« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 333 Scott Adams: The Trump/Schumer/Pelosi Meeting, Cohen, and “Manhood”

2018-12-12 | 🔗

Topics: 

  • Branding the Trump shutdown
    • Possibly the safest position anyone has ever taken in public
  • Classic President Trump: The meeting with Chuck and Nancy
  • Pelosi’s position: The Wall should be a stand-alone negotiation

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

The post Episode 333 Scott Adams: The Trump/Schumer/Pelosi Meeting, Cohen, and “Manhood” appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
everybody is a very special evening vision of coffee was got elms featuring water what's wrong with my level unlabelled war its the best so there's so much news that i had to jump on right now and if you're on here with me i hope you have a beverage doesn't need to be coffee could be water could be could be wine but join me for the simultaneous evening step oh yeah that's good good water so you probably have all seen the clips now of the exciting meeting between president trump and nancy policy injunction sugar bickering about the wall the funniest thing that came out of that meeting are they roger pence means
if you're only following conservative social media i may have missed it but there are some pretty funny means about my pants does apparently oil sleepy there you it wasn't me wasn't quite engaged so there are compared to the often the shell from some other stuff so check that out serve you noticed that cnn if you check out see then they have started to do this impetus graphic image sixteen phases that are trump related people who have had some kind of contact with russians josie entire the entire screens like sixteen people and the funny thing is there's no one of those conversations any them had the sawhorse seems to mean anything but it's just a lot of people talk the russians it turns out so
new that if you're in the government russian russians one talk to you though i am pretty sure that all sixteen of them november mail which is interesting because as i've been saying the parties are starting to become to divide on gender lines so is probably no coincidence that they like to put up those sixteen male faces that problem place very well now you may have heard that nancy policy after the meeting about the wall referred to trumps desire for the wall as something about his quote manhood she actually brought up unprompted russia's need to compensate for the size of his penis by getting wall release that's the for the way to interpret it and i thought to myself
not really hiding the masonry at this point a vicious pure and e mail stuff they couldn't possibly work if had come in the other direction so so i i started the forty eight hour clock by twitter nancy plus years forty eight hours just like everybody else is the same rule whether apologize for such a sexist comment or to clarify in case we hurried wrong maybe maybe thus now meant but i'm not expecting that to happen but kind of shocking that the one thing that the democrats like least about this presidency is the one thing we are willing to imitate why is that the only thing they dislike about president trump is the thing there most
eager to imitate it's interesting so one of the big stories on cnn right now is that the timing of the payments two stormy daniels and karen macdougall being as it was very close to the election is strong evidence that the president did it for election reasons so real lawyers who get paid to be lawyers i going on sea and saying the timing of it pretty much tells you it was for election reasons because it was for right before the election day i see a problem with this anybody see does anybody see
a whole in that very logic where you could driver a very large truck through so the the defence has been from the beginning that it wasn't done just for reputation reasons so in order for it to be done gluesome for election reasons and that's the important part if it was partly for personal reasons but it also had a an election benefit i think you're in the clear because if you botox in running for office brain doesn't pay for the botox but it looks like a campaign expands right it's something that you wanted to do personally hey i think i'd like to get rid of these wrinkles for my own reasons but no no one would doubt there looking better helps you wouldn't election so the
standard here is is there something that is it is a reasonable story for why was done for personal reasons the present story was that it was for personal reasons protect the family etc protect the reputation oh only problem with that say the lawyers who are paid to be lawyers on cnn while they're paid to be lawyers but neither on cnn they say the timing of it is the give away to which i say even could be the lawyer to defend this case and i don't know anything about the law it goes like this what is the time of all the campaign what the time that it is most likely going to happen the somebody's gonna dig up some from your past and publicize it why is the most likely time
there's somebody would try to reveal this information is the same as the quote pussy gate revelation right the most likely time that your opponent so good and try to bring up something like this is the closer you get to the election october in there is no smarter months to do this then october because until you get there you didn't even never really look like could tromp was gonna win anyway it wasn't until about october when it looked like he had shot that's the time have the greatest reason to pay off people who might still be it now here's the thing you have two reasons to do at that time one is the opponents will say it's because the election
the other time to do it is that's when people are most incented to embarrass you so if your if your intention was to keep your family safe and keep the reputation safe that's the time you're gonna be worried the most about your personal life so put me on that jury and i don't think the president needs to worry yeah now my understanding is that of if it were a criminal situation that somebody's we have to know beyond beyond a shadow of a doubt that he didn't care about his family how do you prove somebody didn't care about his family being hurt i've never been to law school but if put me in a competition with somebody else who is whose case requires to prove that my family man defended the
that he doesn't care about israeli healy wants the unelected he's not in that case because everybody serving only me jerry boxes gonna save themselves if that were me i wouldn't want to her my family of course he cares about protecting the family of course yeah i've heard i've heard dershowitz say that it may fit the perfect definition of blackmail and extortion but i don't think even need that are you all you need is from an economic perspective and from every other perspective it was it was most likely a problem the closer you got to the election that's all it is he had two good reasons and one of them was personal outside aid now i thought i heard
since then that cohen maybe willing to testify that near the president dinner for political reasons by here's the thing call it is going to jail for lying is literally a famous liar you invest yourself why is the trump surrounds himself with it with liars i'm thinking to myself well if they ever have a story to tell about you nobody's gonna believe so has that benefit another that's why does it i understand stormy daniels us legal bills to pay it is of course not prevailing in court which is funny so the stormy did not seem to come out ahead of all this
let talk about the negotiation for shutting down the government this is one of them funniest thing you ever going to say so we the shut down the government thing is a game a chicken you're trying to see who blinks first now tromp has wisely wisely said he set the table for it he said that these are my words but this is essentially with its presidency if i get the money for the wall i win if i don't get the money from the wall i closed the government over the wall and i win here has two aims to win and norway lose shimmer can only lose it doesnt really have humor doesn't have a winning path if it gives dropped the money well
doesn't look like a win on hillside but if he closed down the government then he's the guy who's closing the government and finishing americans to protect illegals coming into the country it's not really a strong position to pay to have and so this man firstly from did is take away from them and take away from the new cycle the idea they're closing the government whatever look bad for tromp in factories said he wants to branded the trump shadow so i guess this was my last was yours but this one's mine i will close the government over border security and the wall in particular and unthinking that's problem the safest position anybody ever took in public as two ways to win no way to lose now thing that europe has going forum his reputation and in
the reason is based voted for them is that he is willing to go farther and be more of a bad ass take more pain if necessary to get where we need to get the democrats brand as if your negotiating listen it was china over trade you dont want them to get mad so you should surrender the democrats position on trade negotiations with canada if i recall were i want them to get matter you so you should surrender i believe the democrats position on trade negotiations with mexico were we don't i get the mad so we should surrender i believe the negotiations with south korea and japan the democrats position was traders or bad we don't want to get the mad we'd better surrender now they're coming
this this negotiation with the president of the united states how can they be consistent with our philosophy the surrendering so you don't make the other side mad is always the best where the go i think they're gonna have to surrender to keep from from get mad because my close down the government and of course he will now is smart they'll get some kind of an agreement that says something along the lines of its not all wall the democrats need something that looks like a wind or they can spend there's a wind even if it isn't so both sides need something like a win and my guess is that when will look like yeah maybe the throw in some dhaka it's possible but i think they're just go say we didn't fund the wall and then the president will say we
fund the wall i think that's the because there's nothing to stop them from having completely hunter navy degree difference in interpretation than what just happened it would be exempt like every other news story era new story we watch people walk away thinking in an entirely different thing happened than the others i'd things why should this be different all they have to do is i'm saying you got money for the wall shimmer say we gave money for for border security and we don't think it all is to be all now don't see any way the democrats can win this it just doesn't look winnable on their end there's gonna be something like walls get built and although trump gets a lot of pressure for not delivering on the wall so his base and i think an coulter leads the pack
people criticise them every day for not having the wall built what is hard to watch him operate in this context and not and then at the very least he's putting the whole out there he has not delivered the wall for those who want it but it does look like he's pointed out there is not really it looks like he's leaving at all in the field and the whole meeting today with sugar and was sort of classic trump and one of the things that he likes to do is bringing the battle to his home field ahead you notice that if he's if he's debating you and public with the cameras on that's his home failed and you can see pelosi quickly realized does she have to share the shutters down because this was working for them
maybe we should negotiate primary private negotiated in private to which i say who wins if one of you says i can't talk about this in front of the vote those who wins their round if one i'm says how about more transparency let's do it right here while the cameras are running and its the simple enough topic that you actually could do a right there was not a lot of fact jackie you need to do and one of them says no we shouldn't do this in front of the voters who are paying us nazism for their lustre good reasons do not negotiate and public that's that's not surprising but this probably isn't one of them because the public fully understands this topic and i believe policy is the one who said let's not connected anything if they had connect
to everything such as dhaka i even i would have said hey maybe you baby we should do this in public because you need to do a little trading under the hood you know i'll give you a little bit a darker you give me a little over the wall but because below sea said we're not going to connect the wall to anything the wall has to stand on its own that's what made is simple enough they ought to do it in public if you're really just getting talk about the wall what is it we voted to get here i can't think of anything if you throw dark in there than you have to do a behind closed doors but that's not what's on the table so now i m seeing some of the social media comments like rob reiner saying that it look to him as if humor and blowsy just eight trumps lunch
lunch they read them apart in that meeting now i will into bed where most of you watching this periscope had exactly have exactly the same kind of impression i did which was thing really happened but in terms of positioning the president absolutely one there was no real negotiating having the present one was i hear he branded the shut down as good for him and his brand that's pretty good set up for once come he also gub gub pelosi the go full sexist in question his manhood associated with the wall that too is a victory for future on because see he caused her to get down in the mud and really overshoot it the mark and value offered to do it in public
offered to do right and from the voters right there and she said no we can this in front of the people who are our bosses the people who pay us and let us we can do it in front of them who wins around tromp so to me it look like negotiating standpoint trump head two and a half at least major victories that came out of that and she had none that i could see but to rob writer that looks like a victory somebody said they thought it was also about bringing the geo beyond unnoticed of off the wall well i think that's i think everybody following the issue so nobody really had to be a notice today the news there was that the google seo said that russia
a total of forty seven hundred dollars to google to influence the elections i keep savers i keep save us but if you're going to compare explanations for what was happening during the election with russia and interfering the the thought that putin and the kgb were behind it and there was a high level national effort to destroy our election that doesn't really match what happen because what happened was it was not you a half assed effort it will is about one or two hundred and fifty six ass method half ass would be waived underline what they did
i dont believe anybody who actually looked at the names their facebook passed around or at least they had on the platform if anybody looked at those means i dont know how they could conclude that russia the state and the kgb had a brilliant and plan to disrupt our election based on that it scott this is so beneath you we'll get ready you swear were thought it was beneath me doesn't have to watch me now you're smart man they can be so damn you don't have to watch en bloc and by the way you watch me
you know that mind if somebody as a reason to push back there's just the people come on here and say scott you're so dumb but i dont have reasons i dont like is that it does not agree with what i said i have said before but i dont know exactly was wrong in my usual hour block black now here is an example of how i dont mind areas nepal push back happened today so i made the point in an earlier periscope that peat the sceptics of climate change are always leave out the fact that the problem is the rate of warming the fact that the world always changes temperature so i and a big deal about how fear ignoring the real argument that the rate of change is was changing
that is just getting warmer none that and of course one person said scots your lying because why are you leaving out the fact that the temperature has actually gone up to it i say sure you wanna die on that hill does it does seem that the number of new high temperatures is breakin records here so it does feel like the temperatures going up in a high rate but so here's my point somebody on twitter i forget who pushed back and said something very reasonable the really does counter my point to some extent and they said can't really tell how fast asked or at what rate things warmed in the best you can tell
you can measure the things were yo relatively warmer whatever but since you're looking at these yawns apparently it's not easy to tell how quickly anything went up in the past so if you say the way things are going up now is at a high rate but and then if you finish then say we ve never seen high rates of increase before we do actually know that apparently there's something about the way we collect the formation that's a little more will says it's a grocer picture he cast in the details of something going up in a hundred year period somewhat that here the granularity isn't there so i said that's actually a good sounding point that i cannot verify were one way or the other but
as for a link and i'm perfectly open to looking at that argument because a sounds reasonable sounds like a reasonable organ i just don't know if it's true or false three veils really talk about i want to use up all my immaterial before the morning because you know we have to have coffee in the morning i'll probably after repeat some of the stolen anything else google there so i only watched a bit of the vehicle negation of the google ceo today but
it didn't look like he was doing well and is now because he's not good at does he does seem it seems they really smart use i'm seems like use really capable but the questions or just so damning that looked to me like he was giving slaughtered but i don't think it matters because i don't think that's news carried much of it and if you see however that contacts you'll see you know little clip here there it's not gonna probably make that much difference to google certain something tells me that although they do not really have all the right answers that probably nothing is going to change so those of you never get to see me life this is for you
yeah that the forty seven hundred dollars that russia's spent on google to influence the election was larry's i think all they spent on facebook was like a few tens of thousands something like that and no can compare the official story again compare the official story with we also need an explanation of the russian hacking thing did the troll farm this bad job working for the kgb feels a little unusual or are they a commercial enterprise which is what they presented themselves to be where people can their hire them while we know that's true they were a commercial enterprise where people can go higher them now given that they did some some means they were anti hilary benn far more means there were the
it is hilary stuff but also some priorities was far more anti hoary than pro what is the what is the best explanation of the facts in evidence is is the best explanation that this troll form is so bad at their job that they accidently made anti hilary names and they were working for them cagey in this top priority putin authorized scheme maybe i've heard of bad employees i write about them every day it doesn't seem likely that you there's somebody can say hey your job is to make pro trump means and then one of the people here is wrong and it goes and makes and actually publishes a bunch of and i will remain is that really what happened or was it a trough that will take anybody's money and so
buddy boy some anti hilary names and somebody bosom antitrust means which is more likely given that there were a commercial enterprise the cells or time too to whoever where's the money oh yes the monopoly man was hilarious that's one of the best political pranks if you can call it that china lowering tat tariffs on u s automakers well logically everything about china is a wait and see i don't know that i believe that gonna do most of what they say just in general so i'm not gonna leave anything about sentinel from china
until i hear that there are top dealer has been executed short of that i'm not gonna believe anything they say because they i was doing it then i was named in our lives is very well known and if he still live in six months we can say for sure that china never meant to crack down on sentinel yeah canadian executive was arrested and china search and is putting the putting pressure on canada and here's a question that i have for you if china holds this canadian guy and you here that the charges against the canadian they're holding
are obviously just bologna and they just grab them to use as pressure against against the the person that canada grabbed the sea cfo would you ever would you ever travel to china if china grabbed the canadian just a whole them as a hostage to guess somebody back who who had committed a pretty serious crime i once you're never going to china not for a business not for anything definitely would not gonna jane
now the other day i made the accident of buying something those made in china and it angered me because as you know i am not very pro china at the moment my son law died from an overdose and sentinel china is the primary primary we should rather sentinel so i thought to myself why isn't it more obvious when things are made in china i would i would definitely alter my behaviour to buy fewer chinese goods if it were more obvious to me you and i maybe we should have a law if you're buying on amazon just pick one example then it has to say prominently weather is made
in any way made in china now i think you'd have to distinguish between american companies that are using chinese manufacturing verses being an actual chinese pro so maybe that matters surprising enough that there a law that this as words made but why can it be more primary prominent why can't i know what is made in china so i can avoid it that's just information it's not it's not a government aid because i'm pretty sure that american consumers can get china to give us a good trade deal because if i happy i'm gonna be looking the labels pretty pretty extensively so my personal thing
is that i wouldn't deal with china under the current conditions so as not to call the boycott is just that china is an enemy of the country of this point and it would make sense to give money to your enemy doesn't make sense yes so in most cases if you're buying stuff in the store is easy to read the level what i'm suggesting is that if you're buying stuff online they could put their right in front of you and make you make you actually make a decision about whether you want by chinese i want the decision is should be a pop up the just says you're buying from china did you really mean to do that that's legal law the says that just make sure that americans now there are giving their money to to join
i think that's all we need now some of you need to go to bed i see an end to you i say good night then i'll probably see in the morning before them
Transcript generated on 2020-04-01.