're growing so if it's a growing company that's building more and more more and let's say each building is bigger bigger than the building before what you should see if everything is working just right is losses for the entire building period so if you did everything right it should
[14:34]
so if you did everything right it should look exactly the way Trump's taxes look you eliminate your taxes you negotiate with bankers when you need to or if you can or as the president called it sport normal development stuff so let me give you another example many years ago comcast was a small unprofitable on paper unprofitable cable business and because putting cable into neighborhoods is a big asset expensive thing they were buying expensive things all the time you know buying rights and putting in putting in cables all over the place very very expensive but they could depreciate that stuff and they were growing what would have been one of the best stocks you could have ever purchased Comcast even though for I don't I'm
[15:36]
Comcast even though for I don't I'm talking about the top of my head somebody somebody's gonna need to look into the numbers here but I think that they lost money on paper for twenty years ten years I don't know I I feel like they lost money on paper for years and years and years did they not somebody needs to fact-check you know I saw the comments somebody somebody mentioned Amazon Amazon exactly same situation buying expensive assets like crazy depreciating them so you've got losses on paper but growing now where does the money come from if you're growing all right those of you who understand finance if you're losing you're losing money on paper on each deal but you're probably also losing or you're probably also spending more actual cash than you're producing where does the money come from the money comes from banks somebody says taxpayers not
[16:38]
from banks somebody says taxpayers not really the money comes from banks why does a bank give somebody a loan if they're losing money every year because it's a good loan the bank doesn't give you a loan unless you know for a new building unless they can look at that building and they could say okay this is a good deal it's gonna look like it's gonna lose money for years but then it'll it'll be a cash cow after that so when you watch the new york times talk to people who are ignorant about all things finance it might be true the Trump made mistakes business mistakes during that period I don't have any visibility on that you would expect somebody who made as many decisions as he did about as many high-risk big projects you would expect he had some mistakes and I don't think he would say otherwise but but I don't know what they are
[17:38]
but but I don't know what they are exactly and when you see the reporting the things they talk about as if their mistakes they're not quite landing it on a on a finance level in other words if you understand how business works you understand how taxes work you understand a little bit about how accounting works you know what depreciation is you know what cash flow is you know what leverage is if you know all of those things which would require you to have some serious either business training or business education most of the public doesn't understand all of those issues but if you do what the New York Times reported just lays there on the page it doesn't tell me anything good and it doesn't tell me anything bad it is simply a small part of a large picture which I can't see it doesn't mean really anything I mean by itself you would have to see the larger context if you can see
[18:41]
to see the larger context if you can see the complete picture of how you went from not paying taxes to whatever situation the Trump Empire is in right now if you can see the whole story I think you'd say that looks pretty good I don't know all right let's talk about China so when I read the story about as you know that the president has threatened greater tariffs on China because they seem to have pulled a step back on the negotiations so China seemed to have agreed to things and then change their mind I didn't realize until this morning I read a report how much they'd changed their mind so apparently they took the the agreement was it which was reportedly 90 percent done and then went to China and they're they're legal people or whatever worked it up and made changes and said it back and suddenly it was just all wrong again as if no negotiations had been happening for months now somebody's
[19:43]
been happening for months now somebody's saying that's all just part of negotiations and the answer is yes it would be dumb for China not to do what they did so you should expect in all big negotiations that somebody would do something that looked exactly like what China just did do you know who else does that the person selling you a car you know how your your car salesperson always says well I'd love to give you five thousand dollars off in this car but I'm gonna have to check it with the boss and then they disappear for a way too long they're just making you wait they're not actually talking about anything and they come back and they say gosh I would give you this for sure but you know my boss says now now the purpose of this is to separate you the customer and have one person in between the person who's making the decision that's what China just did and all these negotiators have been negotiating for a long time and then it looked like they then made something close to a deal and
[20:43]
then made something close to a deal and as soon as those negotiators said all right now I just just got to check it with the boss whoever the bosses in this case it could be lawyers could be you know President Xi and they take it back and the boss said oh I can't do this so it it's it's basically a way to stall for time and we're down the opposition so that without giving any good reasons they just say all right we just got to get a deal done now I started to make a tweet this morning and I changed my mind and I don't know if I'm glad I did or not and I started to tweet but did not tweet the following is China stalling on trade negotiations to wait and see if they get a President Biden to make a better deal and I wrote the tweet I wrote in several ways and then I decided not to send it because I thought well maybe I don't know enough about this
[21:44]
maybe I don't know enough about this situation yet I'm not I'm not going to commit to that and then I saw that the president tweeted that exact thing so that we so the president tweeted that China might be waiting for Biden now the thinking here is if China is not trying to stall why not is China stupid China's not stupid you can say all you want about China taking you know intellectual property and you know you say what you will negative about China and I certainly do especially about fentanyl you can say a lot that's negative about China but do you see anybody calling them stupid have you ever seen the president say China is stupid no and do you think the president would hold back if he thought China was stupid no no this president would tell
[22:47]
stupid no no this president would tell you if he thought they were stupid and I have not seen anybody on either side anybody in the world suggest that China is stupid now we the President does say that bad Biden there is some suggestion that Biden who would be soft on China relative to trump now given that there are two things timing-wise that are important number one China knows that President Trump needs to deliver a trade deal and they know that 2020 is getting closer how much does Trump want a trade deal as you get closer to the election oh he wants it closer you get to the election the more Trump needs a deal or they could just wait if Trump loses and what would try to be doing to the stock market while the election is getting closer well if they resist on the trade
[23:47]
closer well if they resist on the trade deal the stock market's gonna take a the stock market is gonna go down well happens if the stock market goes down as we're approaching 2020 in the election very bad for Trump so China knows the timing and deal-making are inexorably connected you see President Trump do the same technique all the time you have to make sure that time is on your side the
the president has lost that advantage all right the president has lost the advantage of time that's a big deal he lost the advantage of time on the biggest negotiation that the United States has probably been involved in that wasn't wasn't military he lost the advantage of time China knows that China again very smart so why would you expect
[24:49]
again very smart so why would you expect China to agree to a deal in the next two years the only way the China would agree to a deal in the next two years as if China is stupid or they get a really good deal so the president is trapped he can either give no deal to China and run into the election with no deal very bad or he can give he could promise he's working on it but since we don't have a deal the stock market's going to be suppressed it's bad bad for the president if he does make a deal he's going to have to make a deal that he doesn't want to make and people are gonna notice and then he's the bad deal maker so Brett so China has boxed the president in really well you know and keep in mind you know I tried to be objective when the president has a win I
[25:49]
objective when the president has a win I try to be objective when he doesn't in this case he doesn't China just got the upper hand they can play for time and they can say well you know maybe we get Joe Biden maybe we get some kind of impeachment or maybe the legal process you know puts the president in trouble maybe the president is so desperate for a deal we just wait or six months from the election and we get the deal we want so at the moment China has complete upper hand and they know it because that's obviously why they they pulled everything out of the deal they basically completely reversed everything they negotiated because they probably think they don't need to somebody says there's still 18 months to election really there's a year in which this China thing needs to get figured out because if it gets close to the end
[26:51]
out because if it gets close to the end they're not going to make a deal in the last six months unless it's a pro China deal which Trump can't do and still get elected so here's the question I ask myself why do we need a trade deal with China did you ever ask yourself that why do we assume that we need a trade deal why can't we just put tariffs on anything we put want to put tariffs on and I just let the market sort it out why do we why do we even allow our US companies to deal with Chinese companies who by contract and and bison by the situation are gonna steal their technology why not just ban it now of course you would have you know major industries in this country that would just take it in the shorts how about you just face it in say we'll give it will increase your tariffs by two percent a year until we get 25 percent because
[27:53]
year until we get 25 percent because that'll give American companies time to adjust find other markets maybe we can maybe we can use those tariffs to directly subsidize them I don't really understand why we need a deal and the president is is starting to suggest something similar because he keeps saying hey we'll just take you know we'll just take these tariffs stuffie I think he said China has made a hundred billion in tariffs I don't know if that numbers real but the point is do we need a deal why don't we just not deal with them in places that are unfair and charge massive tariffs in other places I just don't know why we need a deal at all
so here's a topic I was talking about the other day that I had a little insight into but maybe and I couldn't figure out a way through it I've been asking why is it that the US and Russia are let's say not enemies but they're
[28:54]
are let's say not enemies but they're each other's nemesis and I was saying what the world would make those two countries want to feel like we're at war footing or we're poking each other with with our clandestine operations etc just why well you know why Russia and why are we not doing it to France now I understand it's happening and I understand the Russia does bad things and I'm sure we do things some things to them but I came to one realization that just made me think oh I get it now yeah I want to see it in the comments before I say it does anybody in the comments know why Russia would not want to be exactly friends with the United States here's here's my best guess Russia has two industries that are not lame most of their industries are pathetic but they have energy oil etc
[29:55]
pathetic but they have energy oil etc now it can't be good for Russia in terms of their oil business to be at odds with the United States because it feels like you know maybe that's it seems like they could sell more oil if they were just friendly with everybody right so I thought oil is probably not the the answer Boyle might be part of it but it just seems to me that Russia would sell a lot more oil if they just decided to be everybody's friend who sells more oil than people who are not your enemies right well you know maybe there we go somebody somebody got the right answer in the comments armaments weapons the other major industry for Russia is weapons and they sell them to all the countries that don't buy them from the United States or we won't sell them to the United States the the Russian government I've come to understand should be seen more like a criminal organization that just as a government as it as a structure and with Putin the
[30:58]
as it as a structure and with Putin the head of the criminal organization because you assume that these two major industries you have to assume that both the defense and the energy industry are really just funneling money into Putin's bank accounts one way or the other I think that's fair to say so let me ask you this what would happen if Russia decided to be friends with everybody well suddenly they wouldn't have as much market for the primary thing that their economy sells other than oil which is weapons they need an unstable world somebody says ah that is a lie Scott I don't know which part you're saying is lie but if you want to fact-check me please do so I'm open to any kind of fact jacking I'm just feeling my way around this topic so I'm not going to make any claim that everything they say is right it feels to me like there's no way past the fact that Putin is a crime
[32:00]
way past the fact that Putin is a crime boss who happens to own a country and weapons are their second biggest industry and they're not going to give it up and the worst thing for that industry it would be a peaceful world so I have to think that if we can't figure out with some way to get past the fact that the Russia arms industry is their second biggest thing and they don't want a peaceful world and then hey I don't know how you can get past that so if anybody has a suggestion I've never heard one in fact I've never even heard it discussed have you heard anybody frame it the way I just framed it yeah and somebody's saying is no difference between that and the US military industrial complex and I think that's true it seems that there are two competing arms industries who's the last thing they want is anything that looks like peace so
[33:04]
dude to stalk about so there was a report in some sub publication they said 45% of trumps campaign donations came for a moment forty five percent apparently that's much higher than when he ran for president I think it was twenty nine percent so going from twenty nine to forty five percent that's a big big jump and the way there the way it was reported is that he had the fourth best percentage of of contributions from women right so if you saw that because they're looking at all the Democrats so they're saying that of all the candidates Trump and all the Democrats Trump is in fourth place in terms of getting money donated from women well that's one way to look at it here's the here's the other way to look at it Trump was the number one male candidate in terms of female donations in other
[34:06]
in terms of female donations in other words the only three people who beat Trump for donations were the three three top female candidates on the Democrat side from Alerus Kristin Gillibrand and was it Warren I forget who it was but there were three three candidates who were women who were ahead of him Trump is the highest male getter of female contributions in percentage-wise that would have been the way to report it but you have to dig that n of the numbers to know that among men he's number one to say that women contribute more to female candidates is not really saying a lot you just sort of expect that but to say that of all the other men women are preferring or at least in terms of their pocketbooks they're preferring Trump
[35:08]
pocketbooks they're preferring Trump above the other men in terms of the done in terms of you know donations all right um and I'm just looking at my notes here and see if I talked about it oh uh Monmouth Monmouth University released a poll I think rush limbaugh talked about this it says that only 10% of Americans have a positive view of socialism and so I guess the idea is like oh you know the socialist candidates don't have a chance but I would caution you about that because it's only it's only the conservatives and Republicans who call what the Democrats are doing socialism now I'm exaggerating it's not only them but there are no there are no socialist
[36:08]
but there are no there are no socialist candidates that's just something that that the people on the right say no none of the Democrats are socialists per se they would like more socialist stuff within a capitalist system now they would like the capitalist to pay for you know healthcare and education them you bi and stuff but there is nobody as far as I can tell who's running for president who wants full socialism even Bernie alright if you're saying that Bernie is a socialist you're buying into the Republican conservative brainwashing Bernie likes capitalism with some social safety nets and that's very clear there's I don't believe Bernie has at least in his running for president life has never suggested an end of capitalism except in those categories where you would like some more fairness now I'm not supporting supporting those views
[37:11]
not supporting supporting those views I've often said I've left at Bernie except I'm better at math and the math is hard to work for the things that the Bernie wants so I tend to think the capitalism can deliver what socialism promises but if you get if you find yourself getting half the only 10% of Americans have a positive view of socialism keep in mind that they don't think the Democrats are socialists it's a completely irrelevant fact it feels like it's a kill shot you look at me only ten percent like socialism the president's gonna clean the field with all these socialists well first of all it might be you know it could be Biden and it could be Kamala Harris and I'm not sure how socialist they really are when it comes down to it but I wouldn't be too happy because most of the public doesn't see what they're doing as socialism it just sees some elements of socialism in a capitalist system all right I think that's all I was going to talk about did I miss
[38:12]
was going to talk about did I miss anything oh did I mention North Korea yes I sew one report in Newsweek that North Korea may be prepping for another nuclear test and I read it and I just thought oh god you can't trust anything in the news you know unless I see that on both sides of the news I just I'm just not going to believe it's true somebody says it's a kill shot the Democrats love huge government nope that's the worst persuasion ever because Democrats are kind of okay with a big government we have the big government they they recognize the benefits it's you know saying that Democrats like big government that's empty has no persuasive power whatsoever yeah so these Newsweek reported that about North Korea and I guess I'm just gonna wait to see if any of that's true I don't even want to comment on it because the
[39:12]
want to comment on it because the credibility in the press is so long it's so low at this point that you can't even treat it like it's true so I would remind you again that oh let's talk about all the bannings so every day it seems we wake up to a new person being banned and I really struggle with how to deal with this because I don't want to you know on one hand I want to support free speech and all of its ways on the other hand you know the social networks do have some responsibility for getting rid of the worst of the worst you know if there were if there were big active you know pro-nazi people on social media would you really be against banning them you know if there were more of an Isis recruiting element on social media do you do you really want them to have complete free speech some of you do and
[40:15]
complete free speech some of you do and and I would respect that if you said yes I would I would give Isis complete free speech on social media I can respect that but you can also see that reasonable people might want to not do that so I'm trying to be not the automatically go to one side or the other and as I'm watching people get banned I'm feeling like there needs to be some kind of line because everybody's worried about the slippery slope if the only thing that ever happened were 20 personalities on the right were banned from social media would it make any difference if you imagined that the the banning of the conservative right leaning you know dangerous voices whether it's Alex Jones or anybody else if you imagine that they got say the top 20 or 50 of the ones that have some argument whether you agree with it or
[41:16]
argument whether you agree with it or not but there's some argument that they've crossed the line would it make any difference to you it would make a big difference to those people and I think there should be some kind of mechanism should be some kind of mechanism for you know a check on that I'd love to see some kind of a legal process where people can appeal their suspensions so I think that just has to happen you the government needs to force it if the social media companies can't can't work out some kind of an arbitration thing that gives people a second chance some kind of an amnesty thing where maybe you have a timeout maybe you get your account back but maybe it's more controlled than it was before it should be some kind of a second-chance act for social media and we just did this first step act for real present and the idea was that you'd rather rehabilitate people then to keep them you know in a permanent underclass so why not have
[42:18]
permanent underclass so why not have something like that for social media but I ask you this question is it really gonna matter to your life or anybody else's if the total number of people who were ever banned is 20 to 50 I just don't know that it makes any difference now again you look that could be good reasons you like to have a process where they could work it out but there's probably some kind of middle ground here that's gonna work pretty well so but let me say that there needs to be a red line so each of you need to have in your mind what a red line would look like like who who do you know there's a little bit edgy a little bit edgy but if they got banned you would say that's it for me that's that's my red line if if you ban somebody who's that harmless you know it's one thing it's one thing to ban Alex Jones because there's nobody really like Alex Jones and by the way I don't I
[43:21]
like Alex Jones and by the way I don't I don't think he should be banned because the things they accuse him of or either well I don't want to get into it but the point is that he doesn't seem like the dangerous type to me as long as you know there's opposing opinions that can balance things out but do you have in your mind a person who is the line too far who is that person if you say me I don't quite think you know I think I'm so far down the list of people who are likely to be banned Tim Poole there's a good one because Tim Poole is an independent Tucker Tucker I don't even know if he runs his own Twitter so I'm not sure that Tucker has anything but corporate people or assistance during his social media I don't really know the situation there but I doubt he would get banned so
[44:23]
there but I doubt he would get banned so people are saying James Woods yeah I think the James Woods situation is a perfect test case for why there should be arbitration because there was a reason apparently for James Woods getting banned there was a specific thing he did which reasonable people could look at and say oh my god that's too far what other reasonable people could look at and say um this is just a movie reference nobody's hanging anybody so I always say that's the perfect case of somebody who maybe gets a little warning guess a little arbitration gets back on the system that that's exactly what should happen with with James Woods now I do think that saying things like people should be hung on the other team is something you should do less of because it is a call to violence even if you didn't intend it and I am sure that
[45:24]
you didn't intend it and I am sure that James Woods did not mean the actual violence outside of the legal system I'm sure he was not recommending any actual violence but could people see it that way could people who follow him say idols I think he means it literally is there any of his many many followers who would have looked at and hanging them all and thought to themselves just any of them you know five percent two percent would any of them look at that and say yeah I'm gonna buy me a rope start hanging some people yes the answer is yes so if you're okay with that free speech and all I think you could be okay with it we have to know there's a price stop pretending the purges are not intentional am i pretending the purges are not intentional I mean there's there's no question that there's more of
[46:24]
there's no question that there's more of it on one side so I don't think anybody's I don't believe anybody thinks that it's balanced so I'm certainly not going to argue that whatever they're doing to people on the left is balanced by other extremists on the left I'm not seeing any evidence of that you know that throwing in throwing in one was named Farrakhan throwing in Farrakhan that certainly helps their argument but he's just one guy sticks mind reading much am i no leaves and hanging anything right Joe Rogan Nolte Ben Shapiro yeah I mean there would be one if you saw Ben Shapiro get banned on social media that would definitely be too far that would be way too far
[47:25]
be way too far so anyway keep in your mind I would say it would be useful to hold in your mind some real people who if they were to get banned and you were to look at their activities and it wasn't it wasn't the worst thing in the world that he would say to yourself this is too far somebody's saying Crowder I don't really know Crowder's content entirely I've only I've seen a few clips and stuff so I don't have an opinion on him but that might in your case that might be your read luck all right the word hang makes it not a real threat well I'm gonna say what I say on a fairly regular basis if you take a hundred Americans and show them any message you're not going to get a hundred opinions on the same same side it doesn't matter what you show to a
[48:25]
it doesn't matter what you show to a hundred America they're gonna interpret some of that molds or predict differently so it doesn't matter that 98% would hear the phrase hang them high and just know it's hyperbole you're worried about the two and that's real people could be influenced that way they banded David Horowitz but I believe they reversed that ban as a mistake
Candace Owens yeah if Candace Owens got banned that would be too far Stefan Stefan is right on that edge has he been banned before Jordan Peterson I don't think there's any risk in being banned but that would definitely be too far sticks I don't know enough of this content to have an opinion on that but I don't know him to be provocative in a way that he would
[49:26]
be provocative in a way that he would get banned all right so somebody says we're already past the line I think we are with James Woods so we're definitely past the line but we're also in the fog of war does anybody know if James Woods is permanently banned is he permanently banned or is he just on some kind of suspension because if it's just a suspension I just don't feel the same about it I just I just can't get worked up about a 30-day suspension for a reason that would make him and other people say oh maybe I won't use language like let's shoot them all you know maybe I shouldn't use language like hang them or firing squad because somebody might misunderstand it I know so does it does anybody know the answer to that question so is Kathy Griffin band well here's the thing if you were
[50:26]
band well here's the thing if you were if you were by trade a comedian and you're making sort of an Isis reference by showing a severed head as inappropriate as there was it's pretty obvious that was a joke now could you put that in the same category as James Woods saying hang them I think so I think that would be a reasonably good test to see if if there's something balanced happening Donald Trump jr. yeah if they if they banned if Twitter banned Donald Trump jr. I think the world would explode yeah talk about a line too far that would really be a line too far I mean that I mean I there aren't too many things that would get me in the street but that might Scout provocative cannot be a reason you know this yes I do but provocative and inciting danger
[51:30]
but provocative and inciting danger inciting violence are very different
Nick Monroe I don't know what content got banned so I guess the problem is that we never quite know what the content is that's getting people banned or is it the in Twitter's case they talk about the the activity not the not the content and we never really know so we as observers never quite know all right
Rosanna it suppresses free speech to suspend people yeah of course it does yeah nobody's arguing that social media is a place for a free speech are they I don't think anybody's arguing that complete free speech well let me ask you this if there were a robust Nazi Party in another country would we would we
[52:33]
in another country would we would we first of all allow them to immigrate I don't I don't know that we would so certainly thought crimes and opinion crimes are real things that we do treat us seriously
it's not that you should be banned it's that our there's to be a ban yeah I think the the Kathy Griffin example is completely valid if you could explain to me the difference between Kathy Griffin's tweet and James Woods tweet that would be interesting but there could be a very simple explanation would you like to hear it the very simple explanation for why Kathy Griffin would be treated differently than James Woods is that Kathy Griffin's happened when the standard was different it seems to me that the social media companies are intentionally tightening the standards so you should peep you should see people
[53:34]
so you should peep you should see people who are doing things more recently get banned but you probably will never see somebody who did something three years ago get banned norm do you really want that to happen so you could certainly say what's you know why do you allow a Kathy Griffin but not allow a James Woods but you have to account for the fact that one happened a while ago and and and the social media companies are quite they're quite visible about the fact that they're playing with their their algorithms for deciding who's bandar now so we know that they're experimenting with that they're tightening it up they're trying to get rid of the unhealthy language so you should expect more bands today and then you saw three years ago so that part doesn't tell you anything all right [Music]
Nazis are specifically banned interesting congressperson Omar
[54:36]
interesting congressperson Omar what would be an example of something that anything Omar said that made that created danger you know it's it's sort of a sort of a risky business to say that anti-israel propaganda or even pro-israel propaganda are violence I don't know that you can ever slice that fight enough to have a rule that you can live with because anything that is either pro or anti Israel promotes violence am I wrong if you said something bad about Israel you might be promoting violence against Jews if you say something positive about Israel somebody's going to say you're promoting violence against the Palestinians so I don't know that you could ever enforce anything about criticism about countries somebody says
[55:38]
criticism about countries somebody says why do you not like Nazis but are okay with Muslim beliefs that hurt and kill women did I say anything that sounded like that I didn't say anything that sounded like that I am against well let me let me give you some context I believe that ideas in some cases could reasonably be treated like infections meaning that there are some ideas that are not like other ideas some ideas are infections meaning that they're going to spread to other people and cause them to act in ways that are bad for somebody's health that's what an infection is infection can spread to other people and it can cause outcomes that are bad for people's health so we would easily quarantine a large group of people who do not have an infection just to make sure that nobody with the infection gets through the
[56:39]
with the infection gets through the so-called ban on the various countries that don't have good records that are mostly but not entirely Muslim countries is because we're treating it like a health problem there there are people within that group and we don't know which ones who are likely to have ideas that are infectious and dangerous to health so in that case much like the Nazi ban because you you don't know which let me put it this way if there were a nation of Nazis there would almost certainly almost certainly how do I say this without getting quoted in the context I'll give it some context if you had a nation of complete Nazis people were literally signed up and wore the Nazi uniforms and everything you could guarantee that some percentage of them are just playing along and don't like Nazis at all right
[57:43]
along and don't like Nazis at all right so you would also keep all of the man in the country because you can't tell if it's a country of Nazis you can say all right the whole country can't come in because I don't know how to sort the the ones who're just playing along because they would be killed in their own country they don't believe any of this any of this philosophy but they're just pretending they're just wearing the outfits carrying the flags because they'll be killed if they don't you couldn't sort them out so you would have to as a practical matter treat it like a health problem you would quarantine the entire category unfairly you would absolutely be discriminating against people who did not have bad intentions but we're in a bad situation or a bad category and the president has made the same kind of health-related decision about several countries where we can't check the health of the people coming in and when I mean health I mean do they have the mental ideas that are both
[58:44]
have the mental ideas that are both infectious and dangerous to other people's health and radical Islamic philosophies would be infectious and they would be dangerous to people's health so if you can't tell which one is the group has that you know luckily we don't have to ban all Muslims from all countries which would be far worse but there are some countries where we just can't sort out the good ones from the bad ones with any reliable accuracy all right that's all I got to say I'm babbling at this point I'm gonna go do something else and I will talk to you later