Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 822 Scott Adams： Was Live! (Here's the Replay)

00:00:00.000 oh it's time it's time everybody come on in here yeah you're on time good work

00:00:15.840 those of you planned accordingly we're getting ready to jump in here and get it

00:00:20.760 while it's fresh got to get it while it's fresh ask that's good DJ dr.

00:00:25.380 funk juice he'll tell you gotta get it when it's fresh or you can do it on

00:00:30.720 replay and it's also good that but if you'd like to enjoy it now with optimal

00:00:36.840 optimal experience you're gonna want to do the simultaneous sip and to be

00:00:42.000 prepared for that all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass a tank or jalous or

00:00:47.580 stein a canteen jug or flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite

00:00:51.140 liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the

00:00:56.480 dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better the

00:00:59.480 simultaneous sip go ah it's almost like this coffee is so good that hearts are

00:01:10.340 just coming out of it see what I'm doing it's an illusion all right let's talk

00:01:18.140 about the only thing that the news cares about this week Bloomberg so it turns out

00:01:25.940 we found a candidate who in his own way might be as interesting as Trump now of

00:01:32.480 course he's only interesting because of his matchup with Trump so it's really all

00:01:37.340 about Trump still but Mike Bloomberg is he's a he's making the he's making a run

00:01:44.420 here now all of the we'll talk about Mike Bloomberg's persuasion game in a minute

00:01:50.060 but there's something interesting that anti-Trumpers have to hold in their head

00:01:56.120 as true in order for them to figure out why they need to replace Trump and this is

00:02:04.160 it you're gonna laugh when you hear this because I swear I'm not making anything up

00:02:08.900 everything I'm gonna say I think you would you would verify as an accurate

00:02:14.300 description of the world in order to be a Democrat who is anti-Trump and thinks

00:02:20.120 that he really needs to be removed for all of his evil all of his incredible evil

00:02:26.340 and incompetence in order to believe that you would also have to believe that it's a

00:02:32.280 special kind of evil and incompetence that doesn't kick in for four years see

00:02:39.360 where I'm coming from apparently in order to think that everything they believe

00:02:43.980 about Trump is true and has always been true the only way you could explain it

00:02:50.200 based on what we're observing is that it's a special kind of evil with a four-year

00:02:55.620 refuse so really the first four years not much happened that seemed bad news

00:03:02.680 things look like they went pretty well for four years objectively speaking sure you

00:03:09.260 can pick out things you wish were better but the last four years certainly were

00:03:13.920 anywhere near what people predicted would happen so in order to hold that

00:03:20.460 illusion you've got a paper over it as as you observe things which disconfirm your

00:03:26.800 belief you have to quickly paper them over oh paper that over and by election day

00:03:33.200 2020 what they're gonna have to paper over is why they believe that Trump has a

00:03:39.520 special kind of evil and incompetence that waits four years before it shows its head

00:03:45.840 now of course they would say we've been seeing it all along look at this or that he

00:03:51.420 did but it's hard to point to anything you could actually measure that would be

00:03:57.400 evidence of that the the counter example to that would be the national debt but I

00:04:03.780 think everybody's unhappy about that in the same amount and probably whoever was

00:04:07.580 president would have done the same thing but think about the mental gymnastics you

00:04:13.440 have to go through to say it's a special evil that wastes four years before it

00:04:16.740 kicks in I saw an interview I'm not sure who it was was interviewing Joe Biden and

00:04:22.400 was challenging him about the Obama administration putting kids in cages and

00:04:28.560 oh it was it was kind of sad trying to watch Joe Biden escape the trap because Joe

00:04:37.680 Biden is no president Trump Trump can escape traps you famously remember the only

00:04:46.640 Rosie O'Donnell escape one of the greatest one of the greatest Houdini escapes from a 0.95

00:04:53.040 trick question you've ever seen in your life or a trap question it wasn't the

00:04:56.800 trick but Biden just he just didn't didn't get it done so Biden's got a kid in cages

00:05:04.860 problem because even the question is damaging independent of what of what he answers now that

00:05:12.460 now that people are willing to ask the question it's the question that's the problem

00:05:17.260 because nobody really believes the answers anyway when they come from politicians all

00:05:21.500 right let's talk about Bloomberg there's a report that Bloomberg hired an expert on narcissism

00:05:29.180 and a comedy writer so he hired two people one is an expert on narcissism and the other knows how to write

00:05:38.780 humor and I'm thinking to myself I guess he doesn't have the budget to hire me because I can do both of

00:05:46.860 those jobs oh I wouldn't call myself an expert on narcissism but I have lived with myself for quite a few few

00:05:54.780 years and I've observed myself and so while I'm not technically an expert on narcissism I think I

00:06:03.900 know what it feels like from the inside out and I write humor for a living so one billion dollars is my

00:06:13.500 price Mike Bloomberg if you're listening it's kind of a bargain for one billion dollars I will consult with

00:06:21.340 you Mike Bloomberg that price will go up every month until election day so next month it'll be

00:06:26.540 1.1 billion I made this offer to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and she didn't take it now do you think it

00:06:33.500 would have been worth a billion oh and here's the catch I know Mike Bloomberg you like to you like to

00:06:40.220 negotiate you're a business guy so here's the deal I won't take a penny if you lose if you lose the

00:06:47.580 election I won't take a penny free consulting you just keep it all but if I win in other words if

00:06:54.940 if you get elected because of my excellent consulting my expertise on narcissism and my humor writing

00:07:02.300 I will take 1.1 billion next month if you if you get in early you can get the discount save 100 million

00:07:08.780 dollars who doesn't want to save 100 million dollars I mean seriously I'm looking at the comments

00:07:15.820 saying would you actually work for him do you think he's going to give me a billion dollars

00:07:24.940 so those of you who are not not too good at determining what is serious and what is not

00:07:31.580 can maybe talk among yourselves to the others all right um we will talk about Hillary all right

00:07:39.260 let's talk about Hillary so I guess it was Drudge Report broke this story that is the biggest non-story in

00:07:47.180 the world it was all the headlines it was all the chatter yesterday and it's literally nothing and the

00:07:54.220 story was that the Bloomberg campaign is considering asking Hillary Clinton to be the vice president it's

00:08:03.020 like all over the news like all over the news now what's wrong with that story let me tell you do you know

00:08:11.020 which other candidates running for president on the Democrat side do you know which other candidates also

00:08:18.380 considered asking Hillary Clinton to be their vice president the answer is all of them all of them 0.99

00:08:27.340 they all considered it if they didn't they're idiots because it's certain it's on the it's on the plate 0.99

00:08:35.980 it's one of the things that they all should have considered now that doesn't mean that they would like 0.99

00:08:42.380 to do it it doesn't mean they considered it and said yes or that they considered it and said no or that

00:08:48.140 they've even decided because it would be too early to decide one way or the other it is simply true

00:08:53.580 that all of them considered it so what so what is the breaking news yesterday that Bloomberg considered

00:09:02.220 it that's not news what's the opposite of news let me give you some more breaking highlights from

00:09:11.020 yesterday Mike Bloomberg breathed oxygen yesterday yeah so Mike Bloomberg

00:09:22.460 ate lunch yesterday yeah and is there more to this story because it's lacking a little bit of punch

00:09:33.980 doesn't have that dog doesn't have that man bites dog quality to it so ignore all of that apparently

00:09:41.260 you know the the detail of the story is that they had some internal polling showing that a combination of

00:09:47.340 hillary and and bloomberg would win against trump okay sure because a combination of bloomberg

00:09:58.780 and and hillary clinton would there would be no targets there would there 1.00

00:10:05.020 president trump would have a tough time attacking that duo wouldn't he are you freaking kidding me

00:10:11.340 would you pair the woman who protected bill clinton against all manner of accusations true and probably

00:10:19.820 some of them false but most of them true i assume would you pair him with the guy who's being accused of

00:10:25.420 exactly the same stuff at this moment probably not would hillary clinton ever allow herself to go from 0.85

00:10:33.500 keep this in mind her current status is someone who claims that she sort of kind of won the presidency 1.00

00:10:40.300 because she got the popular vote oh yeah yeah we all understand that that doesn't mean she's president

00:10:45.900 but that's her current claim what if she runs as vice president that's not really a step forward is it 1.00

00:10:55.340 do you think hillary clinton wants the what might be the last move of her political career 0.77

00:11:01.340 to be losing to trump a second time except this time as vice president

00:11:05.180 i don't think so can you imagine hillary's ego taking the number two spot because the number one guy 1.00

00:11:12.620 is really really rich there isn't any there's no scenario in the whole world except one where i can

00:11:21.900 imagine that happening are you ready here's the one scenario if mike blueberg plans in advance to step

00:11:30.860 down after he gets elected so that would make hillary the winner without her having to actually 1.00

00:11:37.020 do much to run for president in fact you know that would that would be a diabolically clever approach

00:11:44.940 i'm not saying he's going to do this but just you know play it through your mind imagine if

00:11:50.700 bloomberg said here's the deal i'm going to run for president hillary will be my vp so we've got some 1.00

00:11:55.900 you know good connections and you know and uh you know i'll have all the right people who know where

00:12:01.500 all the keys are kept and you know she could step in any moment if something happened because i'm

00:12:06.220 i'm older so you can imagine him saying that but what people are really thinking is well you're really

00:12:11.980 just electing hillary clinton she wouldn't even have to campaign she wouldn't even have to leave 1.00

00:12:18.220 what she was doing she would just stay on her book tour she could just you know stay home and take

00:12:23.340 questions because everybody knows who hillary clinton is she doesn't need to she doesn't need 0.99

00:12:28.300 to tell people her qualifications she doesn't even need to explain why mike bloomberg would be a good

00:12:33.500 president she could simply just go on with her life be named as vice president and then when bloomberg 1.00

00:12:39.420 gets elected he can just say huh trick i quit hillary is your president so i don't think that's the 1.00

00:12:47.420 plan he's playing so i don't think there's any chance that hillary would join as a real vice 1.00

00:12:51.980 president who plans to be the number two job and and retire in that role i guess all right um

00:12:59.500 it feels like it feels like if you were to start from nothing and try to build a candidate who would

00:13:08.380 be the worst matchup for trump wouldn't it be mike bloomberg i mean you could argue that it would be

00:13:16.380 bernie because socialism against capitalism is sort of dead on arrival so you know bernie is a sure

00:13:24.940 thing to lose because of his policies uh because i can't see him even getting enough democrats to vote

00:13:31.900 for that that that he could get it over the top but if you were to design a more standard politician

00:13:38.780 someone who's not trying to sell you the full socialist uh package and you were you were trying

00:13:44.940 to design them as poorly as possible wouldn't it be bloomberg because if you think about it everything

00:13:52.220 that you dislike about trump if you're a anti-trumper you can find at least a little bit of it in in

00:14:01.180 bloomberg so bloomberg has a history of uh sexual related accusations sound familiar and let's be

00:14:11.100 serious any billionaire that age male or female has got some sexual stories they need to explain it's

00:14:20.700 just universally true don't tell me there's you know don't give me the story about the billionaire who

00:14:26.460 you know who never wandered uh that's just not a thing all right so he's got that then biden or i'm

00:14:35.100 sorry then bloomberg also has that problem with uh stop and frisk so he's got a problem with women

00:14:40.780 he's got a problem with minorities he's way too old white guy from new york billionaire with entanglements

00:14:49.340 and with a major country with which we are an adversary now in in bloomberg's case he's got

00:14:56.380 a china situation that he would need to explain and then you know throw on there that he's boring

00:15:05.420 he has no charisma he had to hire he had to hire a joke writer do you think trump hired a joke writer

00:15:13.580 no no he did not

00:15:19.260 nope i well i mean i could be surprised i suppose anything anything's possible but when you read trump's

00:15:26.940 funny tweets and and the funny stuff he says in his speeches none of them look prepared you know

00:15:34.060 none of it looks like it went through a consultant or some expert it really looks like his it's his voice

00:15:42.620 so i don't know how bloomberg could possibly win against this now if you haven't read up on

00:15:47.580 there's some kind of a compilation of mike bloomberg offensive things he said that is making the rounds

00:15:56.060 i guess it's it makes the rounds every time he's run for office somebody brings up the fact that within

00:16:01.580 the bloomberg organization some person or people compiled a list of all of his sort of provocative and

00:16:09.580 naughty quotes and uh there is one topic that comes up over and over again

00:16:18.380 and i don't want to say the top i don't want to say the topic but if you read what he is accused of

00:16:23.820 frequently referring to uh it's a two-word thing the first the first word starts with b and the second

00:16:31.900 word starts with j and uh apparently he can make a b j uh an elegy or reference in just about any topic

00:16:42.060 the only thing that would cause me to suddenly back bloomberg for president is if he was willing

00:16:50.140 to take that kind of talk into the presidency if you could give me a president who whenever he's

00:16:56.780 talking to a foreign leader he throws in a bj analogy which apparently bloomberg did on the regular when he

00:17:04.140 was just the ceo of bloomberg but uh to put it in context i don't believe that's been happening in recent

00:17:11.100 years because you know sensibilities have uh have certainly uh let's say evolved so even he would

00:17:20.540 know not to do that today i'm sure but um he's got a lot of explaining to do now there are a few

00:17:28.060 accusations of things he is supposed to have said in the past that i'm going to say i don't quite

00:17:33.420 believe all right so here's one of the accusations is that bloomberg allegedly with a with a big

00:17:41.020 question mark on allegedly here for me uh there was some employee who said she was pregnant and 1.00

00:17:47.420 bloomberg allegedly said some version of are you going to kill it now i wasn't there and i can't read

00:17:57.500 minds but on its surface if you don't know anything else about the story does that sound like something

00:18:06.620 that happened i'm going to say no now uh if you told me um he did ask the question about whether

00:18:16.300 she wanted to you know take it to term or not i would believe that i mean that would be a deeply

00:18:21.740 offensive question but i could certainly believe he might have asked but do you think he actually used

00:18:27.740 these words are you going to kill it you know you can't rule it out right because that sort of

00:18:36.460 anything's possible people can surprise you you know people have a public face but maybe they have

00:18:41.420 a darker side i'm going to say no i'm going to say no i think that if you want to find reasons to

00:18:48.540 dislike bloomberg you need to look beyond that one because that doesn't even that's not even a little

00:18:54.620 bit credible there let me give you some context on this as a as a famous person myself um i'm often

00:19:02.780 the subject of uh accusations some true some false and some of the false ones are so ridiculous that

00:19:12.700 people should be able to say on the surface okay i just on the surface i don't even need to hear your

00:19:18.620 side of it scott i don't even need to hear the context because on the surface it's obviously

00:19:24.780 baloney so if you heard a rumor that i was in favor of you know eating babies so let's say tomorrow

00:19:32.380 there's a headline that says dilbert cartoonist comes out in favor of cannibalism but only babies

00:19:38.460 because they're tender what should be your first thought about that your first thought what should be

00:19:45.020 no he didn't say that he didn't say that whatever he said may have sounded to somebody like that but

00:19:52.140 on the surface he didn't say that so this quote about bloomberg you know are you going to kill your

00:19:57.900 baby on the surface you know maybe maybe but i'm going to go with didn't happen

00:20:04.620 then he's got another quote that somebody was having trouble finding a nanny for their baby

00:20:13.740 and then bloomberg is alleged again with a big question mark and alleged to say something like

00:20:22.060 this um that she could find quote a black to watch it and the person doesn't even need to speak english

00:20:29.660 because it's just a baby you just have to make sure you get the baby out of this if the building's

00:20:34.700 on fire so i'm paraphrasing but the the offensive part was he's alleged to say you just have to find

00:20:41.820 a black to watch it does that sound like something he said because it doesn't really sound like a sentence

00:20:50.540 like who who would say that sentence so i've got a question mark on that all right um but again maybe

00:21:00.460 you know anything's possible but i would say those are the two that are least likely all right um

00:21:08.620 so in response to these accusations of things that um bloomberg allegedly said in the past

00:21:15.420 this is what his campaign said and i want to i want to pull this apart because there's a lot of

00:21:22.540 persuasion in here or lack thereof all right so in response to terrible things bloomberg is alleged to

00:21:29.020 have said in his past the campaign issues this statement virtually all of this has been reported

00:21:35.580 over the past two decades so does that mean he did it he didn't do it does he feel bad about it

00:21:43.340 does he does he does he uh run away from those comments we don't know the first sentence is that

00:21:49.420 it's been reported before okay and they go on in any large organization there are going to be complaints

00:21:58.620 what but mike simply does not tolerate any kind of discrimination or harassment and he's created

00:22:05.500 cultures that are all about equality and inclusion so they uh so they they give some context in any

00:22:13.500 large organization there are going to be complaints uh this is a bad misuse of the steve jobs technique

00:22:23.580 now i hope they didn't get this from me because uh i've i've written about this and in fact my my

00:22:30.140 comments on this made it into the uh i think it was the was it the walter isaacson biography of jobs

00:22:37.660 called jobs and it tells that story of where when steve jobs had the problem with the antenna gate

00:22:44.300 when the iphone would cut off if your finger touched the wrong part of the phone most embarrassing

00:22:49.420 problem you could have if you're making a handheld device well it's a handheld device but it won't work

00:22:55.260 if you hold it in your hand and steve jobs when he finally commented on this said you know a more

00:23:02.540 brilliant version of this but he said yeah we're we want to make our customers happy all cell phone

00:23:08.700 companies have problems this is what we're going to do now in his case it made a lot of sense to

00:23:15.580 broaden the the question instead of saying does does apple have a special problem he said all smartphones

00:23:23.340 have problems and suddenly the news started looking at other cell phones and they said oh yeah that's

00:23:27.820 true they all have problems it's a new technology and he just put it in a whole new context but that

00:23:34.620 doesn't work with sexual harassment complaints you can't use that technique with sexual harassment

00:23:41.260 you can use it with a technical bug on your phone but you can't say you can't you can't wipe that

00:23:48.140 away by saying in any larger large organization there are going to be complaints and i'm thinking

00:23:54.780 that didn't make it better now in any large technological situation you're going to have

00:24:00.940 bugs and people go well that's reasonable you know we wish it didn't happen but yeah any new technology

00:24:07.260 you're going to have some bugs so people get that but would you ever accept yeah a person don't let's

00:24:14.940 not call it bloomberg but a person a person was sexual harassing in the past but you know in any

00:24:20.380 large organization you're going to get a lot of sexual harassment so put it in context totally the

00:24:27.020 wrong persuasion to use in this situation because there there's no explaining away that behavior

00:24:33.900 based on the fact that other people are complaining in large organizations

00:24:37.020 but they tried um and then then it brought it to the present which that part was good and they say

00:24:43.580 he doesn't tolerate any of this behavior at the moment i'm adding the at the moment part so i think

00:24:50.940 what they're trying to do is just say it wasn't that important let's focus on the present and i think

00:24:58.540 maybe their instinct was wrong but i'm not sure that that message was the best

00:25:02.540 um here's my persuasion rule people like a reformed sinner more than they like a liar

00:25:15.180 so the candidate who can say yeah you know you got me not only do you got me i did more of that too

00:25:24.060 i did the things i was accused of doing and man do i see how wrong that is now at the time i don't

00:25:30.300 know what i was thinking you know i apologize to anybody who was hurt but i'm not that person

00:25:35.180 anymore and i would fight hard to make sure that there are no people like that around me

00:25:39.660 now that would be an example of a reformed sinner here's the alternative i didn't do that they're all

00:25:46.220 liars they're all liars which one do you like more well it depends if you believe them if you believe

00:25:53.820 that the accusations are false then the person who's lying about it wins but i think most of us 0.94

00:26:01.500 sort of suspect there's something there when there are accusations it's unfair but we're sort of biased

00:26:07.500 toward thinking that the accused are guilty even when many times they're not but we're biased to think that

00:26:13.020 i don't know i think that uh i think bloomberg would be stronger if he said you know we were less

00:26:21.900 enlightened back then and if there are any of you who are still if any of you today are like i was

00:26:29.180 in the 80s let me help you let me help you grow out of that because i wish i had never gone through

00:26:35.020 it i wish i had never been that way but at least i understand now what the cost was what i did wrong

00:26:40.380 and if and i understand that world and i'll help you i'll help you grow out of it too now something

00:26:46.780 like that i would say oh that guy was bad before but he's not so bad now not so bad now but he was

00:26:55.660 bad before and he just owned it so keep that in mind a reformed a sinner if you do it right you have

00:27:02.300 to do it right the execution matters but a reformed sinner could be more popular than somebody you say 0.92

00:27:08.140 well i think maybe they did it they're just lying about it all right um

00:27:16.060 i was watching hilariously scientist richard dawkins get in trouble online and um an alert an alert reader

00:27:26.380 noted that the the people who were mad at this famous scientist were not themselves scientists

00:27:34.540 uh you know why i'm saying this my book loser think talks about how people who have experience

00:27:41.020 in different domains are more qualified to think productively because you learn to think differently

00:27:48.380 in different domains and so famous scientist and famous famous atheist which doesn't matter to this

00:27:55.020 story but that's why he's famous richard dawkins i think he uh what would be his field of science biology

00:28:01.500 or more i'm not sure exactly his scientific resume but evolutionary biology is certainly a big part of it

00:28:10.300 plus other plus other things i'm sure so he's talking about eugenics the idea of breeding humans to

00:28:19.820 have some improved qualities according to somebody's subjective opinion and this is what richard dawkins says on the

00:28:26.540 topic of that now keep in mind he knows it's you know he knows it's a full of landmines this is a really

00:28:33.820 touchy topic so he's going to go careful he's going to be very clear about what he says so he doesn't get

00:28:40.540 in any trouble all right so watch the clarity of this statement it's one thing to deplore eugenics on

00:28:47.420 ideological political moral grounds it's quite another to conclude that it wouldn't work in practice

00:28:54.540 of course it would it works for cows horses pigs dogs and roses why on earth wouldn't it work for

00:29:02.060 humans facts ignore ideology so his very first sentence is it's it's a different different topic

00:29:10.140 if you're talking about the moral ethical political ideological stuff so he's telling you that what

00:29:16.860 follows has nothing to do with that do you think that the people who read his tweet took him exactly

00:29:25.260 the way he said it which is from a mechanical factual perspective of course it would work you could breed

00:29:33.660 people to have different characteristics because you can do it with roses you can do with animals of

00:29:38.620 course you could do it with people it would just have issues on political moral ideological grounds

00:29:44.140 so here's the fun part i'm going to read you the uh some of the pushback and then we're going to

00:29:51.100 see if you can guess what kind of job they have the person pushing back all right so a scientist clearly

00:29:56.700 says it would work here's some pushback from a guy named scott lynch he says you absolute pinheaded

00:30:05.660 simpleton it doesn't work in practice because too many of the goals turn out to be arbitrary fantasies

00:30:12.140 and too many of those fantasies are the pet projects of abusive bigots who f up any civilization and get they get

00:30:19.980 their hands on are you new here and then he uses a another bad word okay so he clearly didn't understand the

00:30:29.420 point that the scientist was just saying scientifically it works you can make up your own mind about the ethics and the

00:30:36.780 practicality practicality of it what's his job author author okay so that's what the author says here's 0.95

00:30:46.540 here's another comment see if you can guess the uh job this is from dan hicks he says this is racist trash

00:30:55.420 richard the analogy you draw here between the ideology of eugenics and the domestication of cows or horses is 0.97

00:31:02.300 false dangerous and historically illiterate okay so here's somebody who didn't understand the point at all

00:31:11.020 what kind of job does dan hicks have looks like college professor of he studies uh art he's a art anthropologist

00:31:21.900 his field is art and anthropology okay here's another one um

00:31:29.260 here's another guy who just says uh it's time to delete this one buddy in other words he doesn't even have to give the

00:31:37.740 reasons it's just so obvious there's still time to delete this one buddy

00:31:41.660 what job did the person who tweeted that have uh let's check musician all right so

00:31:48.860 so so people are now noticing the uh the correlation none of the people who criticized

00:31:55.100 dawkin understood it nobody understood him to say this is the stuff i'm not talking about so let's not

00:32:02.460 talk about it here's what i am talking about if you'd like to talk about that i'll talk about that you

00:32:07.420 know does it work but i'm not talking about this other stuff and then three of his critics

00:32:12.620 jump in because artists can't separate artists conflate engineers and scientists separate so if

00:32:23.420 you're if somebody is a let's say a lawyer economist business person scientist if they've gone through

00:32:28.700 one of those fields they tend to isolate variables and say okay this one doesn't affect this one let's

00:32:33.980 look at them individually artists musicians and authors say everything if fix everything else it's all one

00:32:41.100 big ball you can't claim it doesn't matter that it's associated with this other thing so you'll see that

00:32:47.340 pretty pretty commonly all right i believe that's just about all i had to talk about anything else going

00:32:55.180 on today somebody said i understood it and it was really vile what was what was really vile that you

00:33:05.980 understood did you was the vile part the part you agree with because if you're saying that richard dawkins

00:33:14.140 comment is vile what part because he didn't make a comment on whether it was good or bad or practical

00:33:21.740 or political or anything he didn't make a comment he just said it works do you disagree with the fact

00:33:27.180 or do you think it's going to lead to the end of the world or something all right um

00:33:35.580 the truth is sometimes vile people say

00:33:41.500 uh yep all right so that's all i have for today

00:33:48.940 yeah we're all talking about president trump doing a lap at the daytona 500 in the beast

00:33:54.220 the presidential car i guess if that's if uh if that's what we're talking about

00:34:01.900 uh it's it's a good time if that's what we're talking about somebody asked if yang is a possible

00:34:07.420 vp pick i would say no because you want your vp to be somebody who knows where where all the keys

00:34:15.340 and the locks are in government yang would be not as able as someone else to walk into the top job

00:34:21.900 as quickly all right that's all i got for now i will talk to you tomorrow

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - February 16, 2020

Episode 822 Scott Adams： Was Live! (Here's the Replay)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript