« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 473 Scott Adams: All the “Ridiculous Bullsh*t” in the News Today

2019-03-29 | 🔗

Topics: 

  • Adam Schiff has spent 2 years destabilizing America
    • Ironically, Schiff is a more likely Russian asset than POTUS
    • Couldn’t ANY DC politician be hoax-connected to Russia?
  • Mueller DID make a decision about obstruction 
  • Betsy DeVos Special Olympics budget cut, POTUS will override it
    • President Trump is now a savior of the Special Olympics
  • “Ridiculous bullshit” was a high impact persuasion phrase
  • Van Jones hired to help with prison reform movement
  • Few things benefit the economy more than employment
    • Few things benefit employment like education, trade or college
    • Payoff for investing in education, exceeds the cost
  • Marie Harf was pushing the “fine people” hoax yesterday on FOX
    • Why didn’t Martha MacCallum call her on that BS?
  • Is it true that drug prices haven’t gone up in last year? Huge if true
    • Cancer specialist on WhenHub Interface app, available
      • Specializes in finding, suggesting trial programs for patients
  • North Korea talks “sticking point”
    • Issue: How to get rid of their nuclear programs without doing that
    • Solution: Redirect to safer Gen IV nuclear power development
    • Practical solution, Chairman Kim saves face and also complies
    • North Korea could HELP America by developing Gen IV
  • Jussie Smollett nominated by NAACP for an image award

Please donate to 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. below is a demonstration of the 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 473 Scott Adams: All the “Ridiculous Bullsh*t” in the News Today appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Bum bum bum Bum Bum bum bum pom pom, pom, pom pom, everybody come on in here, NPC Otter, that's kind of a funny name, Ryan Good to see you gather round there. Still chair left couple of the couple of seats up front everybody come on and make sure you have your beverage. Ok, I see somebody else they're jealous. and it's time for a little thing. We call the simultaneous up and, if you're prepared, you already have a glass mug, possibly a thermoses tanker
Steiner jealous. You filled it with your favorite record and you're ready now to join me for the simultaneous SEP. So let's look at the news: here's the mental experiment for you, I'm not suggesting this happen, I'm just saying if it did happen. Imagine this imagine if somebody wanted to create a hoax in which they are making the case that Adam Schiff is an agent of Russia. How hard would it be now? I'm not saying that she have is an agent of Russia, I'm not
in that claim. I'm saying how how what would that look like so the first thing you'd ask use: has he ever had any conversations with any Russians who are socially and with potent You already know the answer to that. All of the senior politicians in Washington have had multiple contacts with high ranking Russians check contact with high ranking Russians associated with Putin check. Next, if you looked, could you find some suspicious our ties, Mentsh or anything connected with Russia in regards to Adam shifts last election. Well that nobody's looked as anybody looked, if you did look, would you find that many trolls.
from Russia had made in the ads. And how many ads would it take because remember. The entire russian troll farm operation. Here's something that they don't say when they report the news. They say Russia interfered with the election. True Russia had a troll farm, the set out bunch of ads that were negative for Hillary Clinton. True and then they stop there. You know what else is also true: The ads were so poorly made, they look like a high school effort. Anybody who understands anything about influence would tell you there lately? Inert.
The other thing they don't tell you, is there weren't that many of 'em really compared to all of the other messages going on about the election, and the last thing they don't tell you is that there were also ads against Trump. So how exactly do you expect? and the fact that the russian troll Farm made memes that were anti Trump well then you say well, ok, Russia was trying to not get Trump elected. He was trying to just so discord, to which I say those are different. Those are different things, sowing discord actually it makes some sense, I suppose, and that would that would explain whether ads on both sides, Clinton ads and and Trump ads.
It does it does what I just described, which I believe passes all the fact. Checking have you ever seen any expert say I've looked at the Russia ads and these would work you've, never seen that, because there's no expert who would ever say that nobody ever says the Russians tried to interfere. But when we looked at the picture of their interference. Just talking about the troll farm. Here it was so amateurish and for whatever reason it was attacking both sides that I'm not sure we can conclude anything from it. That would be close to the truth. So, anyway, if you were, if you were trying to frame. Adam Schiff or any other major politician in the United States. Couldn't you find lots of contacts they had with Russians.
and then you would look for other information such as you would try to find out if uh, if they had ever tried to influence anything for you or you'd, ever tried to do anything for that. So could you find anything that Adam Schiff ever did that you could define as positive for Russia? Do you think you could look at Adam, shows record and find anything that looks like it's sort of Softon, Russia or good for Russia? Well, how 'bout the most obvious thing, the most obvious thing, if it's true as our
Intelligence agencies have said that the thing that Russia likes more than anything, is to sow discord. Who is selling more discord in the United States than Adam chef? Is there anybody who is selling more discord than Adam Schiff? No Adam Schiff has been involved in a plot to dismantle the United States for the last two years. Compare that to anything Trump is accused of alright. Let's compare these two things
chef spent two years, destabilizing the United States, a nuclear power and got really close to succeeding. That's why Adam shifted for Russian here's? What the Trump campaign debt, Don Junior went to a meeting I'll say it again in case the in case. There's any you know, new ones left Adam Schefter spent two, There's almost successfully dismantling the stability of the United States, a nuclear power, as
Adam shift it and nobody? Nobody is questioning that statement. That's exactly what he did the Trump campaign. There was a time they went to a meeting and nothing happened. Those are not equivalent they're, not even close. So if the evidence of collusion is a combination of how many russian contacts you've had, plus what you've done that Russia would like done, there's no it's not even close all by Adam Schiff has way more russian contacts through his whole career probably way more contacts, then Trump or Trump's campaign good. so wouldn't it be true- he'd- have way more russian contacts. I mean I don't know if it's true, but don't you think it's true Yes, I would think it would be true of any professional politician at level they
probably all met. A lot of Russians and all the Russians seem to be connected to to put in. It, certainly is true that what he's done is way better for blue Moon than any. thing that the Trump campaign did not even close and they're, not even in the same ballpark anyway. I say this not because I think Adam Schiff is guilty of anything with Russia. I say it, so you can better understand how we could look exactly like Buddy was guilty of colluding with Russia. You could kind of randomly pick anybody and make the same case. If you look hard enough now, uhm and of course, people arguing against this would say. Well,
Well, it's different because Don Junior just to pick one example he intended. We know that he intended to get information at that meeting with the russian lawyer, to which I say it's still, the United States and still legal to walk into a different room in your own building, which he did as where the meeting was was in Trump tower It's still legal to walk into a room in your own building. You know the companies building in this case. and listen to something that somebody says. That's never illegal That is never illegal, speaking of which I'm going to brag about a prediction. Now I may have said this only once so I'm going to need some some witnesses who saw me or hurt me sad. Was there a point when talking about
struction of justice and the charges against the president? Do you remember me saying that there's no way that he could get convicted, and here was my reasoning- My reasoning was that professional lawyers oh really went to law school and know what they're doing and have done this for years? Looked at the case and looked at the evidence and said I don't know some say that looks like obstruction, but other qualified lawyers look at exactly the same information. Nobody is questioning the facts and said: that's not doesn't look like it to Maine
now. What did I tell you is always going to be true if high level lawyers can't even decide if it's illegal or not it's one thing to to differ about the facts, but the weird thing about this case is that both sides were looking at the same facts and we're satisfied that they had the facts. Nobody was guessing or or speculating about information. That was yet to come. We felt we all had the same information. So in the situation where professional qualified experienced lawyers some say it's looks like a problem. In some say it doesn't look like a problem. which way will that always go if you have lawyers as good as the President of the United States, It will always go to not guilty,
Can't go any other way because you don't live in a country where half of the legal profession can look at a case and say: hello. I can't even really tell I mean uh looking the law and look at the facts and man I'm a professional. I just can't even tell if that's even crime. There's no way. Anybody in that kind of situation goes to jail, no way our legal system. It has its flaws, it has its flaws, but that's never going to happen. I don't think you'll see that now when I say it's never going to happen, certainly it could happen to a poor person who doesn't have good representation. But if you have you know, if your lawyer is the Supreme Court, I'm exaggerating a little bit right, not not technically, but given that the president has made appointment
the Supreme Court and that their conservative leaning, I will say in a high hyperbolic way. The president's lawyer is the Supreme Court and they probably like it more than they just like you now. He also has some of the best lawyers in the world, or at least access to the best legal minds in the world, so the odds of that act actually being a a legal risk to the president. It's always scary, of course, but there was no real chance that you could get in trouble for that in the end? Now, with that context, what do you think about Muller's decision to punt the obstruction call to bar think about it with the understanding that the best lawyers in the world?
can't even tell if it's against the law did you want Mueller to make the decision think about it? You didn't want Mueller to make that decision in the end, because people are saying that it was Cowardly and chicken? I'm not entirely sure, because what we know What we know about Mahler, okay, very experienced. only understands the law and very smart, and as far as we can tell as far as we can tell honorable, as far as we can tell. A patriot right. I don't have any counter information to that. Everybody says the same thing. if all of those things are true and you you wouldn't. You soon capability and good intentions. So I assume both of those things about Muller high capability, especially with his staff, etc.
Good intentions, meaning he wanted to have the fairest result by kicking over to bar. He sent a very clear message and the clear messages is that the law itself is not clear. That's the message so the message that Muller sent to bar and indirectly to the rest of the country-
they professional lawyer and in fact some of the top lawyers in the entire country can't even tell if this is against the law. That was actually a cleaner message. Then, if he had just said, we didn't find evidence that the law had been broken. I actually prefer the way Muller did it because bars decision is no brainer bars the boss. Well, you've got a situation where it's so ambiguous. Your very best thing to do is to take it up to the boss, and if that boss could kick it up again, that boy should right if bar had a boss whose job it was to make legal decisions above bar, why should bar have done
picked it up right, but there was nobody for bar to kick it up too. He was the top legal person and then the next one was the president and that doesn't count so Muller's decision to take an ambiguous situation that even lawyers can't tell if it's against the law and kick it up to his boss, a plus one hundred percent, exactly what I would have wished him to do. You know, had I looked at the situa you saw the President override Betsy Devos on the special Olympics.
so the story is Betsy Devos was going to cut. I don't know eighteen percent of the budget for special Olympics, which was just the government part. Her argument was that the private industry would take care of the rest of it. I didn't realize how many people were involved in special olympics. There are two hundred and seventy two thousand kids involved in special Olympics I had no idea. If you would ask me, I would have said five thousand, that would have been my guess: five thousand it was it eighteen million it was or was it eighteen percent? I'm looking at your comments, anyway. But the point is it doesn't matter at this point? The president in a when he was caught going to the helicopter in the press, was asking questions he said that he's decided to override his people and to reinstate the funding. Now here's the great thing about that.
I was laughing when when I saw it, I didn't expect it, but he made exactly the right place. So first of all, Betsy to boss is also issued a statement saying that she too with That was special Olympics could always be funded and always felt that way, but she was just to do her job, basically with the budget, so there's a little awkward for her, but she's she's handling it and here's what I love about it. From the president's point of view, the story started out this way. The story started out as Trump is a monster who doesn't like kids, who would be in the special Olympics, so that was the headline he walked into in the morning, but sensing an opportunity that his own staff was really the ones who are making those
visions. He publicly overrode the decision and said no. I disagreed. So I completely change that, so it completely changes. The story to Trump is a champion of special Olympics. He took a headline which was twelve page sleeve special Olympics to Trump is the Savior of the special Olympics. Now not exactly course? The Democrats will just say I screwed up should have been one decision the whole time, but in terms of what the public saw on camera because were were far more influenced by you know, a an anecdote to them the concept. The concept was something in the Trump administration was going to put the special Olympics, but it didn't happen. It's sort of a week concept. The stronger part is the visual of Trump over riding his own staff to fund the special Olympics.
Well. That's the part you're going to remember so politically. He took a total losing hand and just said: well, let's see what happens if I do this rip. Well, that worked so that was cool and it's not a big enough story that lasts forever so you got a winner of the LOS. If you saw his speech well last night and what was the best applause line there there was. There were two words: He used that if you have children in the room cover their ears, cover their ears put in your headphones. Naughty word is coming so in front of this rally ground, I would say the trouble of more relaxed and in the pocket. You know in terms of his job. He was in the pocket and it was really fun to watch. I don't watch the first part
you had other stuff to do, but he refers to the first of the whole Russian a collusion stuff, as quote ridiculous bullshit now this president can swear in public better than any president has ever sworn in public. I'm sure he's pretty good at it in private to but in public. Have you ever see the base where in public better this president, so now the beauty of it. The beauty of it is that that line is sort of taunts. It wants the anti Trump pressed to report it. What do what do the citizens of the United States think? About the occasional use of the word bulshit bullshit in the context
where it's totally the right word right, he's not just thrown in swear words, because where words are fun, he he's not. This is this is the part you have to catch. He does occasionally throw in a naughty word, so this is not like he's never done. but if you think about it, he really he really he's careful about when to use. He uses it to draw attention to stuff. and it uses it just enough that it seems like something new. So it draws your attention to it, whereas if he did it a lot, it would be too much so his perfect use of an inappropriate term and putting the word root
if you listen from that is what really sold it by the way. If all it says is the russian collusion investigation was bullshit that would have been a week. It just would have been a swear word, but he says in his perfect delivery red. Gillis bullshit, it was the most convincing public cursing I've ever seen, layers of those authentic. It was, I know, we're making a big deal about something that seems like a small. But it, but it really was so well done that I have to call them right. Sorry, allergies, this morning, so are you saw the news that the there's a prison reform effort put together by make mills and jz,
yeah. I guess I got funded two hundred and fifty million dollars, including Robert Kraft. He was one of the thunders, so he probably needs to find a few things too stay on the side of the angels at the moment, but Van Jones has been hired to headed up. So it's going to be a professional organization dedicated to prison reform. I don't know exactly what they're going to do, but I, like I like everything about it and I like Van Jones is, is the leader that I think that could produce some good stuff. So that's just a just a congratulations. Note, here's a question for you: how long is it been since President Trump created, a new l range think about it?
now, I'm not talking about an executive order for the or the emergency order. 'cause, that's just politics Not talking about talking about canceling Obamacare is, as over reported. You know, he's going to. He wants to keep existing conditions etcetera. So I'm not talking about just the politics. How long is it ten cents. Trump just said something that people work, my god, you can't say that prior to mid terms right prior to mid terms, that's what I think too they are. The Golan is just politics. I don't know that the Mccain comments qualify anymore when when he was originally talking about Mccain. It seemed like he was banging. He was saying, terrible things about a war hero and then later
later it seemed like, maybe but things were a little bit dirty because not Did he have a down vote on Obamacare getting rid of it, but he you had some involvement with getting that dossier to the press. Now that involvement seems to be correct or maybe not at all 'cause. Now we know that Lindsey, Graham actually advised we came to give the dossier to the to the FBI, and it was somebody that was on Mccain staff who took To the press, so we don't know the Mccain necessarily was behind anything going to the press, but it gave the president an opening to criticize them, and it doesn't seem to me that the Mccain criticisms really caught the public's attention. That was my impression. Wouldn't you say it?
'cause. It seems like just more of the same and yeah and Mccain had to come in a little bit um so anyway. My point is that the President said after the midterms that maybe he would try to tone it down a little bit and I would say that maybe has- or maybe we just got used to him- or maybe it's in between, but he's gone along time without creating a brand new story of outrage. Am I wrong about that fact checking on that, but it seems like that. Hasn't happened lately. Alright, let's talk about
Let's talk about um, how does how to fix everything? Let's say you wanted to fix healthcare. You want to fix prison the prison system, prison reform. Let's say you wanted to fix education. Let's say you wanted to fix a the the Let's say you want to fix all those things at the same time. Is there any and let's say you wanted to do reparations slave reparations slavery, reparations and let's say you want to do that in a way that did not make anybody, mad sounds impossible right how in the world, could you do slave reparations slavery, reparations
country without angering a huge amount of people can't be done right, well, challenge accepted. Let me suggest something that would solve a whole host of problems by solving one thing. I just want to put that out there, so close the president said we need at least one high quality free education program, so we don't have to change all colleges. We just need to create one guaranteed free pass to college of for everyone for everyone, so that is so here's my plan. Yes, the only thing you fixed was the cost of a good college education
or, let's say, training as well? So it's not just college. It's any kind of career changing. If you were to make that all free. Could you do a lot less with healthcare? Yes, 'cause? If you're trading feel better. You have gone a long way toward getting people jobs and then they can afford healthcare there or they work for a company that pays for their health care. So if you were to fix the colleges, slash career training thing and make that free for everyone, you would make a huge impact eventually. on healthcare costs. 'cause people would be working and when you're working you can, at least have a chance of affording, let's take slavery, reparations if you came up with any kind of a plan transferred money from people who had people to do with slavery. Two people who may or may not have even been descended from slaves nobody's going to
well we say nobody, but it won't. It won't get public approval enough of it. So you can't have anything. That's like a direct transfer of wealth from one ethnic group or many often ethnic groups to another that will never fly in this country and should but suppose you said, as partof slavery reparations were going to make it college free for everyone, four everyone. It will have no no impact on rich people 'cause. They were going to go to college anyway, but for everybody of every ethnicity it would be free that I think you could consider a form of reparations and I'm going to use a hawk Newsome's insight that I think he borrowed from somebody, but I liked it
so he says I'm turning off now you haven't even heard the argument. Why would you turn it off before you hear the argument, I like the people who are so close minded I'm not going to wait till the end. Where I hear all the argument, I'll just I'll just hear the first part- and I'm done don't you trust maine- that by the end of this, is going to sound better than his now. Don't you think I can sell this a little better than I have yet you don't think, there's more coming to mind first day under our scope. So here's the thing if you fix the educational in this country you would take. You would go along way towards fixing race relations. It will go a long way to fixing healthcare, because more people would be working
go. It would eliminate future college debt because you wouldn't need it. If you didn't want it, it would reduce our debt national debt because ' so the college would cost a lot the amount it would add to the economy eventually would probably be far greater there. A few things There are more valuable than putting somebody to work. Let me say it this way. If you can, if you had a choice between giving all of you already have jobs, a ten percent raise or a few of you who don't have jobs go from unemployed to employed, which is better, is way well. It was way better for the total economy to take somebody from unemployed where they cost money to employed where they're creating value
that's the big gap going from unemployed to employed as an enormous economic leap. Getting a raise is really good, but that's a smaller, smaller impact right, so you can take care of prison reform as people would have education and more options. So if you fixed healthcare, I'm sorry, if you fixed only education made it free widely available and covered trade trade stuff, as well as regular college. You would sell you solve almost all of the other big problems in the country.
until the robot stick over and then none of us have jobs and see the world that somebody said colleges B s except for stem. I think of that inside is not only correct but could be a key part to making college free. So the first thing you should do to make college free is a knowledge. What the commenter said, which is the current form of college, is not only expensive, but it's way or poorly poorly designed. If you look at the classes that people have
to take to get some kind of a degree, there's always some garbage in there right, you know you can you can design an accredited school? Maybe it's a government accredited accreditation for a a free path. Now that path might include a lot of online training. So could look like anything all right. Well, apparently, last night on Martha Mccallum Show Aghast Marie Harf was armed and said once again repeated the fine people hoax, and I haven't seen the clips of anybody can between the clip I like to see it but apparently Martha Maccallum did not uh, oh somebody who you're still in the education thing, so I didn't do a good job of summarizing the point. The point looks like this.
There are some things you can spend money on and you've just lost your money, but there are other things you spend money on an you get it back. So it's not an investment per say it's a good use of money because you put a little money here, but you gain a lot of money. Their education is more like that than almost anything else. If you If the government just said alright we're just going to have a bigger deficit or raise your taxes or whatever you're going to do, but everybody is going to get free college. Maybe it's on line, maybe maybe you can all go to Harvard, but there's some kind of free college and training. If you did that the idea is. the benefit to the overall economy was so be so enormous, maybe in ten years, but it would be so enormous that the The national debt would go down overall, 'cause people would be working, healthcare would cost less 'cause people would have jobs
so the idea is that one dollar spent on fixing education would create ten dollars for the economy. So that's the key point. If it's not true that investing one dollar,
in education? Gives you back ten dollars in the economy? Then I'm not in favor of it. So that's the only thing you have to ask yourself: is it true that putting a dollar into education so that everybody that especially the lower income people can get a real education or a real job training? Whatever that looks like? Is it true that a dollar spent on that creates ten dollars an economic benefit or something that's a multiple of one dollar, so just check that one point 'cause, it's the one point is true, then all the rest of the argument holds together and if it's not true not available together. So just fact check me on that one thing: that's it all right, uh so saying Martha Maccallum had Re Harford Gaston and she repeated the fine people hoax. If anybody's eclipse send it to me because once again somebody says wrong: if it is wrong, then I
I would certainly reassess my opinion, so we've got to keep staying on that fine people hoax, where I tweet it out yesterday. Some of you thought that if you do a Google search on quote, find people and Charlottesville. That's your search term. Google will kick up the debunking of the hooks in the third spot, so it's right on this near the top. So I think the first two links talk about it like it really happened, but then the third link fairly easy to notice calls it a hoax. So at least it's in the top page, so I'd like to get it to the top spot, so I'm going to keep hammering on it, but at least is at the top page uh. So thanks and thanks to Steve Cortez by the way 'cause his article in Realclearpolitics is the link that made it to the third spot. So without Steve, Cortez.
it was article that would not have happened so good work from Steve on that that really helps the country a lot. In my opinion, the president made a claim last night in the speech that this is the first year that pharmaceutical prices have not gone up. Is that true, I I did not see any fact checking, and so I I went to CNN page to find out, because you know it would be a big head president lied about pharmaceutical costs, and I didn't see it. Maybe it's there or maybe it's coming, but can somebody do a fact check on that? Is it true that drug prices did not go up in the past year? Is that true,
'cause, it doesn't feel true, but he said it very clear language and I did not see a fact check that fat checked. So somebody check on that 'cause, that's enormous, and that is enormous. If it's true and if it's not true I'd like to know, if there's anything, That's true issue in that category that he was talking about all right. Let's talk about, oh speaking of education, so last night my I've told you that I'm taking drum lessons online part of the reason I wanted to take Drum lessons online is to experience online training in a in a real situation where I really wanted to learn something, and that was the only method I was using other than practice so,
I drum teacher is now on my company zap, the interface by when Hub app, and I wanted to point anybody to him. Who wants to also take a drum lesson, because I can. I can vouch that it's been very good for me and he's a good teacher. His name is Michael and if you go to the interface by hub app where you can contact an expert and pay them for their time in real time by a video call. I'll just put him Drum Drum Drum Drum, drumming search for jobs, and then there are a whole bunch of drum teachers. I'll just tell you which one was mine.
To see if he's still under you have signed off other areas, Michael in its Berg. So if you want to use with my drum teacher just to use the keyword drums and look for Michael and That'S- burger, and he said that ninety five dollars an hour you'll see other drummers are cheaper. I would suggest that he might be worth it compared to the the lower cost drumming people so, and you can also schedule so he's got you schedule on there. So you could you can schedule yeah. I would hope that if you support the
the interface by one help at it will go a long way toward making making it easier to find information about a whole host of things. So this past week we had an expert on the interface by one. How about who is advising people on cancer clinical trials? Now think about this? Let's say you have cancer and you're you're going to you're as our doctor or maybe you've got a cancer specialist and you say: are there any clinical trials I can get into for my my type of cancer that doesn't respond to regular treatments. Would you regular doctor know about available cancer clinical trials that you could get into? And the answer is no
Because not every doctor is following that field of all the the clinical trials, so our expert was taking calls last few days is still on there. You can just search for cancer and- and he advises people how to find clinical trials. Now imagine trying to google that yourself, it's basically on Google, a ball it, at least in a comprehensive way. Yeah most people would not be able to know how to find the right, so in the other. The other problem is that the trials are really specific. Two types of cancer so matching that your cancer with a specific trial is no easy thing, but it can be done if an expert knows the field. So that's the sort of benefit that the interface by one hub app should bring.
And I hope I hope you will support it. I will also tell you just out of total fairness that the value of the when token that's integrated with the app so we've created her own crypto crypto, but let's say blockchain token that you can use to pay people within the app or cash. So you could just use regular cash if you want, but the value of the tokens, I'm could be going up, it's not an investment, and you should not listen to cartoonists telling you where to put your money. You should never do that, but there's a lot of activity and we're going to be doing any major series of marketing for the for the app
and in theory, if the app is successful, the value of the tokens would go way up, and so this would be the time if you thought it was going to be successful. This would be the time to order those tokens uhm no guarantees, not an investment, don't take five device from cartoonists, but it is nonetheless true that this would be the part of the life cycle that if it were going to go up, you would have wished you got in there. Alright N Korea seems to be stumbling in terms of our conversation with them. I would suggest- and I don't know if this is happened yet, but maybe I've said this before that,
stumbling block seems to be: how do they keep their nuclear program while also getting rid of their nuclear program? So there's one sticking point that people can't quite figure out how to get past and I've got a suggestion. And the suggestion would be that the United States or South Korea propose that they transition the nuclear expertise that they have for weapons into domestic. Maybe a test bed for generation, four nuclear power now question. Four: is this stuff that doesn't melt down it's easier, so you don't have the risk that you have with traditional old nuclear and if they have a bunch of nuclear experts, and this part you'd have to fact check, but I'm assuming that if you had expert,
isn't in nuclear weaponry. Alot of that should crossover to domestic nuclear purposes. Now one of the benefits of North Korea is that it's already a terrible dangerous. blaze and the Kim family can make any regulations they want about anything. So in theory, you should be able to get a nuclear power plant, a generation for plant up and running in North Korea, faster than you can do it anywhere else, simply because Kim can say what do you need? Well, we need a bunch of land and then, in a certain kind of place, you know needs in in some power and it needs you know whatever. It is. Thank you could just say: okay, you got it so North Korea could become
a world power in becoming experts in designing and exporting safe, small nuclear power? And so here's why this idea is appealing generation? Four nuclear power is appealing by itself. N Korea is a unique place where they could. They could speed through the regulations to build them. It's hard to do in the United States, 'cause it all the regulations. Next, it gives an it gives an off. Ramp for Kim, in which he comes out ahead with his nuclear program. Now you might say to yourself yes cap, but a nuclear weapons program is for a completely different purpose than domestic nuclear power. Those are not the same. Something- and maybe it's not directly directly transferable, just a little bit of overlap with the expertise
So it's not really like the nuclear weapons and just sort of evolve into peaceful. nuclear power, but it doesn't need to is the story. So what I'm talking about is not so much the practical variables on the ground, but rather the story, if I say to the public we have We built this nuclear capability for weapons. We no longer need these weapons 'cause now we're doing well with China and the United States and S Korea. This would be Kim story we don't need those weapons, but we don't want to give up our national pride, our our national asset, so we're going to transition this to become the greatest domestic. You know safe nuclear, power company in the world. That story is a story of winning the story of we built nuclear weapons, and now we have to throw them away. 'cause somebody big toe,
this is a total loser story. You can't give Kim an off ramp to do and when then wonder why he doesn't play ball, don't give anybody an off ramp to doom and expect good results. You got to build an off ramp to something that works now. The president has quite cleverly and the first smart person who even got into this conversation, in my opinion has made a big deal about talking about the economic potential of North Korea, and that's so he's already set the table that, where we'd like to see North Korea GO is, is richer and more successful, and I think that's true to add that extra element of
Could you become our testing ground, where even we benefit from what you do with nuclear weapons? You know, Chairman Kim, can you help us? Do you feel that feel the difference between Chairman Kim get rid of your nuclear assets, the gem of your entire nation, the greatest accomplishment of North Korea, once you throw them all away because we're big and will punish you? If you don't that's This the message we have going now right, compare that to chairman Kim we've got this huge problem. It's called climate change, or at least the experts say so and Even if you don't like the climate change problem, just we need a lot of energy to power the World
Order, the power of the world we need energy, we just can't seem to figure it out. The whole rest of the world can't seem to figure out how to build some generation for reactors, I'm exaggerating because they are being built in China. It's a, but we need you. We need North Korea to get us to do generation for in the most effective way. So can you help us with your gigantic nuclear assets and the fact that you have you know the ability to cut through red tape in North Korea? Can you help us get to this better place where the whole world will benefit by the great accomplishments unit in North Korea? How's? That has that story send there's no competition
That story is an off ramp, that the experts are going to say and they would well. You can't just transition from nuclear weapons to generation four nuclear they're. Practically there are ninety eight percent. Different things is just two percent. Maybe some of the experts are easy to transition. Doesn't matter it's about the story and the story takes advantage of the fact that the public doesn't know anything about nuclear anything and to the public. If you said hey public they're going to transition their nuclear assets, two safe nuclear, what would the public say.
Sounds great sounds great. It is a public can't tell the difference between nuclear weapons and generation for nuclear plants. That's why we don't have them if the public could tell the difference between a safe generation for new nuclear design and a nuclear bomb. You know if, if we knew the difference, we would already have generation for nuclear plants all over the place.
all right. Let's uh open it up to questions. That's all I had today open it up to questions. What's the most interesting thing, I said today: oh Chicago yeah, the smaller story is this a little played out, but apparently Jesse Smollett has and nominated for a a so called image award, so he's been nominated for an award for the good image that he's bringing I hope he wins 'cause that would be hilarious,
only said. Why is a persuasive, but better is not better is persuasive. Hello is persuasive by definition, meaning that you have ' seeing him succeed and have watched him persuade people, so I haven't watched his techniques so much except I've talked about his arm. Movements probably do help him in the standing on the tables and standing on the cars probably help some, but it also helps that he's a sort of an engaging in a white guy and women like and and and all that. So, yes, he is persuasive, but he's not a or c personal,
is is is is whatever is the wrong just below her? I would say um you're going to get attacked for reparations. Now, that's interesting! So somebody says I'm going to get attacked for my reparations now. What I could I just called reparations were free college for Everybody- everybody, not not black people, free college for everyone how's that going to get me in trouble. It should get in trouble for free college. The fact that I said it's essentially, oh, I forgot. I didn't. I didn't finish a point. So I see
there's an air gap there I wanted to borrow. I think I got interrupted. I wanted to borrow hawk nuisance. He had he had a good way of framing something and I think he borrowed it from somebody, but the idea was that when you help african Americans, you end up helping everybody, because if, in his view, if the african american situation is the most dire, if he held that, then you've helped anybody. Who is in a similar situation because everything's connected and I'm doing a bad job of explaining that but That is that you know if you just help the poorest people who have least, options and get them trained and get them employed there one wins, so you could call it reparations, but who who would object to reparations that helped? Ninety percent
non black people. You know. Ninety percent of the benefit will go to non african Americans who, who would object to that now? You can object to it because it costs money, but that is just a bunch of questions that gets back to. Is that a one dollar expense that makes ten dollars in economics? So you have to answer the question I'll get rid of whoever told me I'm doing a bad a job in all using all capital letters? Somebody says it is not reparations that okay, so let me do a better job, as I see them, I'm not making my I'm not connecting my thoughts well enough. So your criticisms, I think, are valid, goes on. I'm not doing a good job connecting the sauce
The thought is this that we wouldn't embark on the on the free college thing, except that one of its benefits is the same kind of benefits of reparations. So it's a it's a replacement for reparations, so it would be not. It would not be fair to say that free college is reparations, it would be fair to say we have several problems. From economics to healthcare to yeah racial relations, we're going to solve all of them the same way in so, if you say we're not this is this isn't reparations, it makes reparations unnecessary and is informed by reparations.
In other words it it's listening to what people are saying about. Reparations is coming up with a plan that affects all ethnicities equally, because it's always the poor people, that's all ethnicities, and and it's it it directly addresses the problem because it creates a a a success path for everyone. All right, that's my story. I'm sticking to it- and I will talk to you later-