Bump, bump, bump, bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump hey earth- Hey Emery, come on in here gather round, for those of you who are exercising right now those of you who are walking on the beach, you know who you are Those of you who are on your treadmills, those of you were driving. Those of you who just are pretending to work, but you just put your ear. Earphones in I'm talking to you. I know why you're here yeah, I do I know why you're here you're here for the simultaneous and the wisdom, but first the simultaneous up Eric. Grab your mug you're jealous You are a vessel, your glass, you container your stein. If you will your service,

fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous extra good that some extra good coffee right there. So before I get to my apology, the second apology in week, I'm just apologizing like crazy. Here, I think I've ever made so many mistakes in one week as just apologize. Apologize apologize, let's talk about Kamala Harris is Slogan so here is the inspirational slogan from the strong

This contender from the Democrats for sorry second word is law. Sorry for mapping a little bit. People put it all together. It's for the people So that's pretty inspirational, a she's being she'll be riding for the people for the people. That's us good enough, uh so somebody said to me Scott: what do you think the Kamal is the biggest threat to the president when her slogan is so

persuasion week. It looks like they. You drop to say with John the typewriter and just took whatever happened typewriter. Let's call the keyboard. Let's update these references dropped a sandwich on a keyboard and took whatever it said about for the people sounds good to Maine, but here's my caution to you. Imagine the the you're a high level, adviser and- You want to work for one the high level candidates do jump in early, you don't write the people who are good at this- the people are good at coming. Up with slogans of people are good at You know shaping the candidate that people are good at messaging. I don't think they're really involved. Yet I think at this point each of these. Many democratic candidates probably have, people who are close to the

before maybe one extra person but They don't really have the a team. Yet so what you should expect much like Hillary's experience, she status started out, persuasion tearable, but by the time you got close to the election, she was really really good and almost certainly because the quality of her advisors when from terrible to world class I wouldn't expect the best advisors to jump, this early. I think they would back a little bit see the front runners are maybe try to pick a winner and be on the winning team. 'cause that would be the home run. Play don't make any judgments about Kamal Heiresses persuasion game. Yet we can see the one thing she is clearly working on, which is fun to watch.

Is that most of the people were pro jumpers were saying early on she's cold. She has no personality she's, you know, she's got the no smile. But now you see that all of her tweets her videos and she's making she's dancing she's in the salad, she's being part of the people. She's smiling she's got a lot of personality. If you see a montage of her on CNN it'll be laughing smiling now. So she is being me if you might say, manufactured from whatever you thought of her before into something better. Now, I'm not say That's being a big fake because Remember the running for president, the higher game here is to present a package, let's essentially marketing. It's essentially

suasion that isn't exactly who you are, but it's who you're selling so there's? No, that's not that's, not an insult to Kemal Harris to say that she is finding her Brandon and firming that up as we go but it'll be fun fun to watch yesterday, we had this weird XP instead of it being Martin Luther King Day and all the country talking about his racism, but not in a good way everybody was talking about it in the bad way like there's too much of it and your just know: you're racist, you, racist, legal races, um, and so, if you look at the president's tweets, the president was, tweeting all the right stuff about racial justice and and society was all acting like a bunch of races.

So the weirdest thing that happened yesterday on Martin Luther King Day is that you can make an argument that the least racist adult- no the least racist human over the age of sixteen and the entire country, was president Trump. Now, here again, I'm not talking about anybody's inner thoughts, I'm talking about how they acted. Alright, you watched huge proportions of the population just be flat out racist. On on Martin Luther King Day, the only person who was flat out zero over, diversity, let's, get together. Was president Trump used in all the right things, while the public was going nuts on each other for calling each other right races. So that was different.

So some of you may have noticed the trouble on into yesterday on twitter and I made the mistake of saying that the sixteen year old boys, it should not be. Taken seriously or should not be part of the decision making when it came when it comes to big political issues, especially if there's an have to do with a womans decisions about abortions, and there was much push push back on that and people said to wait. There are children on the other side, okay yeah, that's not really a reason, and then people said, but these kids care wow Karen is not much of a reason. My argument was that there's no minor who's opinion, is good enough to influence national decision.

Meaning that children are not wise they are not well informed and their opinions are not worthy of that we should allow them to influence in any way, even by marching in marching in the you know, a few fans do in Lawrence. The national opinion about what we do about politics, totally wrong. I was totally wrong and. Ioffer offer you my unreserved apology. To anyone who saw me disagreeing with them. So My opinion in the morning has completely reversed and I'll tell you why the basis of the opinion, is that children are idiots compared to adults right. So I'm not, I'm not saying children are bad people, I'm saying they're, not quite people yet they have unformed brains. They don't have much knowledge, they don't have much wisdom and I thought to myself

hey, you wouldn't want to add stupidity. And here again I'm saying this with love, because I was once young and stupid. Most of you were as well but why would you add What you now is the lowest quality of thinking to such an important politico decision or any political decision, but during the course of the day. I completely reversed opinion because I watched one adult after another, so frickin stupid that- and I'm not joking about this. This is not sarcasm. This is not a satire, I'm giving it to you completely. By the end of the day. The Who were arguing that children should be part of the political process won me over by being so stupid on twitter, That I had to agree that the quality The decision making could not be degraded by

The toddler vote Do I mean that as an exaggeration now not even a little. Do I mean this. To be funny well this funny but I don't mean it only to be funny, I'm giving it to you absolutely straight. This is my honest opinion Sir sarcasm is off The tires off and by the way, I would never tell you that if I really being sarcastic, I'm actually telling you the truth. Yesterday, was such a mastiff cluster of stupidity. Like I've, never seen. Yeah I've never seen as bad a set of thinking. All sides coming out me from every adult that

I honestly changed my mind. This is not a joke. I changed my mind. We should let toddlers vote now. Obviously we're not going to change the constitution, so it's not going to happen, but the point. The adults that I witnessed yesterday, the quality of their thinking was so poor that, quite honestly, no joke no joke here at all. Quite honestly, there's nothing that you could add to that? That would make it worse and and it's also obvious that the children are being brain washed early by their respective sides, their religion, their parents. The community we're all being brainwashed early and for the most part, the means that we lock in as teenagers. They tend to stay with us, so those those kids who were

objective all the attention yesterday they you probably are locked in? Don't you think now somebody said KEN the children protest, public their support for the right of life without influencing politics? that's a good example of why I say toddlers should vote. Let me Some of the ideas, some of the things that people sent some people said to me Scott. Those kids are not influencing decisions all they're doing is going to a public rally to demonstrate, add their bodies and their voices to an event that is designed to influence public opinions? Let me say that again people attack me all day on Twitter and they said this those kids are not trying to affect public opinion

By going to an event whose only purpose is to affect public opinion, and I saw that from the first few people- and I thought my goodness- how can you? How can you contradict yourself in the same sentence. How can you say they're going to a political event to that is obviously for affecting political opinion they're, not they're, not marching for fun they're, trying to effect political decision making So if you don't understand that, yes, we're not any smarter than a toddler. Quite literally 'cause it. Butler, wouldn't be able to make that distinction either here. Some other things that people said so that so number one people said political marches are not intended to influence decisions. Okay, there's any child is as smart as that any child is as smart. As that then people said.

Scott? What about? Why is it? Okay for children, like David Hogg, to influence the gun debate, to which I say you're agreed with me not disagreeing so a whole bunch of people who attacked me by agreeing with me. Okay, if you can't tell the between agreeing with me when I say children should not be part of the decision making, and then you say What about these children, who are part of the decision making? No, that's what I'm saying children should not be. The decision making doesn't matter if the top. It gives guns or or abortion. Now remember. I've changed my opinion since, since that opinion, because when I saw how dumb people were and they thought that somehow the gun reference was account sure to be saying that children shouldn't be part of the decision making when in fact they were agreed. With me hard, I thought

well, you know who else couldn't tell the difference between agreeing with me and disagreeing with me children, children are equal in apparently the sense because they too would say random things that didn't make sense, as all the adults were yesterday, not all, but also they say People came after me when I said that children shouldn't be the decision making process? And they said my god- Why are you saying children shouldn't have free of free speech? No nobody! children shouldn't have free speech will get rid of you, goodbye dammit it this So when I said that children are not, this. Why is as adults a lot of people said? How can you say that they shouldn't have free speech. I didn't say that didn't say anything even close to that

Do you know who else can misinterpret what I say and then attacked me for something? That's ridiculous because I didn't say it children, children could do Children are just as good as adults and misinterpreting what people say. And then criticizing them for their own hallucination. Children could do that with they don't have, Wait till they're adults, apparently what else do we have yesterday. People were mad at me yesterday and they said don't you know you should never trust CNN number. One For less three years, I've done nothing but criticized the fake news media. So if you're telling Maine tonight, trust the fake news, media you're, not smarter than a child. That's my brand telling people not to try. I wrote a book on it

I've written countless blogs on that exact point. What I did was not trust my own eyes. You know my I looked at the video and I thought I saw enough. That was my mistake and that's why I apologized but The people who say you shouldn't trust, CNN, no matter what here's what's wrong. With that and it was usually match with you- should not watch it. If you're telling me that the smart thing to do is So we have to listen to one side, because the ones. Light is telling you all the truth. You're not smarter than a child! Let me say it again: if you came after me yesterday and said you should never listen to both sides. 'cause that one side gets things wrong. The one side really just One side is getting stuff wrong, so you should just

or the other half of the entire conversation. If that's your opinion, you're, not smarter than child. So why shouldn't? Why should not should children not vote, because they can do that well, easily all right, that's a very low bar children can definitely do better than that toddlers can do better than that The other opinion I heard is that people said to me. Apologizing for a clear mistake was was terrible. And the reason I should not have apologized for what was a clear mistake, was because that's how the left wins now keep in mind my correction, The went from the the the side that I didn't want to win when I read correction myself

the team that I was likely wanting to support anyway, which was trump supporters, people wearing mega hats and stuff. So I actually change my opinion from my unusual on to mine. You know one. You would expect me to have if you've been watching me and people told me, but that's why the left is winning because I corrected myself as soon as I saw that I'd made an error in the facts. It changed. If that that's why the left is winning I I don't understand the world could a child. Have opinion as dumb as apologies is why the left is winning. Yes, they could Any child could have that opinion totally as good as an adult. Then here's my favorite one people told me that if you just do your own research, Scott, you wouldn't have to be apologizing. All the time

just do your own research, don't don't leap in with an opinion. You know. Do the deep dive on Watt everything should I do research on everything. I say everything are there some things that you look at and you go ok, there's no reason to research that you have to kind a call your shot. Still you. I don't have infinite time to research. Every claim of fact. Neither do you if you think, that's reasonable to say that people should have researched everything, you are not smarter than a child. Let me tell you what research gets you? Here's a perfect example. I had used the climate climate science example where every time there's a claim, there's a sceptical, counterclaim

and then you go back to the scientists and say what do you say about that skeptic and then he says why the skeptic is wrong. Then skeptic comes in and says: well, the scientist is wrong until they get to something you don't understand or you care very Right and then we've got to the bottom of that. Well, where it's so dark and you just even understand the conversation anymore. You end up defaulting to wherever you wanted to be anyway. When you're done, what do you tell other people? You say I did my research. I went down in the well you go down in the research. Well, or even smart, but you are not because I went down in the well yeah all people do when they, search things that expert. Understand and citizens, don't is play find the level that they're happy that they don't.

Do any more research and then they just default to whatever they were going to believe anyway, and then they say they did research. Could a child do that? Well, yes, a child could be fooled by thinking that they know something it isn't hard. So then we saw this situation with the Covington Catholic School and you saw the well in progress, so the first ring the first. Level of the well. Was these boys are a bunch of racists, doing bad things to this native american guy? What oops skeptics come in and say, nope, here's the full context. Those kids were heroes, not heroes, but there were good kids. How long did it take for somebody to come in under it and say here's the picture of those same kids wearing blackface. At a basketball game that is approved by the adults in the school full. Stop.

Half of the country yesterday believed that they saw a photograph. Kids in the modern era like right now wearing blackface. At a sporting event in their school with the administration's approval. Now how hard? Was it to figure out that didn't happen, that that was not true, how hard was it to figure out? That was not true? Well, it took well half a day and then MIKE Cernovich, probably other people tweeted it out the context which shows that they always pick a different color to wear as a theme for these games. There was a blue day or white day a black day, some of the kids wore black clothing, and sometimes they colored their face, It all had to do with the theme they had nothing to do with wearing blackface right

You probably shouldn't have had to even need to wait for the clarification 'cause that was sort of obviously fake. So somebody came in below MIKE certain actions says ha ha. Can go deeper in the well, then you can and that that you're, your black face photo was faked. What happened after that did the other side give up? No, they didn't they came in under him and said: here's a video in which these kids are sitting on a bench and some nice, maybe sixteen year, old girl or so Walks by and they all started, yelling at hood and and so therefore they are actually bad kids. After all, right now, it could be. There will never learn anymore about that situation, but if he had to bet you would say somebody's going say: wait a minute! That's not even the same kids or they're gonna say wait

that? What that girl was actually an activist or they're going to say wait a minute they were actually talking there. I know somebody across the street. It just looked like it on the film something like that, but the point is: it is a complete illusion that you can keep studying and you can keep researching until you get to the truth right you can't and Jen. Play speaking. You can't you can't know. If gun control works, you can't know us abortion. Blah blah blah. You can't know climate science, you can't know any of these stories. The news they another. Now a story about a brazilian troll who started the whole thing I'll talk about that a moment so. One of the reasons that I don't vote. In addition, Not wanting it to buy Tobias me is that I've said that I can't know what the right decisions are on the important stuff, so I take myself out of it

but I'm going to be consistent with my larger long term philosophy and the people who said that children should be involved in the political process. Totaly proved their point to me yesterday, by showing main massive amounts of cognitive dissonance, confirmation, bias and outright bad thinking too, which cannot make it a case that children would do worse than that. I can't right so. The new story is that original viral video? The the edited version came from some kind of a maybe a brazilian related troll, so, in other words, there's somebody in the United States, who has a very active troll account who created this situation and then other trolls magnified it.

Now. It's too early to know that I have any of the facts of this right. Okay, good! We could completely change but here's my question. Do we have yet another situation where a foreign entity is messing with the United States, an if it's Russia, isn't it pretty anti trump maybe this Russia. Why isn't? Why is nobody blaming Russia? So I don't? The Brazil connection tells you it's a brazilian we don't live in a world that would say that, because the traffic or the the profile comes from here, that doesn't really tell you it's coming from there, but we are just at the beginning of finding out who it was because

it was somebody who was pretty protecting the pretty good. It was a pretty good thing all right. Somebody had prompted me to talk about our pos. Now, I'm not I'm trying need to talk less about her, for those of you who are new RP os is my name for AOC, because once you came out as a full racist, the r stands for racist. The p os does not stand for point of sale. You can figure it out so once she came out as just being anti white people, them, then yeah hi, I just have to label label her evil, trying to ignore her, but you just won't. Let me so there's a video of her saying that, because of climate science I'm going to die in twelve years.

What did all of you adults who are way smarter than children, so what did all of you adults, who were so much smarter than children? Think about that when she said we're all going to die in twelve years? Did you say to yourself good Lord she's, anti science and dumb? Is that what you said or did you say to yourself? She's is the female Donald Trump and the and the and the truth of that is not important at all. If you said to yourself my goodness, she's stupid, well, I think that's what children might have said. So let them vote. If you said to yourself, she understands. The hyperbole is the reason that she is the most famous Democrat in the world. So doing more of it, the smarter than doing less of it, and you saw a perfect example.

Overdoing it really really well and it's the reason we're talking about her, it's the reason she got the front page news, and then she went after Aaron Sorkin and quite well actually and caused him to basically back down in a ball. Guys in a sense, if you're watching her act and you're saying that she's dumb, I say children cuz whatever. That is it's not dumb. It's not somebody said she's not as clever as Trump? I would say. That's true. It's also true she's, not as old, because there is a certain level of wisdom that you're going to get just by being around awhile. So wait wait till she's. Seventy do you think you think she'll be smarter or seventy, probably probably right,

Somebody says ignorance is not dumb in this case, you have to tell yourself that she really believes we're all dead in twelve years There's nothing you could tell me that would make me believe she really believes. That's true. Ah, oh, let's see she's not as good as I. If she's, not as good as I think. Why are we all talking about her? That's the point. You know She knows nothing about economics, ah man, She knows more about economics than almost

Everyone of you because she understands the persuasion and economics of the same show understands hyperbole Shia. What it is she understands. What the first offer is, she knows how to get from here to If you believe that she really doesn't understand these economic concepts or even though she cares, I think that would be some mind reading and would not be in evidence. Alright, I don't want to talk about writing. Um. Yes, I am talking about her, so the whole point is: if you're, if you are a master persuader, it doesn't matter how badly people want to ignore you. The whole point is that even I, with my great desire to ignore her, find that I can't that's my point: if

missing that you missing you missing the show she has a degree in economics simply said that is correct. So, if you're arguing that the person who has a degree in economics and also understands hyperbole the same things that you don't think you're exactly correct, you gotta be careful about that. Yes, somebody! So she knows enough of it. She knows as much about economics as Paul Krugman. No, I don't think that's technically true, but it is true that his prediction of the economic future was no better The child's. She said. If we're short on money, we can print some more she's right. If you're short on money, you can print some more wow

You can't criticize her by saying things that are true that she said now you can say: inflation, etc but keep in mind that Warren Buffett said the same thing. So when you're criticizing AOC or POS for saying. If you run out of money, you can print some more you're, not that or from what Warren Buffett said. So think, twice all right enough about her. I don't think, there's anything else happening and see like that was the only news. So let's talk about N Korea so that there's talk of the coming up. It is really

It's really just mind. Boggling to watch see CNN covers the North Korea situation versus you know the more trump friendly media ONS on CNN. They say that we've actually lost ground with North Korea because North Korea- got the summit, they got to keep all the nukes and they're, probably even building more of them there for N Korea is just winning they've played us. The president is a big old dupe. Here's what they don't report. The president, took away their reason to ever attack us. He took away the reason, He made friends with Kim Jong on, probably convince them that we don't have any real reason ever attack them unless they attack us, which is with the key point that had to be made.

And so, if you're cnn- and you fail to report that this president did Open I've never seen the president do. Can you think of any case? where the United States was in a military conference nation or a pre confrontation, and then somebody just took away the reason. And just said, oh, how about we just don't be like that and then convince the other side to just stop being like that, because it was never any reason for them to be at each others, necks anyway, Have you ever seen that happening? I mean I'm, not a historian, so there baby. Some case where somebody else work. Their way out of a nuclear war. Toy Their way out of a nuclear war, possibly one of the greatest accomplishments of any president in the history of african president How does CNN report it.

Well? It didn't get anything done so there's your issue, two worlds that might work if president as Trump prison for life? Well, I don't see the next president coming in and re declaring hostilities with N Korea, it's possible, but I don't see it happening. What was your simulation common it and want to make? A few days ago I forgot the car, your call the summit, a victory for Trump. I don't know if you're talking about the first one of the upcoming one I was still in the golden age absolutely so. Here's a question that kind of gets to that golden age point you know. I think I talked about this before that

extreme poverty. Poverty in the world went from. I don't know thirty, some percent under Reagan too. Now it's down all the way to nine percent, just immense prog. In the world in the way that we've never seen before. There's, also all kinds of progress, and, basically you know every level of humanity. There's progress at the moment, so yeah, it's it's definitely a golden age situation, but here's here's the key question on climate change. If you had a trillion dollars to spend, let's call it an extra trillion dollars, but it's not extra because it would be you know, deficit spending. Let's say you had a trillion dollars use it anyway, you want it now, in our case, the United State.

Could, probably borrow another trillion over over years and we can still pay it back. So if we have an extra trillion, would you be better off spending the entire trillion I'm trying to get green energy and get Coleman, you know work on climate change as aggressively as possible. Or would you spend that trillion dollars directly benefiting the poor? The nine percent who who are literally starving to death, which of those two plays, is better Would it not be entirely immoral to throw the poorest part of the society under the bus to give the rich people's beach houses intact? I'm oversimplifying, of course, But can anybody tell me that the moral choice is to

take a trillion dollars away from the poor, maybe not directly, but in terms of bring down the economy. If you slow down the economy of the people at the bottom suffer the most. So, let's say let's say working on climate change, aggressively might kill a hundred million people. Another words in all the right things that the green people want to do. My kill one hundred million people, whereas if you took, Gillian and kept the economy. Humming the everybody is boat. Race is a little bit more. People come out of poverty. This guy listen to that and then one hundred million people don't die because they have health care and their food, which one is the moral choice. Now it seems to be that we've got a fighting chance of keeping the economy strong and then

coming out how to suck the this year. Two out of the air. There are half a dozen companies who can already do it. Each of them are trying to become more efficient overtime. They will be seems to me that um it's hard to make a case for one of those being the moral, the moral situation you know this seems that the most moral path is whatever is most directly beneficial to the poor and unfortunately, coal and oil and fossil fuels, and and all those- set that now. One of the questions that I have is an open question is: what would it take? What would it take to get us from our current situation where nuclear is essentially impossible because of the regulations and and how long it takes? What would,

take to move this from a place where nuclear isn't practical leasing, new plants- and it just takes too long- is too expensive. What would it take to change that? If, if we said, let's do the Manhattan project to make commercial nuclear power safer and more efficient. What would that look like Could we just try harder and remove some regulations? Is there any? Is there any way to get there? I wonder- and I don't know there might be, but I wonder: um true mini reactors yeah. It seems like yeah, and what about Here'S- something, I don't understand Why is it that we can have nuclear power on submarines and, the summary

it just seemed to operate fine and forever and if we were to build a new submarine tomorrow, couldn't we put a nuclear plant on it? Can somebody explain to Maine? This is a real question by the way I'm not. This is not an opinion. It's just a question. Is it true there we could. We could build a nuclear sub tomorrow and put a brand new nuclear power plant on the sub. Is that true 'cause? If that's true and at the same time we can't build warm on land, what's different so the open question hope somebody can answer for me. I'm got go. Do some other things and I will talk to you tomorrow.