Episode 722 Scott Adams: Bad Ukraine Phone Call Defenses, Fast List Persuasion, Dumb Tillerson

Date: 2019-11-11 | Duration: 41:37

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Tucker Carlson’s 3 point assessment of impeachment for Ukraine Nadler and Schiff digging for dirt in President’s tax returns Multiple quid pro quo witnesses testify they are mind readers “Fast List Persuasion”, a sneaky COMMON technique Anushay Hossain’s CNN opinion article Tillerson and Kelly tried to recruit Nikki to thwart President Trump?

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:08]

pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom hey everybody come on in here it's time for a coffee with Scott Adams another incredible episode that will be so good you'll be saying to yourself later I don't know is that the best one ever it's a question is it the best one ever or is it just the top three I don't know we'll find out but one thing I know for sure one thing I can tell you with complete confidence is that your day will be better with a little thing called the simultaneous sip yeah it's quite famous down with sweeping the globe people all over the world are preparing right now as I speak in real-time all over the world people are actually filling their well it could be anything you know thirty you know what they're filling they might be filling their cups or their mugs or their glasses snifter Stein cellist ikura thermos flask canteen Grail goblet kind

[1:08]

thermos flask canteen Grail goblet kind I filled mine with coffee join me now for the simultaneous sip the dopamine head of the day the thing that makes everything better go yep yep that's it uh-huh uh-huh oh yeah best part of the day the thing that makes everything
better all right well we got lots of things to talk about of course I'll be putting it in the frame of reference of my new book loser think is there any loser think in the news today oh oh yeah there is we're gonna talk about it but let's hit a couple of points in the news and no particular order I was amused to watch CNN trying to prime its audience so CNN is warning its audience mostly through the website that the that the Republicans are getting ready for this

[2:11]

Republicans are getting ready for this these impeachment hearings and the Ukraine stop and what they're gonna do is they're going to push it push a narrative and the narrative is they use Jesse Watters on the five as an example Jesse's saying that voters wouldn't be able to find Ukraine on a map it's too complicated and nobody cares so brian Stelter was trying to push back against the thought that net worth that American voters can't find Ukraine on the map it's too complicated and nobody cares well good luck with that because let me say this about the Ukraine situation American voters can't find it on a map don't care and it's too complicated you can't change that now brian Stelter suggested that if you can't find another map you get a map darn it if you can't find it you get a map and you find it

[3:11]

find it you get a map and you find it because you want to follow along because it's gonna be scintillating TV and let me do my preview this will be the trailer for the investigations on Wednesday did what's-his-name talked to what's-his-name who believed he heard a third person say something about a phone call about something he thought was inappropriate for reasons that are hard to understand but there might be a legal reasonable way it's not a really cool reason it's more of an abuse of power but this isn't abuse of powers it's liquid broke Wow we don't know and we still can't find it on a map so I would say the anti tremors have kind of an uphill battle here trying to make this interesting enough that anybody cares I'm gonna give you some thoughts on this that I haven't quite seen one of the thoughts is it's been reported and I imagine this is true the sounds sounds true enough but you know it's like anything else you never really know what's true but the

[4:12]

really know what's true but the reporting is that Trump wanted zolensky
battles he was opening an investigation into Joe Biden's now let me ask you this does that fit your definition of digging eating for
if this is the most transparent process I've never seen him first of all Trump says it was on a phone call that was basically open to a lot of different people not to mention it was probably bugged by the Russians so so he said after the fact he said you know this was a fairly you know non private phone call even though it wasn't available to the public at that point but beyond that apparently what he was asking for is a public statement that would have of course led to an entire transparency that Trump asked zalenski to do the investigation I can't imagine any scenario in which zalenski would ask for

[5:14]

scenario in which zalenski would ask for the you know would announce it he didn't by the way but if he had there was no scenario in which it wouldn't have been you know quickly obvious that the president asks for it so here's here's a little context that I've seen absolutely nobody offer so far which is what was Trump thinking if he wanted the whole thing to be public because he asked for it to be public he asked asked Zaleski to announce it at which point everything's public right because there's no chance that they won't ask the president did you ask him to do it there were plenty of witnesses of course he's gonna say yes or at least of course we would find out no matter what he said so that's not exactly the actions of somebody who thinks they're they're doing something wrong so when the president says in his defense it was a perfect phone call I think the evidence supports the notion that that

[6:16]

evidence supports the notion that that was actually his opinion so I'm not saying it was perfect or not perfect I'm saying that the fact he wanted it to be a completely public situation by asking for it to be announced certainly shows he wasn't trying to hide anything and do you think that he's such a dictator that he could do something you know that's I don't know inappropriate abuse of power criminal emoluments whatever you want to call it do you think they use such a dictator he thought he could do that right in front of the whole world publicly and that would be okay right before an election of course that all of the evidence suggests he doesn't he didn't think he was asking for anything that the public would disagree with now that doesn't mean it's right or wrong or legal or not legal but it but it gets to his state of mind which is difficult for any of us to know we can't read his mind but in what world does somebody do something wrong and then ask for it to be public in no

[7:18]

and then ask for it to be public in no world so so if it's wrong I think we can fairly conclude the he was his mental his internal process wasn't was not there was anything wrong because he planned to do it in public so I haven't heard anybody talk about that context and I would even say that transparency the kind that he was clearly asking for is the opposite of digging for dirt when when Christopher Steele went went around asking for information on the Steele dossier did he do that publicly no because when you're digging for dirt you don't do it publicly alright and what's the difference between a and rather than make this a hypocrisy statement let me put this in the in the frame it as persuasion so as we know Nadler and Schiff and the Democrats have been

[8:18]

Schiff and the Democrats have been trying to get ahold of Trump's tax returns can somebody remind me what crime is involved Bischoff and Adler should have the right to see Trump's tax returns because there's no law but what exactly allows them to have his tax returns yes is something about New York and New York's asking for him etc but here's so I'm not going to make a legal argument so what I'm saying has nothing to do with the law this is a persuasion argument in the situation in which Nadler and chef I've been trying to and it looks like maybe they'll succeed depending on the Supreme Court it looks like they would get access to his his tax stuff how could you term that anything but digging for dirt because that's the point right I don't actually know of any other point other than to get the tax returns and find something that looks a little strange or at least that the public

[9:19]

strange or at least that the public thinks looks strange so I'm not saying that that's right or wrong that's not where I'm going here so I'm not giving you an opinion it's right is wrong to ask for his tax returns what I'm saying is the public is going to see those guys asking for Trump's tax returns which the public will interpret as digging for dirt at the same time they're criticizing the president of asking for a Biden investigation which the public might because they've been praying for this see it as digging for dirt but here's the thing sort of looks like a free pass because if the other side is actively doing it to you meaning Trump so if the Democrats are literally digging for dirt to the point that they're going to get a hold of his tax returns one way or another they're going to find some legal backdoor it looks like they might have found one we don't know yet but I'm on a sort of a moral fairness which isn't a real thing

[10:20]

moral fairness which isn't a real thing but we we still operate like it is how does it look different to a voter who's not paying attention now those of you were really into the details will say Scott Scott Scott there are a thousand difference differences these are completely different situations getting the tax returns for those reasons versus they confer dirt for for Biden in Ukraine you can't compare those well here's the thing I'm not comparing them I'm telling you that to the voters who are not into the details it looks like the same damn thing to the people who don't know the details they don't look any different so how is Schiff and it and Natalie are going to sort of defend morally ethically digging for dirt on Trump's tax returns if Trump can't do exactly the same thing with Biden for what looks like probably the same amount of cause which is not much all right I just throw that out

[11:21]

much all right I just throw that out there that legalities aside they're gonna look pretty similar to the public except people will see that through their own movie filter of course all right here's a little mind reading example so mind reading is one of those things I talk about in my book loser think you see it in the news all the time where somebody imagines they can read somebody's state of mind and then they act upon it here's an article from I guess it was on CNN I forget who wrote it but here's the actual statement multiple witnesses have now testified that they believe he meaning Trump demanded a quid pro quo from Ukraine while holding up four hundred million blah blah blah so let me read it again and find find the mind-reading multiple witnesses have now testified that they believe he Trump demanded a quid pro quo they believe it they didn't observe it

[12:22]

they believe it they didn't observe it it can you go to jail for something that people believe he did if they didn't observe it are you freaking kidding me and as and and the guts the guts of CNN to write that as if that's meaningful a lot of people believe a lot of things but we don't we don't go to jail we don't lose our jobs for stuff that people believe you kind of have to observe something wrong so that's the first thing now I'm not saying that there isn't some evidence of this quid pro quo because in my opinion there is a quid pro quo because there always is the real question is whether it was an appropriate one which it was in my opinion so and I'll go through some of the arguments that people are making about this so these are al these are arguments by the Allies Trump's allies

[13:26]

let's say Rand Paul is saying that that everyone by him meaning everyone but Rand Paul is trying to manipulate Ukraine and that was his arguments like hey everybody's trying to everybody is blackmailing manipulating trying to get something from Ukraine is that a good defense of the president it might be a good persuasive argument if people don't know all the details because when you say hey it's just normal business and it comes from someone who's you know a high-level official such as Rand Paul if you're not following the details you might say yourself oh there's nothing to see here it's just normal business but people who are a little bit more into the details will say quite accurately Rand Paul these are completely different situations interfering in Ukraine to try to reduce their corruption is a little bit different than whatever it was happening with Biden although pro-trump verse will argue that

[14:29]

although pro-trump verse will argue that they were in all cases trying to reduce reduce corruption in Ukraine I don't think that was exactly the top thing that the president had in mind it was more about Ukraine's influence on the United States which I'm not sure if you call that corruption that would just be influence so I think Rand Paul's case will fall off the rails for what reason what reason it's an analogy he's making an analogy that what the president was doing is analogous to what other people are doing how many people have won an argument with an analogy since the beginning of time there's zero no people have won an argument with an analogy as I point out and loser think so Rand Paul's approach is sort of classic loser think if you believe it I suppose because you've it's

[15:31]

believe it I suppose because you've it's usually an analogy to to make a case does really worked now here's another one Trump says that the phone call was perfect and he's a little bit miffed it's reported I don't know how true this is but it's reported the Trump doesn't like it when other Republicans are saying well the call was inappropriate but not in P chable and Trump doesn't like that because he wants it to be a perfect call now how is Trump's persuasion in this situation well better than some of the others but not right there it's not he's definitely doing a better job of defending himself then his defenders are so I'll say that but I think I think he's still falling short and it could be because the best defense is one that is the one that I can say but it's not one that can come out of Trump's mouth necessarily and I'll tell you that in a minute so he says is

[16:33]

you that in a minute so he says is perfect here's what's good about that people who are not into the details will hear the president say it's perfect it's public it's transparent there's no crime nobody's even saying it's a crime it's perfect now that of course leaves open that it could still be an abuse of power say the other side or a quid pro quo say the other side another argument is that the president has full authority to do anything he wants in foreign policy and that's what he wanted to do so he had his reasons and that's the end of the story he's the guy who sets foreign policy this is how he wanted to deal with this foreign country it's his job is his call that I think that's is that mark Levin's defense I would hate to I don't want to put words into something like Mark Levin because he's so much smarter about this stuff I feel like I

[17:35]

smarter about this stuff I feel like I can missa missa nuance and maybe misrepresent it but I think that's sort of the argument that he gets to determine what is foreign policy and if asking these questions is what he determined is the foreign policy doesn't matter what you think he was thinking doesn't matter what you think his motives were it's up to him it's just his job period end of story how's that defense well as a legal offense it's quite good if assuming that that's you know it's coming from smart people so somebody's helping me on the correct pronounce that pronunciation mark love in love him what am I saying live in Mark Levin okay doesn't matter apparently you guys disagree on the proper pronunciation - all right but you know I'm talking about and I apologize

[18:35]

know I'm talking about and I apologize if I'm saying his name wrong which I am alright so that's pretty good argument on a legal sense in other words there's there's really no chance he's gonna get impeached because the legal argument is so solid but is the legal argument persuasive to the public is it probably not this is sort of a - movie situation where the other side is going to say sure it was as you know he can do it that's not the question we're saying it was wrong for him to do it not that he has the right to do it so he has the right to do it we just think it was such a bad idea he should be a peach so I don't think it protects from impeachment so it's not persuasive and to the public it would certainly be good enough for the Republicans to make sure he doesn't get removed from office then there was the NIC Mulvaney comment they had to pull back where he basically said get over it all calls are quid pro quo all

[19:37]

over it all calls are quid pro quo all calls between leaders are quid pro quo so just get over it that turned out not to be a good defense because I don't think the president wanted any quid pro quo to even be in the conversation so here's my here's my take on it my take on it is the best way to say I've said this a few times but if you haven't heard it is that the president was asking the questions that the American public would have asked themselves that basically there were enough people in the United States voters both Democrats and Republicans I would argue who really really really really wanted to know is there something going on over there with the Biden's and Ukraine is there a connection financial ties is there anything that we need to know about now as long as the president is asking the questions that we the public want to know that's the end of the story that's

[20:39]

know that's the end of the story that's the end of the story it doesn't matter that he wants it to it doesn't matter that it's good for him politically because literally everything a president does everything every policy everywhere is also for the benefit of the candidate it's also so we can get reelected everything he does so I would just ignore that and say does the public want to know now if the public wants to know it does we want to know he's doing our job is it would it be okay under those conditions that the public wants to know they would use some leverage sure of course nobody nobody on any side thinks is wrong for a president to use leverage on behalf of the United States that is literally his job it's what he promised when he took the job it's what he promised when I ran it's the reason he got elected I mean it's part of it so of course he would use whatever leverage he

[21:41]

course he would use whatever leverage he had now is it was it technically quid pro quo because because we didn't really withhold the money because zalenski didn't do what he was said and yet we released the money and what about the timing and did they know it was quid pro quo I don't care let's just ignore all of that stuff it's completely irrelevant if the public wanted to know if the United States public wanted to know the answers to these questions and a lot of us did and those who didn't really should have it's a reasonable question it doesn't matter if you used leverage doesn't matter at all because if he didn't use leverage to get answers to questions we want to know why didn't he what is he doing it wrong if he didn't use his leverage he's doing it wrong that that my opinion is the best explanation that he was asked in the same questions the American public wanted to know or should have wanted to

[22:42]

wanted to know or should have wanted to know because if you make if you make the other side debate that make the other side debate the question did the American public want to know or should they have wanted to know the same answers that the president was asking somebody says Scott you're right this is boring well you don't have to listen to it anymore problem solved
all right here's another so he hit nikki Haley gives this defense I guess she's got a book she gave an interview and she just said so nikki Haley said quote you're going to impeach a president for asking for a favor that didn't happen and give me money and it wasn't with held I don't know what you would impeach him on now I kind of like the way she's dismissed it but again I don't think dismissing it works for the other team in other words both sides trying to

[23:45]

in other words both sides trying to dismiss the other side with clever wording but clever wording isn't going to get it done and this is clever wording because she's basically reduced it to asking for a favor you didn't get is that but I would I would think that trying to trying to commit a crime were trying to abuse your power doesn't look that much better than actually doing it just because you tried and failed that doesn't make it less of a problem and a lot of people's minds so I think Nikki Haley's defense has some holes it's really just word thinking kind of a defense
so and then CNN's Anousheh Hussein in an article says give it everything that has come to light about Trump in Ukraine and with public hearings set for next week Haley's comments are ridiculously dismissive ridiculously dismissive where's the reasons where what's the

[24:45]

where's the reasons where what's the part saying that she's wrong that this is so she's met with word thinking she has a word thinking kind of a explanation she's criticized with more were thinking there's nothing going on here and then under shade Hussein writing for CNN expresses her theory of why nikki Haley is acting the way she is she believes that there's some chance that nikki Haley is playing for DHS who invented that and that nikki Haley secretly in her mind wants to replace Mike Pence and then become president when Trump is impeached what the hell is wrong with these people it isn't that jaw-dropping that somebody somebody could write an article that would get published on CNN in which she is speculating that Nikki Haley's inner inner strategy is to replace the vice president who by the way has done a

[25:48]

president who by the way has done a terrific job I'm not like a big mike pence fan because you know my personal political preferences don't really line up with his entirely but that's sad as mike pence spent anything but one of the best vice presidents you've ever seen that guy is killing it as a vice president do I want him to be President no I don't but is Mike Pence a loyal and effective consistent hits his marks a vice president yeah he's freaking killing it I would say he's a superstar of the administration he's so solid you don't talk about him which is exactly what you want so what are the odds that Trump is going to replace pence such a you know a strong player with Nikki hailey I just don't see it happening so I doubt that's Nikki Haley's play but

[26:49]

I doubt that's Nikki Haley's play but I'm not a mind-reader either so who knows
I'll see two two two so here's another sentence from under shade Hussein and she says and perhaps what is most disturbing about Haley's interview and are choosing to reappear in the political arena right now it makes me think it makes me think mind reading here it makes me think that the problem with American politics is in Trump but people like nikki Haley who enable him and his culture of corruption so she just throws that in there that people are enabling Trump's culture of corruption to which I say could you give me an example of the corruption because I am not even aware that he's ever been accused of corruption are you has anybody ever accused Trump as president

[27:50]

anybody ever accused Trump as president of corruption I don't know that that's even a claim is it yeah and she throws it in the air like it's something that doesn't need to be defended because we can all see it well you can all see it it's right there all that culture of corruption what the hell corruption was that so this is an example of reminded me of it's not an example of what I call fast list persuasion it's not my book but I I wish I'd put it there let me explain what fast list persuasion is now this is different from laundry list persuasion there's gonna be a little difference here fast list persuasion goes like this you say five things four of which are true and one which is just opinion but you stick it in the list of things that are true watch here's an example and then what has homework see

[28:50]

example and then what has homework see if you can figure out who you this technique almost every time so there's somebody in the public eye who uses fast list persuasion all the time it goes like this let's say you were talking about Bernie Sanders yeah you would do this is what fast list persuasion looks like Bernie Sanders he is the socialist wants to raise your taxes open borders he hates veterans of the Alexa he wants to elect liberals to the Supreme Court did you catch him that's fast list persuasion here it is again Bernie Sanders he's a socialist he wants to raise your task taxes open borders he hates veterans and he wants to elect liberals to the Supreme Court who says that Bernie his veterans nobody but if he's but if you stick it in the list yeah somebody's on to it if you stick it in the list your brain just goes true true true true true not true true true so you accepted this true because it's a list with things that you so agree with so watch the news and see yeah the

[29:54]

so watch the news and see yeah the Bernie does not hate veterans I'm using an example so but look at it I'm gonna say it one more time because I want you to just feel how persuasive it is so that you can get a sense of how how this works brain-wise bernie is a socialist once the raise your taxes he wants to open borders he eats veterans and he wants to elect liberals to the Supreme Court see it's just it's just like slotted in there so anyway that's your homework figured out who in the news does that almost every day and by the way it's not one person it's a fairly common technique
what do you think is the odds of the China deal China deal getting signed so now that they've they've done their apparently when China decided to convict those nine fentanyl dealers in China they opened up the hearing to cameras it was a public thing and apparently this

[30:55]

was a public thing and apparently this is very unusual for China to open up a political proceeding so China actually let the world in on the fact that they were prosecuting these fentanyl dealers clearly this was meant for United States consumption clearly this is associated with the whole trade war because because China needed to show that they were doing something I just don't think it's real I hope is real I mean I'm I'd love to think it was real but I'll say it again the top fentanyl dealer in China we know his name and China knows where he lives and he's still walking around he wasn't one of the nine as long as the top fentanyl dealer is still walking around making fentanyl they haven't done a freaking thing so I do not support any deal with China while that guy's free in life there's just no way that they're that

[31:56]

there's just no way that they're that they're serious about stopping the fentanyl just just for show all right so how likely do I think that there will be a trade deal I don't think it's not likely actually we might we might do some small deals on stuff that neither side cares about you know some meaning that will maybe drop some tariffs they drop some things whatever I know there might be something small happening but I believe that China is saying something's going to happen that the United States doesn't think is going to happen which is us dropping or dropping our tariffs because they gave us a little bit of something I believe that the president's position is that parrot tariffs would drop when we have what we need and fentanyl's right at the top of the list if you don't see that top fentanyl dealers body bouncing off the sidewalk I don't think there's going to be trade deal that's my opinion I could be wrong

[32:56]

deal that's my opinion I could be wrong or they could do something that's trivial and technical but it would be a far cry from a trade deal all right did you see the video of the Hong Kong protests are getting shot at close range and then there's another video that's just a horrible event of a guy who was against the protesters who they doused him with some kind of gas and set him on fire and he was just standing here arguing he wasn't armed he wasn't he wasn't even aggressive he was just arguing in public with some people and somebody walked up to him doused him and another person lit him and lit him on fire in public for his opinion he was lit on fire he wasn't threatening anybody and that was the Hong Kong protesters did that it's pretty bad stuff now we also saw the video of the I

[33:57]

stuff now we also saw the video of the I guess Chinese or at least he was police force there I think he was probably I don't know if he was a Hong Kong policeman or Chinese Authority but that they're on the same side at this point and the Hong Kong guy he's got some protester he's trying to wrestle to the ground but the other protesters of kind of threatening you know they're coming too close so he has had his gun with the other one and the other protester you know he he points at him threatens him to get back and the protester walks toward him kind of slowly and he and he's threatening him again and the protester keeps walking toward him and then the protester tries to swat the gun out of his hand but he did it kind of weakly and the cop just shoots him and I'm thinking to myself if you wanted to avoid being shot don't do anything that that protester did because he was unarmed he was just walking toward a gun in a fight situation and acting like he was going

[34:58]

situation and acting like he was going to join in the fight and then he got shot it was the most justified shooting you'll ever see a policeman police person do police person police officer so the larger point here is that the Hong Kong China thing could go forever but one likely way it'll go is that somebody's going to shake the box and by that I mean the violence will reach a point where it's nothing but violence there's a good chance of that happening I don't know what the odds are but it's getting hot and I think that the protesters are not going to want to go forever without results but they do want to go forever like they're not willing to stop but they're not willing to do it every day without results I would imagine so they're gonna have to do something the protesters to take up the temperature or change the variables or shake the box and I'm afraid that the easy solution is

[36:00]

and I'm afraid that the easy solution is violence so you might see a lot more violent syrup I'm afraid all right those are the things I wanted to talk about I'm gonna jump on a plane and the bit go down to LA I'll be talking to Dave Rubin first I think and then Adam Carolla few other interviews I'll tell you about will tweet him around my book is in the top hundred it's a eighty something less I looked and it's making a big impact so if you don't already have one get one oh yeah let's talk about Tillerson and Kelly so Nikki hailey was talking about in her book I guess she says the Tillerson and Kelly when he was chief of staff tried to recruit her to be one of their people who controlled the

[37:00]

their people who controlled the president controlled the president and she said no to that how uncomfortable does it make you to know that Tillerson and Kelly were actually plotting to subvert the president's will because they thought they were saving the world or something but the problem is as nikki Haley properly points out they weren't elected they weren't elected so they don't have to like what he's doing but they can't stop it but what if what if you were in that job and you actually thought the world was gonna that people were going to die in the world was gonna be worst well has not time shown that Trump's style works have not Tillerson and Kelly been shown to be wrong because actually things are going great and what it whenever the the

[38:01]

great and what it whenever the the president gets to do things his way as long as he gets to do things his way things have been working out so firing Tillerson was a good fire I mean clearly that was a good firing I wasn't so sure about Kelly I wasn't so sure did Kelly resign I think he resigned I wasn't sure so sure things would be better or worse without Kelly because you know I respected his service etc but it looks now like things are better without him let's say all right that's long to say about that and oh here's a bonus question if Kanye West runs for president he says he welcome in 2024 what party would he run into can anybody tell me what party Kanye would run in because he's made a big point of saying they shouldn't vote Democrat just cuz you're black but he's also pro Trump

[39:04]

cuz you're black but he's also pro Trump but not pro Trump policies necessarily which party would he run it I say Democrat I say Democrat yeah that's what I think I don't know if he'll do it but he might I was also thinking that Kanye might be I don't know if he could if you'd want this job but Kanye might be the best vice president we ever had yeah III can't imagine he would want to run for the number two spot but here's where I'm going normally our vice presidents don't do a lot they're just sort of the emergency spare Al Gore did more and he was more like a partner but still he was doing the boring make make the government work more efficiently was good stuff and he did I think he did a great job with the automation and stuff but it was a very sexy it wasn't very interesting but imagine a vice-president Kanye who had

[40:08]

imagine a vice-president Kanye who had the the blessing of whoever the whoever's the president it doesn't matter to be a spiritual leader think about that think about Kanye just being sort of a spiritual message that's not exactly whatever the president is saying whoever that president is but wrote more as an additive you know so you got the president working on the policies and the boring stuff what about somebody working directly on the spirit of the country you know bringing us together etc he wouldn't be like a regular vice president Kanye would be as powerful as a president but he'd be in his own domain he wouldn't be of the policy guy so much you could imagine that yeah Dick Cheney was a powerful vice president good point and now I can't imagine that Kanye would ever want a vice president position but just just for a moment think if you had a somebody who was strong on policy doing the policy stuff the president and somebody

[41:09]

policy stuff the president and somebody who could kind of just inhabit that other part of the world which is who we are how we feel how we deal with each other how do how to survive in the modern world those are all the things that Kanye has a has a grip on and I would love to see him in that role because he's just such a powerful positive force I think all right that's all I got I gotta get ready to fly you know talk to you all later