« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 669 Scott Adams: Have Coffee With Me While I Solve Healthcare, Immigration, Climate Change

2019-09-20 | 🔗

My new book LOSERTHINK goes on sale 11/5. Pre-order: https://bit.ly/2NRammu

Content:

  • Why Iran attacked Aramco, my current understanding
  • Climate change SOLVED!
    • HuffPo just went pro-nuclear, so did CNN, AOC open to it
    • Anti-science Democrats…just look silly now
    • Corey Booker & Andrew Yang are pro-nuclear
  • Immigration & Healthcare SOLVED!
    • Linking immigration and healthcare is the answer
      • Credit to Joel Pollack
    • Controlling immigration versus restricting immigration

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time.

The post Episode 669 Scott Adams: Have Coffee With Me While I Solve Healthcare, Immigration, Climate Change appeared first on Scott Adam's Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Apparently not bump, bump bump bump bum pom, pom, pom, pom, pom, pom pom. Blah, blah blah blah blah, hey everybody. Come on in here, You know what time it is. I think you do. 'cause you'll have smart phones and clocks and watches and stuff yeah it's time to have coffee with Scott Adams and not just enjoy coffee but enjoy the simultaneous zip it's the best thing ever and all you need to enjoy. It is a cover, a mugger glasses, diner, jealous attacker to thermostat last I can see in a Grela goblet of vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee,
And joining me now for the Dopamine Heather the day the unparalleled pleasure the simultaneous up here comes here comes hello: well, the funniest. Within the day, courtesy of President Trump. It turns out that the builder Blasi o as in Instead, he is leaving the race for president. This did not go unnoticed by the President of the United States who tweets- and I quote: oh no- well, first of all, will there ever be another president? Whoever starts a tweet with? Oh, no,
probably not probably the only one you'll ever see so just be says: oh no, really big political news, perhaps the biggest story of years part time, mayor of New York City, he's calling the Blasio Partecipare part Time mayor of New York City build the blasio. Who is Paul we got a solid zero, but had tremendous room for growth has shockingly misspelled Dropped out of the presidential race, New York City, devastated, he's coming home come on. How are we ever going to pay attention to politics after this present I honestly, I didn't really follow politics too much before the age of trump.
and I'm fairly certain I'm not going to follow politics afterwards, so his election. Actually, we have a fairly large impact on my life arc, 'cause 'cause that'll be four years that I would have been talking about politics, and I probably won't, if he's not president yeah, maybe we'll see. So there is a report that the so called sonic weapon that was used in the cuban embassy. The USA Embassy in Cuba might not have been a sonicwall, after all, by by coincidence, China, China just announced it actually has a sonic weapon zing against crowds, probably in the Hong Kong crowds. So they have a anthills of equipment, but there's a study that says that the embassy problem was probably not a sonic weapon who predicted that me by the way, in the entire world. When the story came out that there was a
sonic weapon. That was injuring people in the embassy. Did you hear anybody else like in the whole world? Who said, I don't know, that's fake. I think it was only made. And now there's a report that it was likely pesticides because apparently they can study the brains of the people were affected and it seems to have affected a part of the brain. That's sensitive to neurotoxins. And there was some reason to believe that there was a different kind of. She mediating and pesticides because of something that was going on at that time. So I would say: that's not confirmed not going for
and yet but kinda weird, we haven't, found any sonic weapons right. We would have found that by now. Alright, there was a question I asked, which I believe I have an answer to. I was asking what IRAN was trying to accomplish exactly by attacking the Saudi Arabia, saudi arabian oil, ' facility, and I couldn't figure it out 'cause I thought well, do they want to start a war? Do they really think nobody's going to who did it. It didn't this strategy. I couldn't quite place it, but that was because I had some gaps in my understanding and here's the main gap. I didn't realize the Saudi Arabia really really water war with IRAN, partly because IRAN would probably kick their butts. So that's the part I didn't know. I assume the Saudi Arabia was bristling with modern weaponry and us support
and ran, were to try to mess with them. It would be just a terrible mistake for and turns out, it's more like the opposite of that and I'm open to fact checking here by the way. So I'm just I'm saying my current understanding. Subs I need to change. My current understanding is that the last thing in the world Saudi Arabia wants is war, because the rand is pretty capable pretty pretty capable and there's not much- let's say practice that the that the Saudis have had so they don't even know if their defenses work and after you wash your entire oil facility just being devastated, and you know ten minutes, you're I think it yourself. Maybe we should try to keep the rest of our oil facilities, so it seems to me that day, or two of any war with IRAN Sally
maybe you would no longer be an oil exporting country, literally, on day two, you know day one or two, so maybe would no longer be in business. They just be an oil exporting country anymore, and you can see how easily around just took out a major fizzle. Now here's my my current, better, updated understanding. I I've said this: a million times but if you think IRAN is not rational, you're, just not paying attention, they want different things than we want. But they're terribly rational, very including this. So it turns out that they seem to have known that the United States was not going to go to war for sale maybe a few Saudi Arabia. It just isn't popular enough that the United States is going to say yeah, let's go, let's go, kill some Americans to defend them.
'cause, you know nine hundred and eleven is still sort of fresh and a lot of people's minds, and always will be, I suppose, as long as we're alive. The generation that watched it live on tv. And I don't know- and I think IRAN is probably right- that it would be next to impossible for the US public tobacco war to defend Saudi Arabia. Even though they were and ally, so I think around realized that they had a free punch and that there would be no repercussion, or at least nothing important, and I think around said wait a minute. We just figured out that if we want, get back at the United States. We can just keep punching Saudi Arabia forever because it doesn't seem like there's any amount that they could punch Saudi Arabia. That's going to make us militarily, because we really really don't want to and so
Arabia really really doesn't want to get an award to. So I have to give it up for, for a ram was a pretty good strategy. I mean it wasn't obvious to me, but I would say we're not going to rip up we're not going to respond militarily. They successfully took the stakes way up. I think they're calling Saudi Arabia's Bluff and ours, too least militarily and I think they're right. I think they can blow up as much stuff in Saudi Arabia as they want and we're proud I'm not going to do anything about it hum so, and then I heard the count today. Apparently, the attack was, I
numbers are approximate was like nineteen drones and seven cruise missiles or something. So there was something like twenty five different flying ask that either came out of IRAN or IRAN's proxy in Yemen to destroy that thing and basically just took it out, and so they winds today are all about the age of drone, warfare here and nobody can protect themselves and I think that's pretty clear, that are normal defenses, for you know
are radar in our normal military defense is not going to make much difference against this kind of attack. So suddenly everybody can attack everybody again uh, so it looks like things are changing now it makes you wonder if somebody will attack IRAN with a bunch of drones and missiles and then claim it wasn't us yeah, it's kind of ball Z, four hundred am to say no Wasn't us, what do you mean? I don't think it was us. Could we do the same thing? Could we just you know, take out a major iranian oil facility with with with a red flying objects, and then, when the
and says: Hey United States, you bomb their oil facility. Could we just go on tv and say: wasn't us? No, I don't know you, about we're just as innocent as you were when when when that oil refinery blew up, we don't know what you're talking about. So that would be a funny thing to do, but not that I would recommend it. So I promise you that I was going to solve uh in the title of this periscope. I said I was going to solve a health care immigration and climate change. I'm going to deliver on. All of that, are you ready climate change solved already done already done now, not from my own doing, of course, but rather a number of influential people. I like to point out, Mark Schneider,
Michael Shellenberger in particular, have done such a good job of. Let's say you, influencing people to understand that nuclear has to be part of the part of the way we go forward Whether you think climate change is a problem or not so weather that climate change is a problem. Nuclear still the way to go, but here's the here's what's new, the Huffington Post just did a major piece Essentia Lee. Praising Cory, Booker for being the only person who compatible with science. Entry Angus, too and Biden is actually compatible with science, because he's saying that we need nuclear power to deal with. climate change and Cory. Booker says directly. You can't, the other side, meaning the Republicans you can
blame them for being anti science on climate change. If you are going to be anti science about nuclear power, goes science says we need it. It's a big deal. Huffington post just turned on all the anti nuclear people and just one full throated pro nuclear. Let me say that again, the Huffington Post just went for pro nuclear CNN. I said the was a yesterday just the other day, the this week, CNN went pro nuclear on unabashedly. It's their print. Both of them are printing articles articles that are absolutely unambiguously pro nuclear with no no real push back articles, in other words, they're, not showing both sides they're just showing pro nuclear. Who else is showing pro nuclear, the daily wire, so
seeing it on the right and you're seeing it on the left. So the daily fire was a mocking. I Marianne Williamson, is it Williams Williamson? I forgot. for saying that we should forget about the data on nuclear energy and just use our hearts, and they were mocking her So in any given week when you have the the media, that's on the right and the media, that's on the left and I'm talking away right and left. You know the full right in the full left both unambiguously clearly backing nuclear power. what's that mean it means, ladies and gentlemen, that climate change is salt. Now, when I say is solved, we still have to do all the work of the political work in the persuasion in the economics of the technology. I mean it's a ton of work, but we now have a clear path, because both
left in the Red just agreed. Now there are people who are still not on board, but they just look silly at this point you can't take seriously Elizabeth Warren, use full anti nuclear. At the same time, CNN and Huffington Post and every on the right. Is all pro nuclear Warren can't win. So the the to the pastor? No nuclear is pretty much close. Because both sides just close the door? Now? Where is a seeing all this, because I think I think you can't talk about climate change and you can't talk about where we're going, let's just throw her and she's so influenced
and her. What is her take on nuclear? Do you now, do you know a sees, take a nuclear power open to it, yeah open to it. So I think I believe that's. Our latest statement is that she's open to the argument. Now, how do you interpret open to it? It's not like she hasn't already looked into it: Do you think I OC hasn't paid attention yeah? I know some of you have a low opinion of everybody who's on the other side, but seriously AO say she is most associated with the green new deal. She's looked into that she knows nuclear has to be part of the solution. There's no there's no doubt that she understands that and she's sort of doing the castle on the roof with well I'm open to it. Have you ever heard that joke cats on the roof? It goes like this? A guy is going on. Vacation, yes is,
brother to look after his cat, so guy goes on vacation and he wants to check in so few days after vacation starts calls his brother? He goes. He hasn't. How are things how's? My cat and his brother says your cats dead is like, oh, my god. Oh my god, you're ruining my vacation. That's so terrible! you just say it like that you're, so cruel and the brother says. Well. What am I supposed to? Do? I mean I'm just telling you the truth, and the guy says you could have broken into main more softly goes. What do you mean as well, for example, the first time I called and asked about my cat, you might have said, oh, the cats on the roof and you know we're trying to get down and then the maybe the next day I calls as well she's still in the roof, we're still trying to get her down
and maybe the third day you say well, we tried to get it down, but she fell and she looks injured and then maybe the fourth day you say well looks like she's not going to make it so that by the time I find out my cat died. I've had lots of time to sort of adjust to the idea, so try to try to break to me slowly next time and the brother says alright. Alright, I get it so the brother on vacation says alright. It's just probably goes anything else happening and the brother says mom's on the roof. Alright, so I will pull us because I'm sure you're laughing at home, so AOC is telling us that the nuclear powers on the roof, in other words, she's, trying to break it to her side slowly,
that that's the answer. She can't she can't go out and say: green new deal green new deal. Let's do solar, let's do windmills, let's do solar, let's do windows whoops! Let's do nuclear. You can't really do that. You need a bit of a transition, so she's in the open minded phase of the transition to full nuclear. Occasionally, you know she's going there right now. I've course have more more kind of but instead, her abilities than most of you and I have from the start- and I think she's smart and I think she's going to do her homework and I think she's already pro nuclear and we just have to get there Alright, so climate change is solved, meaning that we know how to solve it and all the people who need to agree or on board there. Two candidates were not on board, but I don't think they're going to win so it doesn't matter all the smart. People are on board
Hooker Andrew Yang, even Biden's advisors, are saying yes, nuclear. So let's talk about immigration and healthcare. Would you like me to solve both of them now? Oh, I can do that. But first let me give you some context: let's go The White Board White Board coming at you, well all right. Here's what I want to tell you. This is a framework for understanding where I'm going next. Imagine if you will that be for and I'm just roughly taking years to make a point- let's say before today: Throughout the entire human history, mostly, we were dealing with shortages. meaning that we are trying to find enough food to eat, we're trying to get enough materials and money and capital, and we were trying to get stuff. We didn't have enough stuff right so imagine, let's call that the ear of scarcity, but I believe
is that now are modern systems from Amazon dot com to capitalism, to you know, share access to all the systems we've dealt. It is a situation where we can get all the stuff we need. If you have a good enough reason to get it. You can find anything you need. You can find a way to get it to you. All. You really need is money and we know how to make money. We know how to make business models. We know how to get jobs you know how to make money, so I would argue that we are about to enter or have entered what I'll call the era of disease, nine of design is notable because it imagine that you can get all the stuff you need. You just have to organize it right now in terms of design. I'm talking about systems not just products, so I'm not talking about designing a new phone. That's just product design is not very interesting. I'm talking about designing systems such as the
United States, that's a system so good one. The system of capitalism is good. Our legal system is this system all right and here's. My insight, like every skill design, is something that some people, some few people are really really good at other people are ok at it, and other people are bad at it's just like every other skill. The top one percent of one percent of people who are good at this designing can change the world, so people like that would be, for example, that you founders of this country, who designed a constitution and the system
that has been just brilliantly effective for a few one hundred years now. Maybe it won't be always as effective as environment changes, but they're great, you know, Jefferson and that crowd, Madison, etc were great designers, so think of them, not as founders, think of them as designers designers of systems. Now, who did we see part of the reason I picked? Two thousand and nineteen is because of Connie. So Connie W, you know the story on his own, his own initiative. He hired some architectural folks and they designed some example or test as a test homes that he was trying to develop for low income housing when he was done, the I guess the neighbors in the city said: hey, you don't have permits and it's kinda loud.
so he tore that down, and I said that you're seeing the beginning of his design phase, probably not the end of it, that whatever he learned when he built the first first ones now he knows it'll probably do some more in a different place in a different way and then it'll keep an experiment. And designing his way forward when you People like Connie designing housing. Suddenly you've got something like Thomas Jefferson, designing the constant you should write your elevating the skill level. That's going into design. Now, I'm not going to say that Connie will necessarily designed the low end. House of the future and that will change the world. But there are people like him who are that level of creative designers and you need that level. You need the top one percent of one who are getting ready to change the world every
it's going to be redesigned. Let me give you an example of redesign, something once we get our systems design and then we'll enter sort of a a golden age. Where, where things are going pretty well for us, so let me give you an example of how power of design is, and I'm gonna use an example of a hypothetical deal in which the left and the right make an agreement in which the left get some stuff. They want. On health care, while the right get some stuff, they want an image question this idea. The seat of this idea comes from a Joel Pollak at Breitbart, so credit to Joel. For this insight,
This insight is that there's something about health care and immigration that makes them a natural pair for a deal, and that is that they influence each other. So if you had free healthcare, it would be a problem to also have unlimited immigration, because the immigrants would come in eventually they would come in at number so great that you- and I can't afford our health care anymore, because we're trying to share this wouldn't be enough money for you to have healthcare you, if you're, let's say an american citizen uh. If you have unlimited immigration, so the two topics are tide. Necessarily you couldn't you couldn't untie them. If you want it, so how could you design? How could you design a system that takes advantage of the fact that they are connected and gives people what they want and I'm just going to throw.
The bones of an idea: I'm not going to sell. This idea is like the best way to go, because I don't now, but will give you a sense of what I'm talking about in terms of how powerful design is. Right so imagine if you said, the health care going forward would be a combination of of private insurance, so you can always pay your same private insurance. You have keep it through your employer and you could have. That would be unchanged, but it would also be meta care for the rest of us. It needs test, so you can't get it if you're rich. But if you have a certain income you can just get now. I understand there's something like fifty and eighteen percent of the country doesn't have health care insurance, so you'd be adding to the cost of yeah. The of I guess, you'd be added to the cost of society, fifteen or twenty percent on top of
health care, so that would be too expensive people who complain, but let's say that you simultaneously said we're going to private insurance, we're going to have Medicare from the rest of you, that's going to cost more and the way that we're going to pay for that, at least as an attempt will see how close we can get to this. This is trying to reduce costs and through competition. The competition specifically would be that the private insurance and the government insurance would be bidding for services and trying to be down the the provider, the lower the cost. So you have goal. Lowering overall costs twenty percent there would make this sort of revenue neutral country This doesn't mean every person is revenue neutral? country wise? It would break even and then you would trade us and again. This is just throwing out the bones of an idea. I'm not saying this is the best idea you traded for effective border security and you would depersonalize
by saying whatever the engineers say we should do and where that's? What we'll do so Stop talking about walls. Stop talking about fences, stop talking about electronic sensors! Stop talking about humans. Just say here the deal we just want to the experts to tell us what to do where not for the purpose of here's, the beauty not for the purpose of restricting, but for the purpose of controlling, like a lever creating a system for immigration that one we need more of it. We could easily pull the lever and when we need less of it, we put the lever in other words, just creating a system for immigration that we don't have right now right now we don't have a system, because it's up to the people
crossing the border, whether they come in or not it's not up to us. There are too many of them. We can't control them. So imagine if you could that we agreed that the number of immigrants who would come in on any given year would be based on the unemployment rate, so you'd completely d personalize it- and you say to yourself look at this unemployment rate- will let this many immigrants in an by the way Congress you could make that go up or down. It doesn't have to stay there you we can decide, let's, let's boost that up, because it's good for us and then I'm throwing this in, because I think this is coming one way. The other eventually someday there will be an app for immigrants who are nurses and who want to work, they connect with employers to the apps so that the government can watch everybody. Do it link play effectively. That would be in that having an app would be like a workers, vis, a
without the paperwork. So let me say that again, instead of going through a legal workers, is a program if you've got the app and even signed up for it, and it's really you that you've got a workers visa, but you also have to have an employer say I'll. Give you a job, so the app would be pairing, employers and employees. It would be handling the payments so that the government could tax it. How about that? The government could keep track The workers and everybody would be legal. Somebody says you never account for a lying, corrupt politicians and officials. Totally unrealistic yeah. I do I'm not saying that any particular plan is realistic. I'm trying to give you an idea of how, if we could design betters.
systems. Everything would be better. We don't have a shortage of goods and products. We have a design problem, so I believe that there will be an app at some point that does the job of keeping everybody accounted for, paying their taxes paired with jobs. Maybe hearing out of trouble and making it easier for the immigrants to get work and maybe even make it easier for them to get on some path to citizenship? Should the country decide what they want to do that? Alright? So here's what it would look like as a design to plan. Now you could call this a deal if you're talking in President Trump Language, you would call it making a deal. but it's a special deal because it would have to be designed so that these two parts of the deal worked together so that if unemployment starts to go up,
you don't have to build a wall, then what would be the worst system? Here's the worst system would be. Unemployment starts to go up in this country, and then we can't stop people from coming in the the the worst system right. The best system would be if we get a lever and our unemployment goes up, and then we just pull back a little bit on immigration, not completely just just pull back enough to to get our employment back. Where we wanted and again those things could be negotiated by Congress. It doesn't have to be what the president is forcing on the country. Somebody says: are you saying automation will have no effect No, I'm not saying anything like that. somebody says having a better system instead to train and educate people born and raised here. First well, those don't have to be insteads. Those can be. In addition,
twos. So why wouldn't we do both ok, so the other thing I wanted to point out is that I think Kamala Harris has some kind of a plan where, at least for ten years you get to keep your private insurance. But I'm waiting to see the good argument again just having dual healthcare systems, because I don't know any good argument against that. Do you Does anybody have a good argument for war, a
that argument for why we wouldn't just have dual healthcare system cover everybody, but with a with a in income test. Well, dual healthcare with everybody covered: that's the part that is different, all right, uhm somebody says Germany has dual healthcare system and it works well yeah. I think there are a few countries in great Britain as the other one right where they can do that now. The real question is whether any of this allows you to lower costs, and it seems to me that the administration could make a deal with the Democrats to say if you will help us do these market based things to lower costs that will drive down costs. Help us with the votes we need to drive down costs will help you get a system that runs parallel with private insurance so that everybody can get health insurance. I feel like that would be
a decent deal, but it has to be tide to immigration. You absolutely can't have you can't have a free health care system and open immigration. I think everybody understands that they just need to hear. It is one of those things that just needs to be said, and then you hear it the first time you go. Oh yeah, that's true How many people do you think in the in the voting public? No to make the connection between immigration rates and what they and what we can and cannot do in a practical sense, with healthcare for all. Do you think most of the public, just sort of immediately connects those two and says. Oh, I want health care for all, oh wait. I can't have that if it's also open borders, I don't know that everybody makes that connection, and once you make that connection, this design just falls out from that. Doesn't it just sort of blood? Is the obvious thing where
where you end up now. I keep saying that I think health care is going to end up with some kind of a dual system, but I'm really kind of testing. That idea, because I keep expecting that someone in the comments or somewhere else say, Scott Scott Scott, read this article or look at these statistics and you can see why you can't ever have a dual healthcare system. It won't work and here's the reason I haven't seen a reason I mean I I'm not saying I've seen bad reasons or any reasons have you uh. Alright explain the difference between outcomes. Why would I keep private? Oh, so you would the only people who could get the public option under the dual system. I'm talking about would be people who were below a certain income or.
over a certain age or I think, below a certain age, so children and seniors, and then adults under a certain income would be the only ones who could get the government to pay for it. Everybody else has to pay for their own 'cause, they have money or they have a job and their employers pay for it. Then. The second thing is the quality of the care. Lot of people have a preference, might not be able to get the same doctor at the same quality of care. The same timeliness, the same confidence as if you are in a private private option,. Is somebody says in Germany anyone can get the public system, but above a certain income? Yes, so it says the the so the other way to do it, which is effectively, is thanks is that your income determines what
anything you would pay for the the public or private options alright, will it be mandatory to have one or the other? I don't see why it would be. Why would you force somebody to have mandatory free insurance he kept for somebody to go to the doctor, so you know for the for the free option the one that's below a certain income, people could just ignore it, but I suppose all you have to do is show up to the right kind of doctor or emergency room and you'd be covered. I think that's all! That's what it is
As somebody said, what, if you have money, but you don't want to buy a private insurance? Well, I guess we'll deal with that. So now, okay, how many people think I just solved climate change, not by myself? Obviously healthcare in the mid again, not by myself, I'm using Joel Pollack's seed of an idea and expanding on it. So don't blame me for anything I expanded on. Just just the insight that those two things could be a deal because they they both so here's. The other reason that healthcare, an immigration, make it natural deal because they are equivalent emotionally right. There sort of both large national interests that have our emotions and our attention and, if I said to you, what's bigger immigration or healthcare, well, you'd have to think about it from
Yeah, you probably say healthcare. Some people would say immigration. So the fact that you would you have to think about it tells you the balls back, and that makes it a fair trade. Just like okay, I'll give you your big thing. You give me your big thing and we'll both make the the thing we're giving up at least a little bit moderate. So this is the quietest. I've ever seen. My audience, I don't know what's going on here. Is there anybody who thinks this is a bad idea? Did I just described solutions for the three biggest problems in the world? Now, that's not true! the three biggest, let's say political topics in the country. Did I just describe three solutions for the three biggest political issues and everybody here is going well. Ok. Is that what happened? I don't know
So some of you are saying no and not solve, but I'm not seeing any reasons. Is there something obvious I'm missing? okay, so that's about all I have today. I would love to see a debate on the question of whether or not a dual system works. Now my take on Elizabeth Warren is, is she is a hundred percent on electable and the reasons are that her to stand on nuclear energy? It's just a under the story. If you've got Huffington Post and CNN the whole the whole right and all the important left and every scientist saying we need nuclear or Warren. Just doesn't have anything she's, just empty she's chosen empty
empty weapon there and then, secondly, wanting to take your health care away for every person who loves that idea there again, We, I think, two people who don't want to lose their existing healthcare, I feel that she's got a. She has a plan that can get her, maybe the nomination, but it's not even slightly competitive at my am I. Wrong. Does it seem to you that Warren would not be even slightly competitive because of nuclear, so the whole climate change she can't get right and health care you get those end, immigration will be. People would just take sides, so she's fine on immigration, from the standpoint that her own team likes where she is I'm sure, but
I it looks like the Democrats are driving as fast as they can to word guaranteed losing it's the weirdest luck now. I will continue to say, because it's not fair to change my predictions and been that Harris is still their only chance of winning. Because Harris has something like a dual healthcare system idea. And I'm sure that she could also too well I'll, take a look at nuclear because she's We don't really know what Harris' up. I don't even know what she thinks about nuclear deal Even if she said she doesn't like it, you could easily imagine you're saying. Well, I looked into it and maybe we need a little nuclear, so I think she has a chance because she could at least. you know pivotal to the center and create some policy
She's got the age right: she's got the yeah she's she's got person of color right, she's got a gender right, she's got to experience, she's, not just a mayor. There's don't seem exciting. She's sort of still has the whole package. The only thing she has is that she's tearable I campaigning apparently, and that might be fixable- you don't know you don't know she got this far. So she knows how to learn. That's all I got for now. I will talk to you later.