Episode 762 Scott Adams: The Democrat Debate, Imaginary Crimes, Holiday Debate Tips, Shampeachment

Date: 2019-12-20 | Duration: 1:09:37

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a President Trump’s new campaign ad is a masterpiece The Democrat candidates debate last night James Clyburn’s misconstrued and misunderstood comment A fact checking challenge to NYT Daniel Dale Technically…President Trump hasn’t been impeached YET Sahara Sea Project Democrats “toxic rage”

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]

pom pom pom pom pom pom Shui hang left or hang right or as we like to call it in the tailoring business shall I dress left or dress right or dress Center Cara Lee dress Center well I know why you're all here it's because of the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous have coffee with Scott Adams Holiday Edition getting ready to launch and all you need to participate is grab your holiday cup of mug glass an iftar Stein chalice tanker thermos last canteen growl couplet vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid eggnog is acceptable coffee is better and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better including my throat the simultaneous sip go ooh

[1:10]

holiday pleasure that's some of the best well today will be people will be taking off early in the United States get a jump on all these kids are gonna be off school pretty soon for a week ah that's good and bad isn't it it's time it's time all right so let's talk about all the news once again we have only fun news there's no bad news today what happened to bad news I suppose there's news that's bad for one team or the other but it's all just sort of political fun and nonsense and reality TV I don't even think there's any bad news in the news today is or if there is I'm not reading it so one of the hilarious things coming out of the impeachment that's not really an appeasement we'll talk about that is that apparently a lot of people in the United States were under the impression the president Trump was removed from

[2:10]

the president Trump was removed from office
their worlds will become very confusing when they find out he's still in office because it turns out a lot of people think that impeachment means removed from office so a lot of people were celebrating on Twitter they were not what we'd call the well-informed to people that's right the poorly informed and we love the poorly informed I think we can agree on that we're big fans in the poorly informed but the poorly informed lived in a different world yesterday in which President Trump had been removed from office it was kind of like the man in the Hightower situation except reversed I don't even know what that means but we're gonna talk about representative Clyburn in a minute and that'll all make sense so that's hilarious there's so many people are gonna think is it's for so many people it's going to be like

[3:10]

many people it's going to be like Election Day 2016 you know yesterday or the day before yesterday they're all yay Trump removed from office yes yes what impeachment means what they haven't even sent the articles over to the house were to the Senate what I guess I'll have to wait for the new year I know my resolution will be Wow so that's hilarious have any of you seen the new Trump campaign ad I tweeted it yesterday and this one's gonna be hard to talk about because sometimes words don't really capture what you need to convey I'm pretty good with words but I'm not going to be able to convey this so you simply have to experience what I'm going to describe the new Trump campaign ad is one minute long and it is

[4:13]

campaign ad is one minute long and it is I think the best campaign ad ever produced now I haven't seen every campaign ad ever produced but once you see it you're probably going to have the same reaction which is okay this is the best thing that's ever been produced as a campaign ad here's what's special about it it's only one minute and it takes you through an entire movie arc just the way a movie does I mean it's got the same almost the three the three scene structure it's got somebody having a life that changes in the beginning because that's all movies do that somebody's life gets changed in some way and then there's the third act where it's all doomed and it's all bad news and then there's the you know the amazing part and then there's the celebration afterwards now here's why you have to watch this all right it's so far you're saying to yourselves probably a lot of you you're saying to yourselves all right there's they're good campaign

[5:14]

all right there's they're good campaign ads they're bad campaign ads why are you going on about this is it because you you love President Trump you know you're just doing another commercial for him nope let me tell you if you're not convinced to watch this ad for for the experience of it and that's why you what I'm recommending you have to experience it before you do read the comments under the where I tweeted it the comments are very uniform and exactly what I experienced I had a full body experience meaning literally every hair in my arm every part of my skin my brain my exterior my sympathetic nervous system my breathing my pulse one minute I cried cried like a

[6:14]

my pulse one minute I cried cried like a baby at the end of it one minute reduced me to a quivering lump of whatever but in a good way is it good cry I watched the second time after I put some distance on it because I wanted to see if was it was I just didn't mood or something watch the second time stronger it was actually stronger the second time now there is so much technique packed into this masterpiece and by the way masterpiece is not is this not a strong word if you see it that one minute campaign ad is comparable to the best movie you've ever seen in in complete complete in terms how you feel now I'm not saying there aren't better to our movies you know they give you similar feelings but nobody's ever done it in a minute before one minute to produce just an extreme

[7:18]

one minute to produce just an extreme feeling it's yeah it's amazing now somebody says I saw it and men obviously these things are subjective so you should expect that some people have no reaction some people have very strong reaction most people have some kind of reaction somebody says I think it's the prednisone could be I thought that too until I saw the other commenters you have to read the other comments to see what they experience is a physical feeling so I looked for all the technique in it and I decided I'm not going to call it out because I don't want to I don't want to ruin it by showing you technique but you'll feel it the music the videography the direction the production I've never seen anything better it's truly remarkable you have to see it all right and again I have to say that this is about the experience this is not a political statement and not just you know Schilling for Trump because you feel some of you remember I

[8:20]

because you feel some of you remember I was equally not quite as much but I was very complimentary of Bernie Sanders ad in the last the last go-around the last election I thought he had the best campaign ad with the people streaming to these the ocean to the assignment and garfunkel music but that doesn't even come close to this thing you know I think Bernie's ad was one of the better ones I've seen up to that point but this just wiped it off the table I love to know who's behind it because I believe they must have this is just speculation they must have pulled together a team that had sort of the strongest people from a variety of different fields there had to be somebody involved who's a persuasion or at least advertising genius so if you ever find out who is the actual person behind it I don't know if it's the

[9:21]

behind it I don't know if it's the writer director or consultant or all of the above but there is pure genius nothing all right let's talk about the debates I agree with most observers that the debates probably didn't move the needle too much everybody played it safe but in playing as safe that does produce accidently winners and losers I thought that Joe Biden had his best debate as did others he didn't have any big gaffes he seemed seemed good enough you know he seemed like an old pair of jeans you know they they fit they were comfortable they weren't great but they were terrible so I think Biden's simply by being not terribly incompetent which is unfortunately we've seen him in the not looking so good phase but he had a good night so let's let's give it to him good night for Joe Biden I am still predicting that if Joe Biden gets the

[10:23]

predicting that if Joe Biden gets the nomination which seems at least as likely as anything else at this point completely surprised but if he does he's gonna have to fix that vice-president problem meaning that he's gonna have to get a person of color and ideally a woman on the ticket and ideally a woman of color so who's that give you Klobuchar would be an excellent match she would be really an ideal vice president presidential picked why because even people who don't want Klobuchar to be their next president seeing her somebody who has all the skill she doesn't have any blank spots right she doesn't have the charisma of even a Joe Biden who doesn't have the charisma of an Obama so she's she's two levels removed in charisma but totally solid however she's got no color as as we see in the

[11:25]

got no color as as we see in the comments going by right so she would only solve half of the problem Carla Harris has disappeared here is my further updated prediction as you know I predicted that Carla would get the nomination then when that when she suspended her campaign I revised that - she will be picked as a vice presidential pick by Biden which will in effect make her the maker in a lot of people's minds the nominee because people are gonna look at Biden and they're gonna say okay Joe Biden who do you picked for vice president because in this particular case that's pretty important because we don't know if he'll even make four years much less much less eight so here's my prediction I believe that Kamala Harris is going to go dark if she had if she hasn't already meaning that she's gonna go off the grid mostly has she gone off the grid

[12:26]

mostly has she gone off the grid mostly well she's nothing news so I guess so here's what I think is happening Biden had the most the most recommendations from important Democrats the most endorsements the number two person was Carla Harris which means that both Biden and Harris have the support of sort of the let's say the traditional Democratic leaders if you could if you could coach Carla Harris up to competent you'd have a strong package her performance in the in the primaries was completely incompetent but could she be coached up to at least not hurting anything all bat yes she just has to get rid of her sister as a campaign manager how'd he get rid of your sister as campaign manager only one way if you want to keep your family together you don't want to lose your sister but you

[13:27]

don't want to lose your sister but you need to fire her what's the only way you could do it cancel your campaign because if she becomes the vice presidential nominee she might have a different team somebody that Joe Biden might recommend so I think the Harris is going to solve the problem of her sister advising her by and she did that by canceling her campaign and if she gets picked as a vice president I'll betcha that she comes back not looking like the old kabbala I believe that she will get a makeover maybe even the way she dresses you know maybe her hair maybe something like that although her hair is fine and I think that she's going to come back as a more capable campaigner because she'll give fixed by the same people who wore Biden to win because the people want him to win kind of not that far away from the ones who wanted a common when to win they're all the Democratic insiders so

[14:27]

they're all the Democratic insiders so that's my prediction all right let's talk about some more I thought that yang was the biggest winner now Biden wins just by not losing so so he's sort of in a special class because he's at the head of the pack so simply not losing is a good day for him but I think yang made mark and here's how I think you made a mark the people who are persuadable are not on the pro Trump side every day and they're not on the impeach Trump every day side yang is the only one who realized that the persuadable so I guess Biden realizes this too but the persuadable don't care too much about impeachment so when he was asked about impeachment he basically he brushed it off exactly the right play and what I saw that I thought huh that's a strong play he's the only person who's recognizing that the only persuadable are at the position he took which is not

[15:30]

are at the position he took which is not that important wipe it off the table so that was good here is the best part of the night and really yeah every now and that there are things which could change civilization entirely and they're small so you don't notice them when they happened one of those things happen last night there was something that happened at the debate that could change civilization and it was the fact that all of the candidates were asked about their views on nuclear energy did you catch that now I was having some technical difficulties and so I missed some of the answers so I didn't get all of their answers to it but the important part was that all the Democrats were asked a challenging question about nuclear energy and the way the question was couched was as a positive for nuclear and why don't you idiots endorse it I mean they didn't say it that way because the you know the interviewers were not they were trying to play it down in the middle and by the way I thought that the

[16:31]

middle and by the way I thought that the the the people hosting it the you know the talent etc I thought they did the best job we've seen am I wrong that felt like the best of the debates by far in terms of how it was managed anyway so they were all asked about nuclear energy and it was phrased as obviously a solution for clean energy and a solution for climate change and it was a very challenging question so wasn't the answers that were important it was the question because they all had to address it yang said yes on nuclear energy has to be part of the solution and then he went and mentioned thorium technology in particular now if you you know if if you've been doing what I've been doing for the last couple years I guess especially with Mark Snyder his his help in persuading on nuclear energy and Mike Michael Shellenberger and people have

[17:31]

Michael Shellenberger and people have been talking about this forever hearing yang call out a specific next-generation technology it was a big deal it was a big deal and I imagine was all of the other candidates while they're watching yang talk intelligently about the potential for thorium a specific kind of new technology for nuclear you could almost hear the other people thinking thorium which one is that or thorium thorium I think I'm gonna need to read up on thorium alright the fact that yang brought up thorium showed he had a deeper level of knowledge than I imagine half of the people on the stage I don't really know but I'm not and I'm not even saying the thorium is the answer by the way there's some controversy about which

[18:32]

way there's some controversy about which of the new technologies are going to be the one I'll talk about that a little bit later but the fact that he wasn't full at it you know yang just wanted right at it and said yeah it's good it's got to be that and we got to make it better here's the technology I think that put him as the winner he was the only one who had a a knock out answer for climate change he's the only one who put impeachment in his proper place but then he had he had a good moment that got a lot of clicks which is also good because it's provocative if yang has learned better than most of them that you have to be a little bit provocative to get attention and attention is a big part of the equation so here's what yang said so the question was I guess Barak Obama said that women are better leaders in some contexts and so yang was asked about that and he and the yang said quote the fact is if you get too many men alone and leave us a load for a while we kind of

[19:34]

leave us a load for a while we kind of become morons and the audience laughed now the first time I heard this my first reaction was oh god just pandering to women yeah yeah yeah you know I know you have to say that women have to be all the superheroes and if it's insurance commercial you have to show that the women makes the good decisions on the insurance and the man runs into the telephone poles you yeah it's just more of this social justice crap where you know if you're a man you've got to say oh no men are no good you know women are great you know I thought it would that was my first impression and I thought about it a little bit and I I compared it to my own experience here's my experience if you put a bunch of men together they will compete with each other you know they'll sort first into your alphas and your betas that's the first thing that men do

[20:36]

betas that's the first thing that men do when you put them all together and then within the alphas they'll be fighting it out for dominance and a in a competition that doesn't help anybody you all right so I would agree that when you put only men together on a round process men will act sort of like men and you might not get a clean let's say a solution that makes sense for the whole public you might get just whatever happens when men could be with each other and try to sort themselves into yeah alphas and betas and compete and who's great and you know just got the biggest equipment and all that that's true I would say my experience supports that too many men without a female in the room does change the conversation then let's say you introduce one woman into the room and this is just a thought experiment I'm not saying you should only have one woman in the room but just to introduce one woman into the mix and what happens immediately the men start

[21:39]

what happens immediately the men start talking to the woman not directly not as him they they focus or conversation at the woman but they change their entire approach toward impressing the one woman in the room because we're built that way biologically if you throw one woman in a room full of men their biological instinct is to compete for the woman right now somebody said is she hot I'm not going to touch that question I'm going to say that you all know that there's difference in who the woman is right let's just say average average woman it doesn't matter if she's married or what the the biological nature of men is that we will change our approach to be more appealing to the one woman in the room because we're built that way now if you have a woman in the room do you have a better or a worse window on civilization in general probably better because women are a lot closer in my opinion just

[22:42]

are a lot closer in my opinion just opinion here folks you're free to free to disagree women are a closer in opinion on in general to what the public considers appropriate or good men are a little bit removed from that and we depend on women to tell us what's acceptable now I know you don't like that but is just biologically true as an observation we men look to women to give us a little extra visibility of what's acceptable and if you left it to men it would get pretty dark pretty quickly all right so I think the men willingly willingly allow some of that decision-making about what's appropriate we willingly source that to women somewhat because we trust them to have a clear understanding of what good behavior looks like now I'm not trying to make fun of women I'm

[23:43]

I'm not trying to make fun of women I'm not trying to make fun of men so that nothing nothing I just said should be considered at insults of men or women it has to do with the fact and I know you don't want to hear this that diversity has advantages diversity has advantages that's the perfect perfect scenario where diversity does help I think if you don't have a woman in the room you're flying blind if you're men likewise if you're a bunch of women in the room and there are no men in the room you're also flying blind now I think that you know you can take that argument to you you know if you don't have an african-american in the room you don't know what's going on for that part of the population think that's fair I think that's fair I think you could argue that performance you just want the best people who are good at performing but if you want to have a good clean filter on the world what's a good idea what's a bad idea diversity gets you that all right let's

[24:47]

diversity gets you that all right let's talk about who else was there Warren I thought Warren was kind of a maybe a break even or worse she's got this plan where she wants to tax the wealthy people who have over fifty million dollars in wealth tax them two percent which they would hardly notice wouldn't change the lifestyles and then that two percent will pay for her all manner of public services because there's there's so many so many people with so much money that even that little tax on that tiny group will get you all I don't know free health care and education and stuff so the problem with that is the problem is that if you don't know much about anything this sounds pretty appealing because it's so simple wait you're telling me you're gonna take money from people who have plenty of money and won't even notice it's gone and you're gonna give it to people who desperately need it and nothing's gonna happen except that it will stimulate the

[25:48]

happen except that it will stimulate the economy and we'll all make more money is that your proposition because you know what that sounds pretty good to me too I've argued in the context of reparations I've argued that if you were to tax just those richest people the same ones that Warren wants to tax they have a strange quality about them they're not like everybody else in lots of ways but in this one way the super-rich are not like everybody else and that is that if the economy in general does well they always do well well not always but you know often enough that it's close to always so taxing the top 2% for something that clearly would help educate and keep the population healthy you keep them employed keep them productive keep them as good employees for your company big Billy there it's probably closer to an investment if a middle-class person gets taxed and it goes to the poor to pay for those services well

[26:50]

poor to pay for those services well maybe that's closer to a break-even because the middle class person gets poorer that's not good the person who got the money he gets is better off but you know maybe that's kind of a wash because somebody lost something in order for somebody to gain something but if you're only taxing the people who literally won't notice it 2% and a 50 million million dollars literally wouldn't notice and it has a giant stimulating effect that's kind of appealing now I don't think economists quite backed this plan and the trouble with all of these economic plans is that the public can't understand them but the public does know that there are rich people and they have money and they could give it to somebody says in all capitals RealD and Davis has Scott didn't use I'm reading it like shouting because it's all in capitals Scott didn't you say you'd leave if tax too much hot even if you say buy you have a

[27:50]

much hot even if you say buy you have a few money well yeah I would if if the tax if somebody got elected and started taxing rich people at seventy percent or ninety percent or something like that yeah I would I would leave the country for sure but if they taxed only the people with 50 million or more a one-time tax of two percent I think it's one time it's not annual right I hope it's not annual that would be completely different but I think it's one percent or two percent once maybe that's not enough so anyway the point is that her her proposition sounds good on paper the same way that supply-side economics sounds good if you don't know too much about economics so it's a strong approach but I don't know that it's catching on Klobuchar looked competent but boring didn't have a bad day but a judge got attacked a little bit but I thought he was a little bit lawyer

[28:57]

he's getting better you know you you have to watch people like Buddha judge the especially the the younger candidates because their ability to improve is hard to predict so you're seeing footage improving during the course of the campaign you don't know how much better he could get maybe he could get a lot better so he got attacked for having fundraisers in something called a wine cave literally a cave where expensive wine was served in Napa near me and it was just a standard fundraiser apparently this is very common way the Democrats do fundraisers Gavin Newsom you know talked about it he said he has just normal way we do it why would you want why would you want rich people not to be able to give money to a campaign that doesn't even make sense so I think what a judge did a good job of loyally explaining it away but the lawyerly answer doesn't win all right the visual wins compare compare Buddha

[29:59]

the visual wins compare compare Buddha judges response which is perfectly good but it's just a concept with no image she said quote this is the problem with passing purity test you yourself cannot pass then went on to talk about how Warren had taken money in a Senate campaign and then transferred it over to her presidential campaign which is legal but it still takes money from rich people now Buddha judges explanation is technical it's lawyerly it's true it's clever it's right it's the right response it's all completely accurate now compare that to what I think it was what yang said about it what he got his turn to comment on it he said that he doesn't yang said he doesn't want to go shake the money tree and the wine cave now compare those two approaches shake the money tree and the wine cave you

[30:59]

the money tree and the wine cave you might live to a thousand years old and never forget what I just said shake the money tree in the wine that is so visual that is really really visual it's as good as build the wall so you so again when you watch the younger candidates learn as they go was was yang always that visual was yang always that good or is he picking this up as he goes because I've got a feeling he's picking it up as he goes he's a gamer somebody said right he's picking up tools like as he does his adventure you know if he imagines the video game he's like a machine gun picked that up Oh food pick that up energy pellet pick that up I feel like yeah is gaming power he's just picking up tools as he goes through the adventure and and that visual reference man that was good

[32:00]

man that was good that was so good so I say yang had certainly something close to a breakout night by not buying into this the politics as usual by being very visual by being provocative being interesting and yeah I think he just nailed it so yang get a good bang all right did you all see the the newest Johnny and Laurel thing is representative james Clyburn was in an interview and he was he was talking about Mitch McConnell's pretrial comments about how he wants to handle the the impeachment if it goes over to the Senate the McConnell might want to vote on it without having witnesses and stuff and so representative Clyburn who's who's a Democrat was talking about it and he said and one part of his explanation he said quote give him a fair trial and hang him except from the

[33:02]

fair trial and hang him except from the reverse perspective and everybody read that said a what did he just say that we want to give President Trump a fair trial and then hang him what that sounds like the worst thing anybody ever said except that as the New York Times fact checker Daniel Dale yes in the simulation the fact checker from the New York Times is Daniel Dale he points out that actually this is not what Clyburn said he did use the words give him a fair trial and hang him except that he added right after that accepted in the reverse so he was saying that what might happen is the opposite of giving somebody a fair trial and hanging them which would be giving them an unfair trial and letting them free right so what Clyburn was trying to say is that mcconnell wants to give Trump an unfair trial meaning no trial

[34:04]

Trump an unfair trial meaning no trial at all and then set him free but he said it in the worst possible way you could say it for a clarity he said it's like giving him a fair trial and then hanging him except in Reverse if you take out the the last part except in Reverse it does sound like he's talking about giving Trump a trial and hanging him but when you add except in Reverse that's how you you know that that's the opposite of what it meant so the president's team I think one of the campaign accounts tweeted that as if Clyburn did say hanging the president but Daniel Dayal fact checked it and said no and said and then I saw an opportunity you know me if I see an opportunity I'm in the crease and I said to myself huh I've been watching this Daniel Dale guy operate for quite a while and I don't love the fact that

[35:05]

while and I don't love the fact that he's fact-checking there the the GOP at every turn and finding that they have lots of things that need to be fact check I'll love it but I read a lot of them and I don't disagree with him I don't know if I ever have in other words he shows his work this is what was said this is what is true here's the source more often than not you'll show the source so I have a general positive view of Dan Dale's critical thinking as well as his attempt to be somewhat of biased now he works for the New York Times so there's a limit on how unbiased you'd be right we all know there's a limit to how unbiased any of us can be but some are trying right some people are trying to be unbiased and I get the impression that Daniel Dale is one of those people the way he writes gives me the impression he's attempting to be unbiased doesn't mean he's right every time the same with all of us so I saw an

[36:08]

time the same with all of us so I saw an opening and so I tweeted back to him or retweeted and then commented on his Clyburn comments I said I agreed which is always good to agree with people if you want to influence them start by agreeing so I said agreed I accepted that his interpretation of Clyburn is the accurate one because it does look like the accurate one and I said for credibility meaning his own credibility Daniel Dale's do the fine people hoax next now somebody asked me what are the odds he'll actually click on the link I linked over to Steve Cortes article and RealClearPolitics that describes the hoax and somebody said what are the odds that he'll click over to it and here's my answer probably a hundred percent probably a hundred percent the odds of him not clicking on a prominent link from somebody else who's got a blue check you know I have a blue check so people pay attention to me more fair or not that's that's just the

[37:10]

more fair or not that's that's just the fact they pay attention more probably I mean almost certainly he's gonna check that link now I would also say and this is just speculation my guess is that he already agrees that the fine people hoax is a hoax that's my guess now he can choose what topics he talks about and he's mostly talking about things that are current in the news and he started work after that fine people hoax so he doesn't have to circle back to it he could ignore it that's what I expect but what if it comes up again what if it comes up again in the general election guys you know where well does Daniel Dale correct that fact or does he ignore it it's an interesting question because there there are very few people who were in on the field whose job it is to at least attempt to be unbiased and if he

[38:13]

least attempt to be unbiased and if he ignores it it works against any kind of branding that would make him look unbiased so I don't know I think it I think it would break the world in half if Daniel Dale came out and said the fine people hopes as a honks he would Dale would cement his credibility forever
that's it if he wants to be credible and he wants to just put a cap on it and just say alright I'm gonna take this and for the rest of time I'll be the guy was the most credible person in the United States and just put a cap on it and say here it is I just debunked the fine people hoax criticize me now you can't you can't criticize them for being biased any time in the future if you debunks that easily debunked host hoax alright let's talk about the impeachment

[39:14]

alright let's talk about the impeachment legalities I'm having the greatest time I hope you are too learning about the the technical details of impeachment it's really interesting you know in in many ways just learning about is interesting and this tweet from John Roberts Fox News according to Harvard Law Professor this is important you know that the credibility of this guy is important according to Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman parenthetically he was a democratic witness and the judiciary hearing alright so this is a Democrat he says Democrat as you can get and he's a Harvard Law Professor exactly the guy you want to ask about the details of this impeachment process let's say he said president Trump is not quote impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate if Pelosi holds on to them indefinitely

[40:15]

if Pelosi holds on to them indefinitely Trump would not be impeached so I tweeted today that you should take this tweet from John Roberts and you should print it out and take it with you or screenshot it for your holiday with your family because when your family says ha ha ha your president got impeached then you say did he oh did he give me a second which your phone number send not so much not so much you you want him to be impeached he might be impeached but as of Christmas he's not impeached told Nancy sentence over those articles so that's fun by the way just this is just a famous person aside I'm at John Roberts years ago I think he was as CBS News he interviewed me when Dilbert

[41:16]

News he interviewed me when Dilbert first started taking off in my little little condo two bedroom condo in Dublin California so I got to hang out with John Roberts for a while very nice guy there's nothing to do anything he's just a nice guy and so on that same point about how to argue with your relatives I tweeted this morning that everybody who says and I saw it again this morning in the tweet that the president is not above the law and here's my take on that if today like today the 20th of December you are still arguing in public using this phrase nobody's above the law or the president is not about the law can you explain why the impeachment articles do not include any alleged law breaking that that's something to take with you for your family because your family is gonna say presidents not above the law he's not above what nobody's above the law and

[42:18]

above what nobody's above the law and then you say good point can you explain why the Democrats did all this research and when they wrote up the articles of impeachment none of it included even an allegation of a law being broken because you think that would be right near the top if the president broke in actual law you'd think that would be right up there in those articles of impeachment right can you explain why it's so obvious to the whole world according to you that the president broke a law or laws and apparently there are important ones because you wouldn't mention them otherwise it's not like littering they must be important can you explain why the Democrats don't know what you know because I'm pretty sure they would have put them in the articles of impeachment so there's that then of course there's the provocative question that Joel asks in Breitbart isn't Nancy

[43:20]

asks in Breitbart isn't Nancy Pelosi by holding up and delaying the articles of impeachment obstructing Congress is she not obstructing Congress now that's a fun point but I suppose the Supreme Court could be involved in that decision too at some point so neither she nor Trump are actually obstructing any any Congress at all as long as the Supreme Court is still the the trapdoor that both of them had available to them all right let's see what else we got here so I think it's fascinating that Trump is not technically impeached even according to the experts and for the Democrats what would you predict do you predict that he ever will be impeached I mean technically because it's starting to look like maybe maybe maybe not

[44:21]

to look like maybe maybe maybe not maybe not because he's not in peach yet Andy Andrew McCarthy had an interesting article on this that in the legal political system there are specific events which have to happen like the filing of a document in the court for example that is when you're done and until the until a document is filed and stamped and accepted you're only almost there you need the final official thing where it just doesn't count and the legal system and and arguably in this this case until they send it over to the Senate they haven't met the minimum requirement of it being an impeachment interestingly that doesn't change anything at all but it was a fun point now because the simulation that we live in loves us it keeps giving us entertainment entertaining events the most entertaining this week is a hunter Biden might face a court order to

[45:22]

Biden might face a court order to disclose his finances because of his paternity suit with a stripper so the stripper is taking them to court and might force him to produce as financial disclosures so we can see how much money you got from Ukraine and I don't know some bank and China maybe now here's what's funny if it turns out that hunter Biden has to publicly disclose his finances before President Trump is forced to disclose his taxes I don't know if I'll ever be able to stop laughing now I'm not saying it's good I'm not saying it's bad I'm not saying they shouldn't both release their information or neither or one of the other I'm not even making an opinion on what should or should not be done what is right or wrong I'm just saying that when the simulation serves you up a dessert like this my mom eat that

[46:22]

dessert like this my mom eat that dessert cuz this is good stuff I would like to call out for the best meme that I've seen in a long time and I didn't have a marker on it so I'm gonna describe it instead of show it but if somebody could tell me who came up with this it's brilliant and there was a two-parter to what it was a picture of Trump and the first picture of Trump says says something along the lines of well maybe I can find it it'd be easier to show it to you wouldn't it because you have to see the vegetable to get the full beauty a full beauty of it here I think I can find it pretty quickly and it looks like okay hold on hold on I swear I can find this quickly here it is alright so on top it says stop calling me orange you could barely see it and then the bottom he's kind of thumbs up he says hashtag impeach except when you

[47:26]

he says hashtag impeach except when you read the word impeach it looks like I am peach so the top is stop calling the orange hashtag I am peach and I looked at this and I thought damn it it just happened remember I told you that Trump would not be the subject of impeachment and it would change him I told you the trunk would change what the word impeachment means because he changes everything things don't change Trump Trump changes other things and that happened stop calling me orange hashtag I am peach could you love that better let me take down the temperature of this and maybe you can see it better can you see this now
stop calling me orange hashtag I am peach I mean seriously whoever thought of that slow clap slow clap so if

[48:26]

of that slow clap slow clap so if anybody knows who came up with that let me know I'll give him a shout-out that deserves attention all right so you saw the news I think was yesterday that there was missing footage of the outside of Jeffrey Epstein cell the time that he attempted suicide I guess the he attempted it once allegedly that he succeeded in a different attempt and the video from the first attempt was missing and people said to me Scott I know you think this is just incompetence and it's not a murder attempt it's a real suicide but how do you explain this video that we used to have and now it's missing and I said still competence still incompetence and today the new news is they found the video so probably incompetence but of course

[49:27]

so probably incompetence but of course the people who still believe in the clever murder scenario said well it's a deep fake it's a deep fake and it's been modified that's why it went away for a while and came back maybe maybe can't rule it out you have to see Alan Dershowitz bitch-slapping Lawrence tribe on Twitter with his legal opinion so Lawrence tribe was trying to make the case that Nancy did Nancy Pelosi did not have to turn over the articles of impeachment to the Senate any time any time soon if she suspects that the Senate would not give him a fair hearing and so tribe used the analogy of you know if a judge and would a judge convene a jury if the judge knew for sure that the jury did not intend to hear the trial not by its way I think that was his analogy but anyway the

[50:27]

that was his analogy but anyway the point was as I often say analogies are not part of reason they are usually stupid and that any smart person will just argue that the analogy is not exactly like the thing and that's the end of the argument so Gershowitz just rips apart lawrence tribes analogy and says pretty directly it's a dominologist
analogies are over the week so watching Dershowitz rip apart and allergies from a harvard law professor whose analogy was just let me just you have to read Dershowitz explanation if I know how bad it was but that was very fun all right
let's say Joe Biden in the debate he got the the one term question you know would he be willing to run and just saying he was gonna commit to only one term now he

[51:29]

was gonna commit to only one term now he he said you know I'm not gonna make that decision blah blah but just putting it out there it's got to be really bad for Joe Biden just the fact that that even guy asked in front of the public so I don't know that that'll have any impact on his polling but it was certainly a question that suggests the people asking the question were making smart reasonable unbiased questions here's the funniest part Biden has decided that the main thrust of his campaign aside aside from orange main bad which of course we all know is that the economy is not that good Joe Biden decided to to rest his chances of becoming president on arguing that the best economy in the history of all economies in the history of civilization the best economic year we've had in approximately if scientists are correct 13 to 15 billion years it's

[52:30]

are correct 13 to 15 billion years it's the best so Biden's gonna say no that's not really that good that's his argument that's not really that good because the middle class is not benefiting enough now there might be truth to that but it sounds like the worst argument anybody ever had going into an election no the best economy we've ever had no no we don't want that now the others have it worse at least Biden is going into it with you know more moderate proposals that you don't imagine what immediately Disraeli or yeah just derail the economy but the the the other candidates are saying that the economy is not that good and they're going to make a whole bunch of change that every economist would agree would make it worse they might make it more fair the things that Warren and Bernie are suggesting you could argue that it would get closer to a balanced fair situation if that if income equality and access to healthcare and all that or how

[53:32]

access to healthcare and all that or how you measure those things but I don't see how you could have a platform that says the economy is already not working and then we're gonna do something that I think every economist would say would just decimate the GDP you know if you start making these big changes in the middle of a stream that's going well all right then let's talk about something fun have you ever heard of the Sahara sea project apparently for decades there's been this idea that comes up and goes away about building a I guess a what would you call a canal from the ocean to the Sahara Desert because I guess much of the Sahara Desert is below sea level so if you just built a canal which wouldn't be easy but you could do it you build the canal you create a vast sea ocean in the

[54:36]

you create a vast sea ocean in the middle of the Sahara Desert and then you know the humidity changes and you can have farming and all that stuff somebody says it's too dry or it's dry too I don't know what that means so here's the here's the idea so chill Merlin if I'm pronouncing it right to child or chill tweeted out why was this heresy project ever abandoned and he noted that it could neutralize sea level rises right so it would be one place that any extra sea level rise could be siphoned off into in a happy way and I thought yeah that does make sense right if you had a Big Basin that could substantially increase the quantity of sea water and distribute it to a different place that would actually be very good for minimizing the impact of rising sea level what's up not bad it would also

[55:36]

level what's up not bad it would also create mass area for agriculture that's currently desert now bad and it would do you had some other benefit here to you and it would go do something else good [Applause] oh and it would be just a great economic zone for Africa I would add to that no he didn't say this but I've heard this before that if if you could take the hottest spot in the world and probably the Sahara would be that for a large landmass if you could cool off the hottest part it should make a bigger difference to climate change than everybody doing a little bit on the places that weren't that hot the first place so the theory is if you could make a big difference to the hottest place maybe that's the biggest bang for the buck and one of the ways that cooling off the Sahara by reforesting it their ideas about letting livestock just wander around on the borders because apparently if you let livestock wander

[56:38]

apparently if you let livestock wander around on the border between vegetation and desert they'll eat some vegetation they'll poop in the desert you know ten feet over the line and then there'll be seeds and the feces and it grows so you can actually have livestock increase your vegetation and shrink the desert so what if you did both what if you turned it into a canal built a canal turned it into a an ocean in the middle of the serra let your livestock wander around reforest it you would actually decrease the power of it Atlantic hurricanes because Atlantic hurricanes are formed because of the temperature difference between the ocean off of northern Africa and the deserts so deserts super hot the ocean is cooler it causes the hurricane to start if you could decrease the difference in the temperatures by cooling off the desert a few degrees it wouldn't take much your your hurricanes wouldn't have the same power somebody says they need fresh water they

[57:42]

somebody says they need fresh water they need fresh water too that is correct but if you have oceanfront and you have you know you probably have some capabilities for getting water down by you I have to desalinate but it's possible the other day I told you that the president retweeted me my tweet that was retweeted was if the if the impeachment is the Senate must acquit very clever I thought and then the president retweeted it and got a lot of attention I I mentioned it to my brother and he looked in the president's Twitter feed and said hey I don't see it there and I said I just thought so I wasn't looked and it wasn't there so I think the president retweeted it and then deleted it later I would support that decision in fact that was surprised it got retweeted in the first place I was supportive because I don't think the president he's the a

[58:42]

don't think the president he's the a four-letter word and in his tweets you know even this president there's no reason for him but the bigger problem is as many people said to me by making the analogy to the OJ trial it makes people think well he might get away with something but he's still guilty like OJ so even though the the the statement is clever if the impeachment is the Senate must acquit is to take off on Johnnie Cochran getting OJ off if the club doesn't you must have quit and so people said no maybe you shouldn't don't don't compare the President to Oh Jake as he got off but maybe he should have so my guess is that somebody alert on the president's staff made that same argument and between the fact that it had a you know a four letter word in it and the fact that added oj reference i think it was deleted somebody needs to fact check that no but i don't think it's there now and i would support that decision so i think i think

[59:46]

support that decision so i think i think that was the right right play all right I believe oh then you should read today also I will point you to so March Snyder has a great thread today on how President Trump has done more for nuclear energy than anybody which means which means President Trump has done more to combat climate change than any other country well no that's not you other countries are doing a lot I'll say it this way president Trump has done more than anybody in this country to to combat climate change and when you read Martian letters tweet thread you can see that there's a whole bunch of stuff that Department of Energy is done under Trump and secretary Perry who was on his way out but he built for example a nuclear fuel test facility now that doesn't mean

[1:00:48]

fuel test facility now that doesn't mean much to you if you're not immersed in this stuff but what it means is that they have a way now for the first time to fairly quickly test a bunch of strategies for cleaner safer and nuclear models and if you don't have a way to test it you don't just don't have a way to get there and the Department of Energy built that so that's that's happening right now so that alone if the President had done nothing else except approve that it would have been one of the most important things done to battle climate risk and if you said hey there's no climate risk it's all made up it doesn't matter we still need clean energy we still need clean water still need clean air so it doesn't matter either way but it can be said I think with a straight face the Trump has done more to improve at least the risk management of climate change than anybody in the United States no president has done this much now now of

[1:01:52]

president has done this much now now of course you've got people like Obama banning incandescent lightbulbs and you say to yourself all that what about that well it's not really a big deal because first of all you've got the the waste disposal problem the new bulbs are harder to dispose of but it's not that big a difference but building a nuclear a safe clean nuclear capability to create generate to create electricity is I don't know a million times more important than lightbulbs does that fair a thousand times more important maybe a million times more important than the light bulb thing there's no contest if you were to be objective and say who did the most to minimize the risk because we don't know we don't know which way climate change is going so if you were still in the skeptical side but just call the risk the nobody's had more to minimize the risk because he put it in place the one thing that you need the most a robust nuclear energy testing

[1:02:52]

most a robust nuclear energy testing facility so you can get to the next level Mitch McConnell had a great turn of phrase he talked about the impeachment champion process and he spoke of the Democrats and their view of Trump as quote toxic rage toxic rage that's pretty good isn't it doesn't that feel exactly like what's going on because anger is normal you know anger and the political realm is just it's like oxygen it's just always going to be there people are supposed to fight for their SCI and they get a little you know they get a little angry etc but that doesn't look like this does this look like people who are just angry because they're fighting for the policies that they like it doesn't look like that at all not even a little bit there's not even any consistency you know about the criticisms and what they want it looks like toxic rage because rage

[1:03:56]

it looks like toxic rage because rage can actually be useful right angry people get a lot done and if you're angry about an injustice a little bit of Rage is exactly what you want to fight that injustice so I'm Pro rage if it's used productively but this does seem like toxic rage it doesn't feel like there's a benefit at the end of it yeah and I said this before that the the Democrats were celebrating impeachment simply because it would make the president feel bad right what would you call that if the impeachment would make the GDP improve I'd say well okay that's a useful rage or at least somebody's making an argument that it's a useful rage nobody's making an argument about this impeachment I mean nobody's making an argument that the impeachment without the removal is benefiting the country I mean it's it's a pretty loose argument about well the voters need to know yeah okay but it's just a week it's it's more

[1:04:58]

okay but it's just a week it's it's more it seems obvious to me again I don't want to mind-read but that's how it looks so I can only say for sure how it looks to me and how it looks there's like toxic rage that's just the perfect phrase I might use that well that's all I have for today and I'm gonna go back to be getting my big week of holiday yes thoughts on birdies debate performance I'll just read a few of your comments here I did skip Bernie so let me get back to Bernie I thought Bernie as others have said sounded like a one-trick pony I don't think he had a good day so I think Bernie he has strong supporters he didn't say anything that will eliminate him so he just had an okay day I'd be surprised if the rankings on the Democratic side changed except that I would expect yang to go up so the only

[1:05:58]

would expect yang to go up so the only change I expect is yang to improve now they asked the command of somebody but I think it might commanded them equally because I don't think yang directly I don't think he's in anybody's lane is he McAfee update unless I missed an email I haven't heard back from his Booker so so far that's the way it's gone so I got Andrew yang agreed to be on my periscope turned me over to his campaign and we exchanged some emails and then they disappeared tulsi gabbard also personally responded to me and said yes you know let my campaign schedule it they got back to me and then we talked and then it fell off they just fell off the table likewise McAfee has said yes and turned

[1:06:59]

likewise McAfee has said yes and turned me over to his Booker and like the other two examples I don't expect I'll ever hear from the book so I guess it's easy to get people to agree but it's harder for their people to think it's a good idea III think that and I'm just speculating here but I would guess that if yang tulsi gabbard or McAfee heard that I was the one who wanted to talk to him
him I could imagine them saying yeah I do that but I can also easily imagine that somebody on their staff would take a look at it and say you know this one might be a little dangerous it isn't I don't think it's dangerous for any of them because I would be a I would not be a jerk alright I can commit to that then I'm not going to be the the jerk hit piece you know I just wanted to destroy you in public I I just have no interest in that at all so I would give them a totally fair hearing and that would try to make sure that I had highlighted their strongest

[1:07:59]

that I had highlighted their strongest points but if you're the staff do you believe that well compared to the other things the candidate might have to schedule because they're all over scheduled you assume right so it doesn't surprise me if the if the staffs of any of them say you know maybe we will prioritize this low it's a mistake it's a gigantic mistake I let me say this if yang or tulsi gabbard appeared on my periscope there their poll numbers would go up I think so I think that I could actually make that happen because I could I could and their political frame and like I said I'm not going to be trying to try to destroy anybody on my periscope that's not what I do I'd rather do the best job I could of highlighting what makes them a good choice so whoever is smart enough to to

[1:09:01]

choice so whoever is smart enough to to complete the circuit and get on my periscope you probably would have a hundred thousand people at least look at you and have a more positive opinion all right so that's that's what I got going on today yeah McAfee would just be the best but McAfee would be a full-frontal entertainment from beginning to end I I would love talking to him all right so I will talk to you all later