« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 458 Scott Adams: New Climate Change Challenge, Mr. Kellyanne Conway, and More

2019-03-20 | 🔗


  • New Zealand is trying to keep an assholes name from being known
    • FOX respects the concept, CNN publishes his name
  • Mr. Kellyanne Conway vs. President Trump’s pushback tweets
  • President Trump’s genius: understanding what others don’t
  • CNN top headlines…there’s nothing new, recycled topics
  • Dem proposals with a common purpose, election rule changes
  • Everything the Dems are proposing…is to get them elected
  • Can an ancient white guy become a Democrat Presidential candidate?
  • Climate Change expert, American climatologist Patrick Michaels
    • Russian model shows lower temp increases, accurate so far
    • IF their model results CONTINUE to predict correctly…
      • …THEN, climate change isn’t a major problem
  • Geoff Price, @GeoffmPrice, annihilates skeptics of climate change
  • Patreon alternative, a donate button has been added to WhenHub
  • You can add donate button to your own webpage to receive donations
    • Anyone listed as an expert on WhenHub/Interface can receive donations
  • Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin also working on Patreon alternative app

Please support my Periscopes and Podcasts. I also fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer these methods 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.

This is a demonstration of a personal DONATE button you can add to any blog or web page. All you need is a free account on the Interface by WhenHub app.

The post Episode 458 Scott Adams: New Climate Change Challenge, Mr. Kellyanne Conway, and More appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
bobo bow boardroom replied my good my film makers a quality product watch this well if all goes well you're her sound quality just improved i'm opening hello old hello dan hello ricky a maxim job stevie and jimmy it's good to see you come on in gather around we just have to talk about but to make our talking all them more interesting listen joy the simultaneous up if you ve the copper mugger glass steiner jealous thermos if you're sure
with your favorite liquid i like coffee you can join me now for the simultaneous and a whole it's gonna be good ah so just operating you on project i've been working on and job pollack has been working on as well which is to see if we can take one piece of fake news and just change people's minds about it now what s interesting is very unusual that you have conclusive no doubt about it proof for something people will say that about everything from climate change do whatever but the reality is you almost never can prove something's true essentially is actually rare usually is just i'll say well depends what you are looking at it depends whose
information you're taking but sometimes you can have the evidence was so objectively obviously true the boy size can look out and say ok that's true is very rare and so one of those situations is the the myth that president trump once called the neo nazis and charlottesville fine people now that's widely reported by sea and then they say it i think they ve set it as many as ten times a week depending on the weak they reported as true now it's a very unusual situation could you can turn the transcript or you can watch the actual video on edited of the president talking and he says exactly the opposite of that he says i'm not talking about the neo nazis and the races he says indirect clear language and is reported as the un as the opposite
now you would probably save yourself while you picked the easy test this is easy because the facts are confirmed by a live video plus the transcript and both of them are completely unambiguous they say in the clearest possible language the opposite of what is reported on cnn msnbc the other media so do you think that job pollack and i could make a dent in this this smith by simply showing people the real information if you said that we can you have grossly overestimated the mental flexibility of the public now with her we certainly made a dent in terms of i would say
trading trumps supporters how to deal with the question when it comes up so now when it comes up in somebody says he called the racist fine people you know what to do you couldn't even go to the transcript you can go to the video you can show that it didn't happen but what will happen is if you take somebody's ok let's clear your schedule i'm going to just is your mind just one person i'm just gonna change your mind here's you believe is true now he did have the transcript and now watch the video to see that is wrong i now that i've showed you in completely clear objective language see that with your own eyes there you are a hundred percent wrong can you change your mind here's what people do
but he said bad things about mexicans so they will just change the topic if you were to weigh the weak and come back to that person and say ok but now a week has grown by but didn't you thought about it you certainly now he did not call the races fine people write with weak we clear that up last week what would that normal individual do that person would say no you didn't know it's i heard it with my own ears and then you would look at him say do you have no memory of what we did last week where you made the same claim i showed you on the transcript and i showed you live video that it didn't happen just a week ago and now you're telling me this some other different version reality
what i'm describing would be the actual predicted normal response to somebody who had them that wrong about something cognitive dissonance would wonder a kick him and under world would become a fantasy illusion maybe more than it already was in which they can just translate the truce backed everything they want so talking people out of their illusions no matter how solid you're evidence it is actually a second that largely can't work and do public demonstration of it i hope the fascinates you from the psychological perspective on a political level probably nothing changed because people just don't change their minds but from a psychological perspective i hope this was interesting to watch how immune people are today
they don't care other others a weird situation happening that you're sometimes if use twitter a lot you run into situations such as i did yesterday where one of my critics came in and said well i guess i totally only you yesterday scott because i made that good point on twitter and then you this walked away you couldn't answer me i guess that means you're not an honest player any oh you were lion all along and i shown you for the idiot that you are and i look at their cover and i always have the same thought and you are i don't remember that conversation i certainly don't have any memory of walking away from conversation i don't know who you are i dont know what point you made so declaring victory when i don't even know who you are or what
we were talking about or what your boy was is a little premature so let me say as a general comment that i dont spend all of my time on twitter just looking for every comments like him reply to it seems like i do but i don't and so it would be quite normal that people would comment on that wouldn't necessarily see it i policy most hence seventy percent but there is an interesting one happening now where coming to believe that i'm in some kind of a disagreement with not seen tell no one it is but i can only tell from the comments people are saying about it that apparently i'm in some disagreement somebody i don't know what it is but apparently a minute and
all i can tell from what people are telling me is there i argued that if you get if you have better information about your data that you should change the bad data to the good data so i've made that claim that if you oh your data is bad and you're trying to make some decisions based on it subsequently come out with good data and we are confident that the good data better than the bad it would be ok replace bad data with good data i've seen solely on the carbon says that's fudging you're fudging now apparently there's some kind of brain yak argument the says you should use that data when you have a good deal and i don't know what's going on because i'm watching people argue this point
people are saying to me in direct language that you should use bad data to stake in system were some something something science and i keep saying i'm not even though to have this conversation because if he had no your data was bad fixing it seems like it's always the right answer so it may be that i'm completely misunderstanding whose arguing with me or what point there making so so people here recalling that data manipulation i dont understand i dont even understand the point so get exactly i'm somebody saying here misunderstanding and i'm agree i misunderstood the point so i think we're talking about climate change and i in the topic was
i some people made some models based on the data that they thought was accurate i didn't like where the models went but they looked at their diet data they send out this is bad data we will publicly it will tell you what we're doing i'll tell you why word on it i'll tell you why the good data is better now apparently that's not science there's some there's some problem with using better data somebody's gonna need to explain it to me the way that makes out some just believe that topic so my my summary of that topic is people are arguing with me and i dont even with the topic is a pair they are having a debate and i don't know what it's about welcomed my day so the new says that rubber craft owner is robert right
of the new england patriots who got busted for allegedly using the services of a massage parlor they had sexual sexual services and i guess there's been some kind of an offer where are you i'm going to jail if he does some kind of classes too to learn about the badness of what he did will you stop ruining my punchline by getting ahead of me yes the story has a happy ending dammit you knew where i was going and he got there first but i guess i was was too easy let's talk about the new zealand mass murderer and third there are certain outlets who use his name
if you gotta cnn they print the name of the mass killer new zealand if you got a fox news they don't if you go do apparently the prime minister of new zealand is also saying that she'll never under the name now even one i've seen the name and i've seen that a few times on cnn maybe some other places actually go out of my way not to remember it so am i actually tweeted that it's a good does a good start not talking about his name why shouldn't we just erasing from history now what i say arisen from history i dont mean that we never tell the story i mean that well limit let me put it this way i'm gonna make a specific suggestion i want you to see what you think about it what if you had a standard no law
not a law but a standard the said that when you have a situation like this is historically important to say who did it are you don't want to give them attention so how do you how do you handle the fact that historically is just a fact personally as a name wishes i wouldn't is the same time you don't want to give him attention how have new balances two things i have a suggestion i believe that the his name should exist in one place on the internet just yeah that was a webpage they're just as his name and any article about him that's a written article on the internet would just link to the page that has name so that people could go look for the name and they could find it but if they didn't look for it
it would not be discoverable in words it would be easy to look for it because it would say now shooting happened and the killer area the killer has a link if you wanted to know the killers name you can do it you just click on the link his name comes up if you don't want to see it it's not your face you have to click on it so i would suggest as a standard that rather than a him from his me which which i think more people can say that's going too far instead that we should all agree on a just one place that has the name same length for everybody and just as name or maybe just a picture if you want but all articles after that should simply say the new zealand shooter and hyper linked to it
you will never accidently see his name i prefer as a consumer that i'd not accidently see his name when i met when i read the news on cnn i accidentally saw his name and it bother me in actually bothered me when i watched a fox news they were very careful to not mention his name and i thought to myself that's better than the news it's better than the news they they ve improved on the net because the news would have included his name but that would not have the world a better place the way fox news reported it did make the world a better place does a contributed to a standard in which making the person famous is nodded zairean outcome so does my suggestion for the day
let's talk about mr kim m conway tweet i have to read the actual tweet i think most have you seen by now but it's so darn good from the president that we have to share a laugh i of course you know they kelly and conway trusted advisor to the present has been tweeting horrible tweets about the president saying these mentally to these been doing for a long time and the president has been largely muffled about it but apparently he's been a muffin i assume he's had a conversation with kelly and conway
stands to reason that they have actually talked about it and i assume that gallienne has expressly said do it you need to do mr president or some version that so if you're thinking that the president is just trashing the husband what is trusted advisor without her being in on it as i think that would be a naive now it's possible i'm not there i'm just speculating but the most likely scenario is that he at least warned her and said look i'm going to have some fun with this we're gonna tweet about your husband just go with it which would have been perfectly fine i think with her my guests unjust speculating but it seems that the more likely explanation fears here's the here's the twin from today from the president of the united states george conway often referred to as mr
kelly and conway by those who know him is very jealous of his waist success and angry that i with her help with her help this fund ports with her help didn't give him a job he so desperately needed i don't know if he does burly needed it but so is basically saying that even his wife even his wife didn't want him to get a job even his wife didn't want to get this job and then the presence as a barely know em but just take a look a stone cold loser and a husband from her off now come on i get it when critics of the presidency you know you're being on presidential and in some way that maybe is bad for the country but
is there any way that this is bad for the country of course that this is good for the country this is nothing but entertainment courtesy of the entertainment chief you i say this all the time that was part of the i'm gonna call a genius allah genius part of the genius of trumps approach to the union the campaign and then the presidency he understands what other people do not understand he understands that the the show you know that the literally the entertainment is part of the process it's not it's not the unimportant part because what is it that we focus on we focus on the show the entertainment if that's what the public is looking at and the president of the
nice days is job is to get us to focus on the things he wants so that we can make progress the present understands us and so he uses the shell to focus here one entertainment entertaining things when that helps us to focus on was important when they also you just moving your focus but he puts it in and entertaining package so there you wanna go with it don't you want to read this tweets when the tweet i just read you is that not entertaining did you not enjoy harriet even if you are an anti tampering you said yourself my god it's sit so bad that a president of the united states you're saying insulting things about the husband of his of his ill loyal
well what would you call it the advice even the people who were like a little bit bothered by it are also entertained right he is intentionally entertaining for a functional reason which is that it sucks the energy and of anything else you cared about and that on this so what the president does is he's a master of understanding the human mind is like a shelf sleep shellfish fall it won't process anything else my shellfish fall so the president when every sees is empty shelf space another words whenever the news is slow president johnson
as he knows the worst thing for him as a slow newsday what does cnn talk about when it's a slow newsday they talk about old news about the present we'll talk about russia will talk about cohen and i won't even be new news or we'll be trivial new trivial new news there will be no but not that different so if he doesn't feel the shelf somebody else well so you look at this this george conway quote and if you don't understand persuasion if you'd understand human mind shelf space if you don't understand the business model of the press if you don't to understand communication if you don't understand humor
you don't understand how the show is part of the political process and this president as has brought the show like nobody everyone doing if you don't understand all those things it just looks like the president is being foolish if you do understand persuasion than you understand how the mind works in yonder stand psychology do understand marketing year understand brandy understand politics you understand humor you understand those things you know actually what is known as he has done your mind from wherever it might have been to this terribly unimportant little dramatic
entertaining story about the husband others of its close adviser and it's just interesting that's all it's just interesting and scanned brilliant now how slow as the slow newsday england let's call up cnn and take a look let me tell you the types of things are the news so all cnn has this week are the following allied just good read rather newspaper top headliners mahler probe revelations explain trumps rage do you even need to read that why would he even bother really that article the same news you ve been watching for two years right that there's something about the mahler probe the trump doesn't like that news
raise your hand if you are not aware that the president was unhappy about mahler does their top headline the president's unhappy about the mulder report there's nothing new i mean i think they have some detail this new that's unimportant in recent years the next the next highest headlines so whatever at the top and the left of the badge are the important islet but the important headlines possess where your eye goes first to the top left so is it the next one is mothers team says is very busy this week that's it that's the mahler team is busy this week which could mean one of two things they said the article one thing it could mean is that the wrapping up the other thing you can mean is that they're not wrapping up that's the news the new
this is the mother might be wrapping up or he might not be wrapping up that's not news that's nothing there's something about mother had cohen's email early but that's just more slight change on the kohen story with no real importance do it like there's no there's no therefore too it is just as the fact mothers old boss working with him was terrifying that's just sort of interesting color has its narrowly news and there's analysis this is one of the top headlines analysis explosive russia revelations equal bad day for trump so i thought to myself explosive russia revelations i'd better read that it's an article from six days ago so the headline explosive russia revelations
from six days ago i'm sure i read the allegations from six days ago don't even remember i don't do you remember what happened six days ago about russia revelations pretty sure as an important so see the context the president's tweet about mister young or about george conway was uses actual day comes in the context of their just not much going on so he's he's made sure that it doesn't go a bad way by making you focus on that so i've noticed a trend in the heavens i haven't seen anybody put these three things together yet probably somebody has because i haven't watched the news nonstop but it seems to me that the democrats are three different things one is lowering the voting age democratic considering that
there are considering increasing the number of people and the supreme court so that they could just if they get a democratic president they could just say let's per ten more people on there and then i'll be democrats then there also talking about changing the electoral college what do all those things in common law have in common so everything that they want to do something to do with democrats willing how the average person is helped by any of these things so the democrats have completely sort of given up and coming up with ideas with good ideas the the democratic like main thrust his electors and i'm thinking to myself
you ve got this some big idea is changing the voting age changing the number and the supreme court change the electoral college and i'm sure they would like to change gerrymandering and do some things on voter depression and also they like to legalise some illegal immigrants and he any can all their big ideas and you said yourself that's a lot of big ideas what are they all have in common and indeed what is the green neil green new deal have in common with all those things they don't have anything to do with the public that there are all about getting democratically elected if it's their big ideas are hey hey i got a big idea is another way to go the elected as a voter i say that's terrific
you have any big ideas for me do you have anything there were worked for me now somebody was mentioning reparations and on it i'm put down as a marker this prediction anybody who comes out in favour of reparations for this election cycle in the future by change before this election cycle nobody can win the present say talking about reparations even if it's on the table it's it's it's a self kill shot there's no aid and went with it but here's the interesting thing it might be that the only way you can get the democratic nomination is to be in favour of reparations so i think the democrats have created a situation where they ve designed maybe accidently but they there
created a system on their side where they can't win because two things are true you probably have to be in favour of reparations to get nominated being in favour of reparations makes it impossible to widen the general election so i think they have actually taken themselves out of the game like it and i'm starting to wonder and and asked me if or tell me if you feel the same is is starting to look as if the democrats were playing for twenty twenty four has anybody said that yet so let me say for the first time what i'm saying from the entire democratic field is people who don't look like they expect to win does anybody else said that the democrats are not playing to win as far as i can tell because the green new deal is really
interesting and i actually i have little respect for it in the sense that i like a big vision i like where it takes the the political discussion even if it turns out we know we don't do it and just way they imagine that's actually where our minds should be you know our mind should be future future thinking or mine should be science based we should look at that the big priority so everything about the green new deal in terms of where it takes our minds i kind of like even if we if even we end up rejecting you know that the elements of it that's why i mind should be it with that big stuff well i don't know if you can win were that as anybody done a study to show that that's a wedding general election topic so we ve got to say
third best name recognition meadows in their summer but basically it's just organised by name recognition machines in the polls now initially that's primarily because name recognition right calmly harris sprawly as the third best name recognition betelgeuse in their summer but basically it's just organised by name recognition but let me ask you this when you look at binding popularity at what is designed by another number one is widens popularity under democratic cited fifteen percent or thirty
enter twenty percent somewhere that fifteen to thirty percent i forget where but doesn't it seem to you that both bernie and bite and have a cap in other words cannon cannon ancient why the guy inspired and twenty eight to somebody say that binds at twenty eight percent and somebody else's saying higher all right so let's listen to the polls are arranging that you know one slash three of the democrats are like inviting us or first choice doesn't it feel to you that that's also something like his cap if you were to look at the entire democratic field you think that a third of them would be perfectly fine with an old white guy s breast maybe a third of democrats but doesn't if you like two thirds of them would
non white or female and don't you think that those people are saying i'm not a democrat so weakened elect more very old white guys it feels like thirty percent or so there's something like a cap for biden or bernie in terms of susie hasn't so i may be more specific i'm not saying let me back up whoever the democratic nominated nominally is we'll get most of the demographics serve devil as a vote their vote for whoever the hell got nonaligned they're not gonna go for job but will they show up will two thirds of the democrats
excited about an old way guy i dont see it i dont see the excitement happening and i think that it puts see the black vote totally in play it puts the disks think about totally and play puts the woman vote totally play though these strongest things the democrats had so say again that twenty twenty still a million years away in terms of political years lots will happen the things happened between now and then are probably the things that will matter but by election day so there's almost nothing you could predict at this point but if things go the way their going if if straight line predictions ever worked it looks like a blow out to me it looks like trouble
it is just gonna just gonna walk through the feel these late because i don't think the democratic and how much left by the time they get an essentially let's talk about climate change i'm gonna i'm gonna make a simple so there's a sceptic who i first saw on work levin show on fox news he and his name is michael patrick i believe and he's cato institute guy scientists gala degrees and he showed a chart and made the following claim and what i like about this is that when you are looking at the climate change is very confusing and i've been asking for a while can you can you break it down patrick michael's thank you can you break down just one thing that a non scientists could look at to deter
whether they climate change predictions of doom are accurate or inaccurate is is there any one thing we can measure is it is a one statistic we could all understand and follow is there one through monitor somewhere that's the one and others not want to monitor but in other words is anything that a non scientists could look at a graph of protection an estimate and that they can say ok if this is true then i should be very worried about climate change but if it's not true than a network is there anything that could be that simple and patrick michael's suggests something that is as simple and a very interesting thing happened when i tweeted it and here's the interesting thing that happened so this claim is this that each each of the major countries have their own climate mob
and there's a pretty big range of where each country's preferred model predicts that data i will go in the future so you others and uncertainty range and i think all but one of them all but one of the national models are way hotter than what we ve actually measured and observed lately there is one model the nails it allegedly so everything i say is where they are not sure this is true so just put allegedly in your mind behind everything i say now allegedly the russian model not only uses the correct variables as inputs things we can measure and say ok this is this is it i can put this is not a correct and book so his claim is that
the russian model uses the correct inputs and has predicted the actual temperature accurately now what i like about this and i'm not i'm not tell you here that this is an accurate description i'm not telling you it's not accurate and tell you that this is the first time i've heard i predict that there's no problem because the russian model shows lower temperature increases now what i like about this and i'm not i'm not telling you here that this is an accurate description i'm not telling you it's not accurate and tell you that this is the first time i've heard the suggested metric there would really tell me what i want to know as a non scientist and the metric is this true or false just true or false if you can true or false me this one thing
and i can be convinced that you your true or false is accurate i will have a decision on how important climate changes in terms of dire consequences and it looks like this if it's true as the claim is made that the only model that has accurately matched the real measurements lately not words ten years ago is the only one is that's done the russian model and it's also true that the russian model predicts a model the increase in temperature one that you wouldn't have to be that worried about if that's true then climate change is not something you need to get too worried about it it's not true that there is a russian model that's the only one that does a good job of protecting not only the past heine casting but also less tenure
so if it's the only one but if that's not true then we we have we weren't because all of the other models they were in trouble so if all of the other models are the good ones and the russian one is just the stupid one then i'm worried i wanted just that so the only thing i want now is that one answer short of one answer i don't want to hear anything else so what i did was as i tweeted yesterday that there was a follow up this morning and i ask people to criticise the point so i show the graph it shows all of all of the younger the thirty or so models from the other countries up here it shows the russian line all by itself down here still going up but not as much and i say is this is this graph accurate because if its accurate to me the conversation is over i don't need to know anything else
seems like that would be the the lever there would answer all the other the other questions and so what kind of answer did i get typically anytime that i have tweeted any kind of very skeptical argument against climate change do you know what happens immediately suddenly to the deep bunking site so there are several sites that debunking of of the sceptics and so i wait and sure enough somebody sends me to the deep uncle cite some like our gay once again it is a fact graph and i look at the debacle and they d bunk didn't debunk the debunk said well this should have been different issues of indifferent and this should be different but it did not do bunk the primary claim which is that the russian mile is the
one and that the russian mile says there's no trouble no trouble had not not big trouble so even do bunkers did not expressly debunk the point that the russian model says there's no problem is the only accurate one so if the best de bunker i've seen doesn't even addressed the point at this point preliminarily i would say that climate change has been debunk that doesn't mean we're done because if ten minutes from now on somebody tweets me something mr scott you idiot here's the real data that charges he has just made up here's the actual information nothing on their charges accurate somebody does that i'm gonna be back to starting place which is i can't tell you
once i wouldn't really now after the bunker is right or the original claim i don't have any when it now but i can at least determine the smart people say is not accurate so far i have not seen smart people say that is wrong an interesting way there there's one individual who is all over my timeline copies me and a lot of tweets about climate change his name is that a jeff price jeff with a g g o f f and his terrific on the scientific argument in favour of i'm a change being the problem and what i say is terrific i mean that i'm watching probably ninety five percent of the people in about climate change and my feed our sceptics and one by one he takes all of their skeptical arguments and he annihilates egypt ages risks
shreds and even not being a scientist when you see do you see some ass the saying is per thousand g off like that and they is jeff well that when he annihilates people he points to the data and he is far more knowledgeable and i think in every case i've seen where he's come into the conversation i say his argument is way better so i've been watching him just annihilate sceptics skeptical arguments for months i think i think for months he's been just annihilating the sceptics and he does it so well that has gotten to the point where i'm thinkin
man i'd like to get this guy on my on my personal but he doesn't follow me like you send a message i follow him and then i thought that's interesting glossy should follow me says he's all over my time like but i looked i looked specifically for him to see what his debunking was of thee patrick michael's point that only the russian model is correct and it's not there now remember the first things i said earlier in this periscope i said the fact that something used there doesn't does not conclusive so you might come in today and indeed bunker bobby waiting for that but my larger point is all i want to know about climate change is is it true that the russian model is the only accurate one and that it says there's not much of a problem in the
so i want to know so for me the whole conversation of climate change is closed until i get that answer if i never hear that answer i dont know if i'm interested in it nothing else because there should be somewhere in the world a chart that is the improved version of patrick michael's chart if such a thing exists so i don't wanna hear somebody say whether a few problems with his chart i want them to show me the real choice i want to see the two of them side by side and i want to see that the real chart says that russian one is wrong does that exist because i would be convinced if you can show me that you could talk into a pretty well
let me give you for those of you who have been following my start up and also following the issue of conservatives being kicked off the platforms some of you know that my my interface by when hub app we added a donate button so some good tell you there's something new happening right now the scale of exciting right now if you download the free up gold interface by went home which i will show you here and there is a new thing you can either find an export or be an expert if you would like to receive donations you don't wanna be unpatriotic you can just be an expert takes you probably sixty seconds to just creating a plan to create the profile if you're on here as an expert you don't ever have to take any calls you can just have a profile so you can just
create a profile and just never taken calls but i'll just look at any one of these here's brok alexander and he hasn't donate button so is there automatically so in the app you automatically ever donate button but here's what we did we added the ability to put it down a button on your webpage and then the web page will just take you to the app or i'll take you to a web page that acts like the up so you now have the ability if you go do when hub dot com so when hub dot com if you go there you can search for a creator and if you ve saved up yourself you find yourself in we show you the html code just to copy is very easy that says presses button to copy this code and then if you have a blog or web page you can just pasted into your html people who know how to do blogs know how to do that just put
each html mode pasted in there and then your blog will have a button that says donate and that donate button will open up the interface by when her back or a webpage and people came to meet you so we have taken the patriotic model into the outside the app and so you can take that button and you can put it anywhere in the current version at one hub dot com if you tried to make a call from that you'd have to download download our app for the browser if you're not comfortable with downloading an app for a browser which my about half of you just wait about a week and will have it in browser mode so no downloads are necessary at them but if you wanted to see it in its in his brain therefore more than might be might be above or something
you can go to one out dot com and take a look and sign up for a free account all you have to do is put in your profile information and you can have a donate button i have a donate button and if anybody wants to support what i do on periscope you can do that at patriotic because i do anything beyond account scatter themselves or you can do it at the interface by one hub and let's your room robin and jordan petersen have talked about creating an app for conservatives for donations let me i don't know where that but let me make a general statement i dont know how much experience dave
ben and jordan petersen have of working with developers and creating apps and i also don't know if maybe it's already almost dark and somebody was working on it a general statement however long you think we should take your probably not even close the reason that my startup could create this function is because we have ninety five percent of it done for another purpose if you were to start from scratch and just say i'd like to build a competitor the patriarch if you talk to develop the developer was i that's gonna take macadamia sixty days two years later you would almost be done so my gas my guess without i dont have any info inside information so i'm just gonna
a general statement that however long day reuben and jordan petersen hoped it would take for their solution probably their finding out that it's not even close to whatever the first person and told them so usually the first person you doctor says he asked sixty days i can slammed that together and will be solid today's comes and goes it's gonna be two years somebody says i'm a developer and i agree if you talk to anybody developer you'll get it a similar description so i rooting for dave reuben in jordan peterson if succeed in whatever their doing so loved have options out there it's better than what i'm doing works well that's that's the way it goes
but i worry that is not imminent ah i just but i dont know so that's up to them to say how important it is i was my bidding on judge janine suspension it out i i don't even remember what exactly she said the gutter suspended so i don't ever opinion on it i do like the thought the fact that donna brazil is joining fox news i think that's a good play i like her i liked and brazil
light as a tv personality i think should be as from from just a business perspective i think she's a solid choice you have people are saying but she's a cheater but we know that so you could discover that when she talks about the news you can say well that's the rings true doesn't that's all you're safe now and i'll talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2020-03-31.