Episode 757 Scott Adams: Artists Versus Economists, Shampeachment, North Korea

Date: 2019-12-15 | Duration: 53:48

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Carter Page deserves the biggest apology in history of apologies Senate Democrats should vote 100% AGAINST impeachment Reason: Impeachment must be bipartisan, a Dem standard Russian Garry Kasparov…thinks our constitution is a suggestion Artist or Economist Twitter game Game results so far Advocates like Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity Alan Dershowitz wipes impeachment charge #2 off the table SNL has staked out more of a political middle ground North Korea’s BEST, STRONGEST signal so far to America They want a deal, and feel there’s a way to achieve it All we need…is creativity

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

[0:09]

a bomb hey everybody come on in here what an amazing day it is we have achieved the Golden Age it's here it'll be more obvious in retrospect but let's be happy it's here and to celebrate the Golden Age I like to do a little thing called the simultaneous M it doesn't take much no it doesn't all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of snifter Stein chalice tanker thermos flask canteen Grail goblet vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure the don't put median of the day the thing that makes everything better simultaneous it Oh could it get much better than that well we'll see tomorrow because it gets better every day so I'm a couple minutes late for the periscope

[1:11]

a couple minutes late for the periscope because somebody sent me a tweet about the Turkish military has ordered a bunch of drones with machine guns that's right so the drones are not the big jet type drones but rather than the propeller types so the Jordan looked to be about maybe this big and added machine gun that can hit a 6-inch target from 650 feet away now it was only a matter of time before drones got machine guns apparently these drones can also work in combination so that one operator can operate three drones and target the same target imagine if they were hundreds of them if you send hundreds of drones into a battle situation I don't know that they would lose

[2:12]

would lose sooo the world is definitely going to be a different place when these drones become more widespread but one thing that I could imagine happening is this well stay with me a little bit and see if you can connect the dots here I think you're gonna see mercenary armies that are just drone operators and and possibly paid by some kind of cryptocurrency Bitcoin or something so it's untraceable I think you're gonna see just lots of people who have their own drone and decide to take on you know the the cartels in Mexico or anything else terrorists but drones with machine guns you're going to see a lot of them and there's almost a hundred percent chance that you will see drones with machine guns doing a terrorist attack in this country pretty much on 2% chance

[3:12]

this country pretty much on 2% chance now I hope there are many of them and I hope we can figure out how to minimize it but it's gonna happen as I've long said I think in the United States outdoor mass activities where lots of people go to a stadium I think that that's probably has a short-timer on it probably it won't be forever that you can go to a place with lots of people because of terrorist attacks so that that part's nothing Golden Age but so far has it happened so looking good Jonathan Turley professor and legal scholar asked this question by tweet at what point does someone apologize to card or page well that's a really good question because at this point doesn't everybody agree that Carter page was a victim of our our own government and also a victim of the partisan news media

[4:17]

also a victim of the partisan news media doesn't Carter page deserve like a lot of apologies now I don't know if he's gonna be suing anyone I think Papadopoulos is suing but if anybody ever had a lawsuit you know even though I'm not I'm not even sure if it's legal to sue the FBI or anything I don't even know what the legalities of that are but Carter page deserves the biggest apology anybody ever got in the history of the world you know now that we know that Carter page had productively cooperated and helped both the FBI in the CIA or somebody says Carter is so good I hope so knowing that he was actually not just not a Russian spy but he had actively worked with our intelligence services in the past not a number of times when you throw somebody under a bus who's who has worked for your team with

[5:20]

who's who has worked for your team with little or no compensation for it just for the good of the United States and you throw that guy under the bus I think you need to go to jail right I would say that at the end of this whoever was running Carter page probably is the candidate for jail assuming that they knew exactly what they were doing which which is hard to prove so here's a strategy for the Democrats I know you always get upset when I give advice to the Democrats because you say why are you giving them advice but trust me the Democrats are not capable of taking good advice so I'm gonna tell you what they should do now but watch them not do it because not so good at doing the smart thing all right so here's the problem that they've gotten themselves into with this impeachment they had to do the impeachment or at least try to do it

[6:22]

impeachment or at least try to do it because there were so many Democrats who wanted it so it would have been bad to not do it or at least attempt it but having done it they've completely discredited themselves and probably are going to put all of the demo we're sort of in Trump parts of the country there the right great risk of losing so at this point the house could actually be flipped by this impeachment because it's such a sham it's such an obvious sham that there are probably a number of people who like who is the Democrat drew his last name is drew just changed the Republican because of this to try to protect himself I'm sure so here's the strategy that the Democrats in the Senate should pursue are you ready actually I suppose they could do it in the in the house too because the full

[7:25]

the in the house too because the full house hasn't voted on the impeachment articles just the judiciary as I understand it here's what they should do instead of sending it to the Senate where it will obviously be you know killed if they know it's gonna be killed here's their best strategy they should vote a hundred percent every Democrat against impeachment and they should give one reason for it only one reason they should say we still think he's guilty of all these things because they've said it for so long they can't they can't take that back but there is one thing they can say that a hundred percent of the world will agree with are you ready they would agree that impeachment has to be bipartisan and they haven't achieved their own standard for impeachment because remember Pelosi and and other Democrats even Nadler is Senate in the past maybe they're on record and I believe that they would say it today as well that impeachment has to

[8:29]

it today as well that impeachment has to be bipartisan so it's one thing that the Democrats went through all the process because they could say well you know our base wanted it which they did and it exposed all of what they would consider the the bad behavior of the trunk team which it did at least their version of it you know not so much in reality but in terms of impressions it dug up a lot of bad feelings about the president so that was successful from their point of view if they take it all the way to a vote they will have damaged the Constitution set a dangerous precedent and probably lost the house because it's gonna be it's gonna be probably just a slaughter in the 2020 election if they go ahead and and vote on party lines but if they were to reverse course and say let's all of us vote against it on the

[9:29]

let's all of us vote against it on the first vote they would protect all the Democrats who were in those in those districts where their seats are not so safe because it's sort of trumpet country would the Democrats be able to retain some credibility by voting against their own impeachment because it didn't meet their own standard I think they could get away with that because it wouldn't meet their own standard they've said as clearly as anybody has said and every scholar agrees that if it's not bipartisan it's not a good idea that's the Democrat standard as well so they have a complete trapdoor escape they painted themselves into a corner but it's a corner that's got a little trapdoor and the trapdoor is to vote opposite of what they want and they're free because they can still claim all the badness of the president say look we

[10:30]

the badness of the president say look we you know we we demonstrated our case but the standard in the Constitution the standard we would like to support going forward is it's got to be bipartisan we know we can't achieve that so we will vote a hundred percent against it based on one criteria there's not bipartisan they could do that will they let's call that the I am Spartacus approach you know the you know I am Spartacus everybody said they were Spartacus because Spartacus was going to be executed so everybody said no I'm sorry no I'm Spartacus well this would be an I am Spartacus play every Democrat just vote against impeachment and then no individual Democrat has to worry about the vote in 2020 now what will happen because it's too smart so don't expect him to do that all right

[11:34]

chess master Gary Kasparov tweeted the following now if you don't know who Gary Kasparov is he's a critic of President Trump he's also a critic of Putin and he thinks that President Trump is promotin so since he hates Putin he hates Trump as well I'm oversimplifying but that's the that's the basic lay of the land here and here's his tweet he says an indication how Americans still cannot comprehend trump and trumpism all right so this guy who's not an American he's a Russian is saying there's an indication of how Americans don't comprehend to trump and trumpism so right away he is on shaky ground because he's not an American but he believes that from his perspective as a Russian he has a good insight into the mind of Americans okay so even before I read the rest of the tweet there's something wrong here I mean there's something deeply wrong in

[12:35]

mean there's something deeply wrong in the very first sentence all right but it goes on so he asked this question he says why do you think you will leave in 2024 you know beating Trump why do you think he'll leave office if he gets reelected and then 2024 his two terms are over why do you think you will leave do you think it's because everyone before him did garry kasparov asks is it because the GOP would finally stand up to him Kasparov asks are you willing to risk your democracy on that bet Kasparov s so Kasparov believes that chickens who are essentially competitive you know it's almost one and one that they're the supporters of Trump he thinks that Republicans believes that the Constitution of the United States is just a suggestion

[13:36]

just a suggestion think about that garry kasparov a Russian is telling Americans what we think about Trump so he's up he's explaining our own mindset to us and he's he believes that Republicans think that the Constitution of the United States is just sort of a suggestion that whole two-term thing maybe maybe not that's what a chess genius thanks now is there anything that could be more wrong than imagining that Republicans think the Constitution of the United States is well it's just a suggestion as many terms as the president was I mean he's a good president so why wouldn't we have him as a dictator there's I can't even imagine like if you sat down and said alright let's write see if I can just as a exercise I want to write the most ridiculous prediction

[14:37]

to write the most ridiculous prediction there is no prediction more ridiculous than Republicans supporting an enormous breach of the Constitution of the United States one that's not ambiguous now I will I will confess that the Constitution has some perceived ambiguity in it and there's plenty of places that people can argue what it means or what it should be and we do that's what the Supreme Court is there for for deciding but there's nobody in anywhere in the country not one person who thinks there's any ambiguity about the president having two terms there's nobody thinks that maybe means three Kasparov what what the hell is wrong with you
this leads me to my next topic which I've gotten people are really mad on Twitter I call it artist or economist and it's a game I've been playing on Twitter in

[15:39]

game I've been playing on Twitter in which I look at the quality of somebody's thinking as expressed in their tweet and I try to guess if I check if I click on their profile if it will say there's some kind of artist could be writer musician whatever or economist which is really just the stand-in for one of the fields where critical thinking is taught and so I give you some examples because I've been playing it last day or so just to see how it goes now I hope that you've been doing that too I hope you've been trying look at look at it just the most ridiculous thinking and then just click on the profile and see what kind of job background they have now this of course is something that's inspired by my book loser think the main point of loser think is not that artists are dumb and economists are smart nothing like that they're both smart and in fact can be geniuses in their own field the only

[16:40]

geniuses in their own field the only point is if you don't have a little bit of exposure to a number of fields you have the blind spot and how to think about your world productively and you wouldn't know it so the the fact that you wouldn't know it is the important part because the fact that you don't know you have a blind spot is what makes you say things in public that don't make any damn sense because you don't know you just don't know that you don't make any damn sense but an economist might a scientist might a lawyer might there are professions in which they would spot it immediately let me give you some examples here's a tweet from Bree Newsome bass blue check person didn't know anything about her and she says the following I'm going to keep saying this to you all Trump is being impeached however when the Senate refuses to remove him he will effectively be a dictator we then have an entire year of Trump dictatorship and a slim chance of having a free and fair election alright

[17:40]

having a free and fair election alright so now that comment is so irrational that I said to myself huh artist I click on the profile what's the first word and the profile artist now again I'm not saying that Bree Newsome bass is dumb far from it my understanding is she's a very successful artist so art is one of the many ways in which you could have genius she may actually be a genius within her field my only point is that if you don't have exposure to other fields you don't know what you don't know let me give you another one here is somebody who tweeted at me based on this idea laughing my ass off at the idea of the economics departments teach critical thinking so there was somebody who tweeted at me laughing that learning economics would

[18:41]

laughing that learning economics would teach you critical thinking now I'm not saying that economics is critical thinking I'm saying that you pick up a number of thinking let's say styles and techniques when you study economics for example you would learn what a sunk cost is and how to analyze it you would learn how to compare things rationally as opposed to looking at one thing and saying it's good or bad you'd say well compared to what that's an economics style of thinking you would also know that money received in the future would have to be discounted back to the President to know how much it's actually worth today very basic stuff those are just some simple things supply and demand very basic stuff so who would who would tweet it be in public and suggest that understanding economics doesn't teach you any critical thinking what kind of person would tweet such a thing would they be an artist or

[19:43]

such a thing would they be an artist or maybe an economist is it an economist who knows exactly what economics is and is criticizing it or is it an artist who doesn't know anything about economics I click on it a student and contributing editor anthropology student and contributing editor contributing editor means writer artists okay here's one I'm not going to tell you who tweeted it just see it just see the rationality of the tweet every elected Republican knows okay so first of all the first part of the sentence every elected Republican knows you know that whatever follows that it's going to be right so every elected Republican knows that this president is guilty of countless impeachable offenses countless but they along with many white evangelicals and white supremacists have made a pact with Putin that's right Republicans are and

[20:46]

Putin that's right Republicans are and white evangelicals and white supremacists they love their Putin so they made a pact with Putin but unlike a pact with the devil this one can can be unsigned meaning that it could be reversed now what kind of person makes a tweet like that is it an engineer is it scientists economists somebody with good critical thinking skills or click on the profile it's Rob Reiner a writer and producer artist all right so after I explained to my critic on Twitter with this tweet I said economics teaches the person who said that it doesn't teach you critical thinking I said economics teaches how to compare things the value of money over time sunk costs and that sort of thing

[21:46]

costs and that sort of thing so I was giving us three examples of things you would learn when you studied economics that would help you understand your world and think better so somebody comes in after my tweet explaining three specific things that obviously help you think better I don't know how you could doubt that and he says that's what critical thinking means folks it means and then he says a parenthetically squint set wiki entry it means sunk costs folks so this is somebody mocking me for suggesting that that studying economics teaches you how to think better is this somebody who understands economics is this somebody use a scientist or an engineer perhaps click on profile profession writer alright I got a message from Joel Stein

[22:48]

alright I got a message from Joel Stein who wrote a book recently called the in what is it in defense of the elite or something anyway I'm a chapter in that book and he wrote he tweeted at me he said hey I'm confused because you told me when I interviewed you that economics is but now you're all over Twitter saying economics teaches you how to think better explain that Joel Stein is a writer and so I did explain to him and I explained it this way if you're talking about economic projections over 80 years that's complete and lots of the economic theories and models have now stood up over time that's all true and it's also true that you can study economics and then you don't really go forward it and do a lot of economics but it does teach you how to think critically so forget about the prediction models that are ridiculous it

[23:48]

prediction models that are ridiculous it does teach you how to think like wise well I'm not going to make that analogy yet Jule Styne a writer he was confused about why economics could help you think better it's a blind spot
Shimada is making the argument as Joel Pollock points out in his excellent article in Breitbart that Rachel Maddow and others are taking the Ukraine hoax I guess I'm not sure I would call it hoax is more of a making something out of nothing she's tying that to the Russia collusion to prove Russian collusion so the thinking here is that if the president withheld aid from Ukraine the real reason the real reason was not just investigating Biden but the real reason was to to help Russia so the Ukraine would be less defended now apparently

[24:51]

would be less defended now apparently they're thinking here from Rachel Maddow and others is that even though every part of Russia collusion has been debunked there's still sort of a pattern in this been created and that the Ukraine thing adds to the pattern so it's a pattern made up of things which are all individually debunked and yet it forms a pattern now I'm D I don't know if Rachel Maddow has studied economics or engineering or science he is ridiculously smart and well-educated so I have to think she had a little exposure to those things now when you're talking about as somebody who's a pundit in an advocate on television things they say you don't have to assume they mean because they're they're making a case more than they're telling you the news but that doesn't seem rational to me I've got a feeling that that's I've got

[25:52]

I've got a feeling that that's I've got a feeling that Rachel Maddow does not have experience with some of the critical thinking fields but in her case she's a special case because she's a an advocate or a pundit for a side so you don't expect them necessarily to stick to the facts let's say somebody else tweeted economics aren't real I think the point being that economics don't help you think better and I clicked on his profile he is a writer here's somebody else who tweeted at me who said I haven't met many economist capable of critical thinking sir so he's he's polite guy he's with somebody who follows me might be on this periscope right now now if you're an economist or a scientist or an engineer and somebody makes this and says this statement I haven't met many economists capable of critical thinking you say to

[26:54]

capable of critical thinking you say to yourself is that evidence it's sort of anecdotal isn't it and moreover if you are not yourself an economist or trained in critical thinking how would you know The Economist's are not capable of critical thinking because you would be judging them against your own opinion of what good critical thinking is and maybe you haven't studied it here's the thing everybody believes that they're good critical thinkers everyone but only some people are and it's the only the people who've studied it for the most part I suppose you could be a some kind of natural genius or something but critical thinking you have to learn it's not something that you just born with so this person who said I haven't met many economists capable of critical thinking and he ended it comment sir so I'm going to be polite to him because he was played to me on Twitter but I clicked on his profile and he's a writer alright there's another one yeah never

[27:59]

alright there's another one yeah never mind I got enough of those so has anybody else played that game yet has anybody played the artist or economist game yet and somebody says do Krugman so Krugman is a special case all right Craig means a special case because he's a an advocate so again like Rachel Maddow like Sean Hannity like Krugman there there are certain public figures that you just have to say well even if they thought they were wrong they might still make the best case they can for their side so they're a little different than just people on Twitter who are a little more a little more authentic I would say so Krugman the thing that Krugman was wrong about was an economic forecast what did I just tell you economics is not so good for

[29:00]

tell you economics is not so good for economic forecasting that's the part that Krugman gets wrong because nobody can do it it's not even a thing but if I said to you can Paul Krugman if he wants to write and if he wants to as the important part could he look at a day an argument or a situation with good critical thinking and the answer is yes yes in his private moments if there's no political element nobody's watching and he's just looking at some information probably better than most people because his economics training would indeed give him that skill all right I tweeted that there are no undecided senators on the Sham Pietschmann question there are only shitty actors with lemon faces who want you to believe they are quote solemnly agonizing over the decision I you know I've said this before politics is all bs and you expect that you know people are

[30:02]

and you expect that you know people are exaggerating and you know they're lying and you know there's hyperbole and you just expect it from basically every politician but what you don't see as often is people who are literally trying to act usually when a politician says a lie they're just they're just their usual self so if Sutton so if President Trump says it doesn't matter who it is whatever a politician they when they they lie normally they lie with their normal personality their normal attitude their normal presentation but what's different with this impeachment impeachment stuff is that the demic has literally need to practice lying with the right face to pretend that they think it's serious none of them think it's serious is just to get rid of Trump it's a convenience it's it's a technique is something they thought would work but there's certainly nobody who believes their own solemn face which I call lemon face named after

[31:05]

face which I call lemon face named after Don Lemon who makes a certain kind of face when he talks about the president where his supporters like the sour it looks like a lemon you know I just sucked on a lemon President Trump and his supporters so that's the main thing every time you see a story about an alleged Democrat who has not yet made up their mind they are lying they are lying there's nobody who hasn't made up their mind because it's not really that complicated it's fairly straightforward so there's nobody who hasn't made up their mind that they're all liars Alan Dershowitz got a little TV time in which he demolished the second of the two impeachment charges he just wiped it off the table

[32:05]

the table and here's Dershowitz his point which until you hear it it's not so obvious but after you hear it you go oh my God why did I need Dershowitz to tell me this it was right there you and I could have seen it just as easily as Dershowitz it but we didn't what does that tell you it tells you that being a constitutional scholar gives you a better view of the field because Dershowitz thought he saw clearly he saw it immediately because he has the right background Alan Dershowitz does not suffer from loser think now he's a writer a very successful writer writes a lot of books has a new one out here it's good but he also has obviously a broader exposure to things because when he thinks it's always good critical thinking every time here is this point and it goes like this well the second impeachment charge was that it was it was a obstruction of

[33:11]

that it was it was a obstruction of Congress and the idea is that the president was not submitting his people and I think his documents has requested to the Democrats now the president and his team said well let the Supreme Court decide and the Democrats said heck with that we're just gonna make it an impeachment point and go with it now Dershowitz his point which is obviously true after you hear it is this the Supreme Court on a totally different matter just decided that they would hear the question of whether President Trump's tax returns could be made available to the Democrats and their investigation the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized in a very direct way that this dispute between the impeaches and the president can can be decided by the Supreme Court we know that because the Supreme Court just said oh we'll decide so you don't have to wonder anymore is

[34:12]

so you don't have to wonder anymore is it the Supreme Court job because the Supreme Court just told you it's their job and when the Supreme Court says yes this is our job that's the end of the conversation it's their job because they get to say what their job is their job is to say what their job is is sense I'm that's not exactly true so Dershowitz is completely right the precedent is as clear as clear as day the Supreme Court has just ruled that the second impeachment item is now they didn't rule on the impeachment item they ruled on something that's so close to it because it's literally the same question can can the president refuse to give something to the same group of Democrats for the same reason it's done that was off the table so what what that leaves them with what that leaves them with is let's say so if obstruction of Congress

[35:13]

let's say so if obstruction of Congress is off the table that leaves them with abuse of power and the abuse of power is asking for an investigation into Brisbane which Democrats have admitted in the public you know the attorney that was representing the Democrats Johnson I think it was said that burr is Moe was absolutely worth looking into that's it that's the whole game folks the whole game was did the president have a legitimate national interest in looking into the Brisman thing and the people who want to impeach him just said yes at their own at their own hearing it's not even like I had to go look for a document I didn't look for a tweet he made a year ago nothing like that it was the actual impeachment hearings where the main guy representing the Democrats said unambiguously yes that was worth looking into there's nothing

[36:15]

was worth looking into there's nothing left all they have left is why didn't he do it sooner do you know who has a chapter in their excellent best-selling book about why it's stupid to say why didn't he do a sooner this guy because why didn't you do it sooner applies to everything that that's what you say when you've got nothing left why didn't you do it sooner now similarly why didn't you do it with other countries and the answer is the same if the president could have done this sooner or done in a different way wouldn't you've done it it's sort of somewhat obvious that getting on the phone with the president of Ukraine is not the first thing you do that's not the first thing you try obviously you try it at you know at the lower level and obviously that wasn't working otherwise the president wouldn't have been involved in a job that was properly delegated to the underlings if they could get it done and obviously they couldn't let's talk about rather so

[37:18]

they couldn't let's talk about rather so I know a lot of you have turned against Saturday Night Live because they're there all bent but you got to give it another shot I I would I would suggest that you take a second look at Saturday Night Live because you're not really seeing the absolute left-leaning humor that you used to see they have definitely staked out a middle position where they're mocking both sides and I think they're doing a really good job it's like I would say this is one of their strongest seasons at least on the political stuff I don't watch the rest but on the political stuff really good here's an example SNL just made fun of Greta tunberg or thunder whatever it is and you know you just saw in the news everybody was saying how can the president you know mock Greta what kind of a monster is President Trump for a mean tweet about

[38:20]

President Trump for a mean tweet about Greta she's only 16 how can you do this and then Saturday night life has Kate McKenna playing Greta now it again it wasn't it wasn't like a you know some kind of a dark insult to her it was a playful version of it but it was still making fun of a kid and any way you look at it so I think SNL kind of took the president's side without taking sides what I mean by that is they've obviously because they didn't agree that Greta is fair game as long as you're being gentle about it I think we would all agree that being 16 does tell you that your attacks should be a little moderated all right I think that's fair but she did get in the Octagon by herself and she did she has performed like any adult and she can obviously take it I mean the only reason that she is as famous as she is is that

[39:23]

that she is as famous as she is is that she does seem to have a lot of the qualities that an average adult would have a meaning toughness you know motivation and all that stuff so I think it's perfectly fair for Saturday Night Live to have a little fun with her same as with
let's talk about North Korea North Korea just sent a signal to the United States that is the best thing I've seen yet I'm gonna read the sentence and I want you to see if you can find the hidden signal okay
North Korea is frustrated by what it perceives and so this is a paraphrase but I think it's accurately paraphrasing North Korea's opinion it perceives the lack of flexibility and creativity from US negotiators read between the lines what does it mean when North Korea is signaling that there's a lack of flexibility and creativity creativity is

[40:24]

flexibility and creativity creativity is the key word here from US negotiators
what what do you think that is telling us asking for a better deal well that's obvious yes there's a way to get there they're willing to negotiate and they think that the only thing missing is creativity when people say that they want a deal and you know you don't say a lack of creativity unless you're still in the constructive party you're thinking all right if you've given up you say different stuff you don't you you don't give the people that you're negotiating with a clear signal of what it would take and he's saying how about some creativity now I'm gonna make a statement that if history repeats my critics will take out of context and

[41:24]

critics will take out of context and they'll the out of context this will sound crazy in context not so much and here's the claim if you give me a week with the North Korean negotiators I'll get you a deal so that's the part my trolls will take out of context and they'll say all cartoons thinks he came back at the why do you think you can make a bail why do they think that here's why north Korea has told us that creativity is what's missing I believe that is exactly what's missing we are approaching them the way we normally approach them because all the people doing the work are probably standard people doing standard stuff standard people are not capable of creativity creativity is something that's rare President Trump is capable of creativity and you saw that when the president said let's all just go meet with Kim jong-un

[42:25]

let's all just go meet with Kim jong-un all I'll stop by and we'll walk over the DMZ and shake hands what would you call that if not creativity that's creativity Trump did what other people couldn't imagine he simply imagined it and then he executed that's creativity the reason that the negotiations are failing is because the only two creative people aren't talking directly Kim is clearly has some creative ideas because he's using the that word is like let's keep let's be creative president Trump is completely capable of being creative he's proven it already by he's not directly talking to Kim so you've got all the people in between who don't know how to be creative trying to solve a creative problem you can't send on creative people to solve a creative problem and and Kim has just called it out he just said basically he's saying that you got the wrong guys on it wouldn't you say when he says they

[43:27]

wouldn't you say when he says they lacked flexibility and creativity he's talking about the negotiators specifically he's really saying that if you had better negotiators we would already have a deal do you know what I a hundred percent agree agree with kim jeong-hoon I don't want to you know it's not I didn't wake up this morning and say huh I think I'll take sides with a you know North Korea over the United States of America I don't want to but on this point I'm close to positive that he's right that the thing that's missing is creativity let me give you an example this is something I said before but I believe that creativity involves reframing our relationship with North Korea the following way if we're trying to simply disarm them like Libya while at the same time we're in a state of war and we have our army on their border

[44:28]

and we have our army on their border should we expect them to negotiate no I wouldn't I would not expect North Korea to offer a deal under the current situation I wouldn't so why would he I don't even think he should make the deal if I were Kim jong-un I would say I'm not making this deal you've offered me nothing creative so I would suggest the following that we end our formal state of war that's been in place for decades I guess and just end it that is very creative in terms of a first move but I suppose the negotiators would say no you can't give them something until he gives us something that's that's the way to failure you have to reinterpret the entire situation away from what it is into a new frame you can solve it in a new frame you can't solve it in the old frame and that's where everybody's stuck here's the new frame you ready North

[45:29]

here's the new frame you ready North Korea is a natural ally of the United States that's it North Korea is a natural ally of the United States now of course we would like them to be better on human rights and all that other stuff but we're also allies with Turkey we're also allies with Saudi Arabia they do some we don't like but they're also natural allies North Korea their biggest risk is China obviously you don't think China is the biggest risk to North Korea what is the biggest risk to the United States well China China is a natural adversary to North Korea and they seem to be natural adversary to the United States if our negotiators are trying to simply find a stable peace with North Korea they're idiots that's too strong they're

[46:30]

they're idiots that's too strong they're probably very smart people but they're not creative a creative deal and I swear to God I can almost see it in the sense in in the word creativity I think I think Kim jong-un is saying offer us a deal to be your ally and we'll pour in it point our nukes in the other direction now I don't know how you could be sure that North Korea would actually target China but I've made this point before we're also not sure that Israel doesn't have their nukes targeting the United States except that they would have no reason so simply having no reason is the best assurance you could have North Korea right now has a very good reason to point their nukes at the United States they have a good reason let's take it away if we keep them with their good reason to have nukes why would we ask them to get rid of them that's not even a smart negotiating you have to take

[47:32]

a smart negotiating you have to take away the reason that's what President Trump has the creativity to do by saying let's talk let's just take away the reason I'm your friend we could talk we can work this out we can make North Korea rich and prosperous with investment that is creative whenever the negotiators are doing or just doing what lower-level people think they can do within their within their realm they're not really authorized to be creative do you think that there's any negotiator who would have the authority to say to North Korea you know maybe we're maybe we're aiming low instead of just not fighting why don't we join teams because you've got a strong team you've got nukes for God's sakes how would you like to have a country with nukes on your team on the border of China well I suppose South Korea qualifies but why not another one so here's what's wrong

[48:32]

another one so here's what's wrong that's the bottom line the bottom line is that I believe that when Kim uses word creativity he is saying to us directly make me an ally because that's what's left right you know Amir you do this we do this never is gonna work it looks like do something creative take take a bigger risk all right
doo doo doo I think that's all I wanted to talk about is there anything else happening scary thought North Korea as an ally well is it a scary thought that Saudi Arabia is an ally is a scary thought that turkey is an ally you know is it a scary thought that Mexico is an ally think about it Mexico is full of cartels sending us sending us you know crime and fentanyl but Mexico's an ally all right so I

[49:32]

but Mexico's an ally all right so I think we have to change the frame and say what would it look like with North Korea just to be on our team because we should be building our team if we believe that China is the long-run risk then our team should have Russia on it we should have Russia on our team Russia is a natural ally to the United States we have no common borders we have no reason we have no reason to be at war we don't have any reason to be pointing nukes at each other Russia what's the reason there's none they're not gonna be attacking you know Europe now I will all agree that if if Europe were a soft target you might have an opportunistic Putin thing but we're not going to make Europe you know a soft target I don't think that's going to happen but I think we should be moving Russia and North Korea into our at least

[50:33]

Russia and North Korea into our at least militarily allied side because they're natural allies
they are stopping the nuke program right so the point is there may be no path that gets us to a non-nuclear North Korea but we don't worry about nuclear powers that are our allies because they're just not pointing their nukes in our direction now we could also help them move there oh and the other thing I said the other day let me say more about that I was jokingly but not jokingly just to sort of shake the box saying that it would be fun for the United States to to surrender to North Korea because if we surrender then Kim has a victory and they can go tell his people all right our nukes worked we did everything we want to do let's let's make friends with them now because we've defeated them militarily could you make a statement the Kim could could interpret that way

[51:33]

the Kim could could interpret that way but wouldn't be exactly that I think he could I think you could word a peace declaration that would say for example it would say we're recognizing that North Korea is so strong that it would be unwise for us to get into a military conflict with them and thus we would like to surrender well no don't use the word surrender and thus we would like to offer a complete cessation of military whatever if we said something worded sort of that way could Kim say yeah they surrendered even though we don't use the word surrender probably because that's one of the ways to slice this thing you want to give both sides a different story that's based on the same set of facts it's hard to do but that would be the example so you declare a peace you say it's because North Korea is nuclear

[52:35]

say it's because North Korea is nuclear and very strong you say it because it's true right that's a true fact that we don't want to get in a fight with him you could also say we would prefer to be allies thank you and Kim can say look I made them I we built up our nuclear power we stared him down they back down and
and and they had to declare peace because they were afraid of us would that be wrong not really that would be close enough to true so I think that would be one way to go anyway when the negotiators are accused of being not creative enough that is your signal that Kim wants a deal you just wants a little more creativity so let's let's see if we could give that to him all right and I'll talk to you oh there's a question on here wonderful the periscopes with christina start we're planning to record one today which probably will be

[53:36]

one today which probably will be recorded but we've planned to record it a few other times and run into technical and other difficulties so we'll see if we can make it work today and I will talk to you tomorrow