« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 77: North Korea Walk-Away and SPYGATE

2018-05-24 | 🔗

Topics:

  • Trump cancels summit with North Korea
  • North Korea’s “big ask”
  • Taking down a Chinese bank supporting NK probable next step
  • 19,000 NK artillery sites, can drone tech neutralize?
  • MSM has earned their discredited label
  • MSM avoiding and disputing word “spy”…
  • …so POTUS brands the scandal SPYGATE
  • Funding the wall by direct donation to fund?
  • Our system of taxation might be changing
  • Planned Parenthood could also be funded by direct donations
  • Women are the only credible voices on abortion laws

 

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

See all of my Periscope videos here.

For persuasion-related content in book form, see my bestselling book, Win Bigly.

The post Episode 77: North Korea Walk-Away and SPYGATE appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
but people bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum hello everybody guess what time it is i think you know i think you feel it i think it's time for the simultaneous ip law ready ready grab your cup run across the kitchen grab that cup come back you ready and now the simultaneous sip well i'm guessing you probably seen the headlines turns the president trump has cancelled canceled cancel they say the summit with north korea why please cancel that summit with n korea exactly
like i told you he would oh no did i say that yes i did probably a month ago you should expect at least one walk away and depending how you count it this is either the the one big one or the third one you know depending you count as a walkway versus a threat to walk away i'm now why did we walk away from a summit to talk about nuclear denuclearization we walked away because in underling in north korea insulted the vice president calling him a big dope basically um now is that a good enough reason to cancel the summit yes
not only is that a good reason to cancel to cancel the summit it's a really good reason it's a really good reason to cancel the summit how you save yourself the way we should be able to take a few insults you know that new denuclearization is much more important but i'll tell you what what the sold to the vice president to the brighton vice president signaled is signaled that they were in it for reasons other than denuclearization is signaled they were going to yank the football again and by the way let me give you some some background should n north korea have played it straight to get to the end in denuclearize like they originally said was that their best play or does their best play to
it goes along and then whip once again like they always have in the past well it's obvious their first play should be to try to lead us on and then grab the football like all the other times they should definitely be there first play now if that doesn't work out they always have the you the backup options but the first thing north korea should do is see if they can screw us right in front of the world see if they can disrespect us right in front of the world can get away with it wouldn't try for the big ask first so they go for the big ask now do they that they would get everything and we would just back down and be suckers they don't know they don't know until they try so doing
but they were doing and probably were planning to do which is not reach a deal when we got to the summit it looks like that's what they're planning a way but people don't go into this sort of thing without a plan b in the plan you know you need to know well will try this if this doesn't work we this lined up and if that doesn't work there's always this so the first thing that n korea is should and did try was to get everything for nothing basically you know to uh give up a bunch of nothing there's a mountain that was falling apart anyway you know there were some somo captives that they shouldn't have had in the first place so they didn't really give anything up um and uh so we are right exactly where we should be for every
to work out well in the end another words there had to be the step there had to be the step the the week the week in the goshen which is north korea they have we can't they've got to try it a bluff that's the first thing you try in you you you try to get what you can for nothing that's your first offer so that's probably what we're seeing now you also saw that maybe china's not playing as nicely as they could they should say goodbye to their big bank i guess there are four big banks in china if you were a an owner i don't know how they work in terms of stockholm there's owners the deal with their banks but if you own the bank i would be pretty worried right now
'cause odds are odds are one of them is going down 'cause that is the logical next step so we probably have to take out a chinese before that will take out the bankers so will will target individual bankers before we take down an entire institution but that's probably happening now and those individuals probably have ways to not suffer too much you know maybe they can't travel maybe they maybe one of their bags with some other money gets frozen or something but they're probably billionaires probably doesn't matter but taken down the bank will certainly matter so it looks like that's next so i would look for a chinese bank to go offline and for it to be the biggest story in the world once that first bank falls we might not get the result we walked but he got three more banks
we're going to get the result we want one way or the other now just about the the reason for canceling the summit is that i'm not sure we needed a specific reason because the negotiators would know by now whether kim was really going to denuclearize so it's obvious that he had not made that actual offer he pulled her back maybe he was vague whatever he was doing but we're not canceling because of the words so if you think that the reason we're canceling is because somebody in north korea insulted our vice president if you think that's why we're canceling you're missing the story nobody cancels a denuclearized some with over some insults especially if you happen to be the greatest insult or of all time i mean the president trump is not going to risk world war three over and and
nobody nobody understands the function of insults better than he does but canceling the summit because you're not getting the type of respectful general approach makes sense targeting the letter that just gives them a specific reason which is convenient yeah so let me clarify i did say that's a great reason because of it's just a great trigger and it's the symbol of the larger disrespect we're getting but if it were the only thing happening if the negotiations were going great and the everything that happened was somebody got insulted there's no way we would cancel right so it's really a symptom of the rest of the not being not going ahead according to an honorable way right and we wouldn't know that by now so
president trump probably also and here's another important point he probably also wanted to be the first to efficiently walk away if north korea had been the first to officially walk away they would have felt like they had the earliest they thought they had the the stronger hand the the walkway person is the person who gets the the the advantage so present trump played this somewhat perfectly because there was well you know i might not know well we might not go either will you ally might not go but i i might not go and then bam cancelled so timed it perfectly waited until they really did know if something good was going to happen sir by now they know whether n korea was serious or not and obviously they've decided that they weren't which is exactly where n korea should be at this stage they should not be
serious they should try once to get everything for nothing they tried it didn't work it's going to cost china bank at least one bank you know now it's possible that china will get read in line before they lose a bank i doubt it i think we have to go full bank at this point now i'm not the national economist so i can't tell you how big a deal that is but seems to me it's a pretty big deal uh so i think we're going to crash a bank next that should get everybody's attention uh somebody says why will the bank be destroyed so the thinking here the china could make north korea do anything they want i don't know how true that is exactly but go with that
and then if china is not forcing n korea to negotiate on good terms then then maybe china is not a not a fair player and the only way to get trying to be a fair players pressure and we've tried other kinds of pressures so a bank is one of those things we can get to fairly quickly because if you shut down the the international trade for a bank they're kind of they're kind of out of business pretty quickly so you can take out a bank very quickly and it's a it's a pretty direct thing because the because those banks have been doing business with n korea so it's not random that we would target a bank i'm sorry if i didn't make that clear these banks would be violating the sanctions so they can they're totaly targets now
i would expect we're not going to be in any hurry i think we're probably going to squeeze in north korean economy another month maybe another too much so you're saying that n korea didn't want to happen is they didn't what n korea wanted to happen is that president trump would be desperate red and green meant to get his nobel prize and for the the mid term elections in the united states to go well president trump just said we're gonna have those with mid term elections before this is done now who knows if that will happen you know you know it's too early to say that the the mid terms will happen before something good happens with north korea or vice versa still early to say but president job trump basically just said keep your nobel prize screw the mid term elections
deal with your starving economy come back to us when you're ready so that's sort of where we are so if you worried well let's see yeah we're in the world is about this i will check the stock market and see where we are all right so the the index fund for stocks of the u s is down point seven nine percent so less than one percent fluctuations for canceling the north korean summit that's not too scary not another words were not that worried or the markets are not that worried he had two fifties not a big deal so you so there should be there should be so
dislocation in the market alright so one of kim launches another rocket he might wouldn't you be surprised if he didn't so kim has to do something so he has to do something to rattle us back uh but i imagine that you know the thing is as observers we don't know how close their economy is to have full crash but it's probably pretty close now let me draw a scenario for you have you seen
the the demonstrations where i think china's done this and i think israel's done this as well they've they've coordinated to the swarms of little hobby drones with lights on in to do fireworks looking shows where all the coordinated drones are in the sky at the same time hundreds of them and they're all they're all program to do shapes and make it make scenes and stuff amazing now take that technology and imagine that north korea has something like ninety one thousand a nineteen thousand dollars artillery sites is that the right number somebody fact checking on that they have some number god awful number of artillery artillery aimed at south korea and the big
the big fear is that if they turned on that artillery even without nuclear weapons they can do a lot of damage to south korea before our military could take care of them now given that we've known that for a long time and there we understand the nature of the artillery and that the artillery at a high rate in the cave or it's got camouflage until it's ready to go it seems to me that we probably have readied by this time some kind of an air blanket of drones and other words we're probably going to have drones if we were to attack n korea this i imagine it would look and i'm not a military guy so i'm just going to you know here uh i would imagine that we would put a sky over n korea we would have so many drones in the air right
way that there would be something over every artillery and as soon as it showed itself you know each stroke would come kind of suicide drone and take it out so could we take out you know nineteen thousand artillery free sites all in different places all of them kind of hidden maybe maybe now no no as because we don't know what secret weapons we have right but maybe the other thing we can do is whatever communications there artillery sites have with with headquarters we probably know how that works by now and if they
get in order to fire they didn't get an order now obviously they've hardened their communications and they've got backups and everything else but right but does that back up go to all nineteen thousand individual commanders who don't know what the hecks going on if a war breaks out her so my assumption is that our military has a pretty good idea where at least a lot of those artillery pieces are and exactly what we would do to get rid of them should they show themselves
so my guess is that the risk of that artillery taking out s korea is definitely a risk and it's a big one but not nearly as big as n korea would like it to be yeah i think we could probably shut down their communications so that they don't notifier i think we could see them the moment they do and i think it would be am at a matter of probably sixty seconds before each one is taken out something along those lines hard and artillery sites so would a hardened artillery site be hard and from everything uh
anyway we can only speculate what our military can we cannot do with the artillery but that's going to be part of the questions will probably hear a lot in the news for awhile hi let's talk a spy game for a moment i saw a couple of funny things one was there's a report that leslie stahl of sixty minutes when she was talking to trouble off camera whenever they were talking for sixty minutes trump and said hello really that he he goes after the news calling them fake news and criticizing the news because
if anything bad comes out about him he will have discredited the source in advance and the the reaction from people was all my god you know that's that's that's horrible these discrediting the news in advance in case something bad comes out about him in it and i thought to myself aren't you just describing somebody who's a factor because that's really a good thing to do that totally works you know what leslie stahl did not say is that won't work because it does work the whole idea of fake news is a trump branding thing it it absolutely makes people do not believe anything bad about him it completely works yeah somebody's mentioning that elon musk has been tweeting lately about the fake news so it's
delta ellon musk who is no fan of president trump as we know because he he once quit the economic council that he was on for trump that even the ilan mosque is coming out saying some and that was at least at least just one small topic supportive of trump he tweeted elon musk did that you know it's no wonder that trump won basically 'cause people are coming after musk for also talking about the fake news etc so you can feel the lan being a little bit more pro trump then people will be happy for him to be uh somebody said candace owens just tweeted something about my book i'll have to take a look at that and
so here's the other related story so it's absolutely good form for president to diminish the credibility of his enemies now as time when i would have said my god you can't call the free press an enemy it's their job to be tough on power right that's sort of the balance we get the free press keeps the check you don't want to discredit one of the checks and balances too late they discredited them so all trump is doing is giving them the label that they are it he didn't give them a label they didn't turn you that stuff they earned so if he gives a label that helps him i don't have as hard for me to complain
that we have a president who knows how to do stuff let me say that again yes the president's you know calling the fake news fake news is a strategy to discredit them if they say bad things about him later but it's a good strategy is one that works it's effective the the press earned their lack of credibility he didn't give that to him they earned that all of their own so am i going to be angry at president trump for being good at the thing that he's doing which is making his brand stronger diminishing the brand of his enemies sort of why we like him right that's the stuff you want him to do to other people for us that's what he promised look at the stuff i can do look at what i did to this guy
yeah this guy i'm going to do that to your enemies do you want me on your team or on the other team get all my team here affect of all right well the store close hi gate so there's also reports that president trump wanted to get the words spy out there because it sounds more nefarious i think was the word and i thought to myself done of course he does and by the way of all the gates though the watergate the the skate the travelgate everything has there ever been a better gate then spike just from a branding perspective just how the words sound and feel just how spy and gate go together come on how many gates have we seen this gave that gave this cake this capice gate and they're all weren't they all just
weak imitations of watergate and watergate wasn't great watergate was the name of the hotel right it wasn't a great brand or anything the right and all those other gates were just sort of weak sauce right and then spygate the the competition from a branding perspective spiking that's just the best is the best of all the gates you can say don't you want to say about it whether he should do it or anything else that's a separate conversation but given he was trying to brand this thing and trying to put the word spy on it the way he put low enerji on jeb oh my god did this work this one of his best branding exercises barnett bridgegate so many gates
so what's funny about this is that the news the enemy press especially was trying to say it's us i know it's crazy that you call it a spy it was a human informant it wasn't in so while president trump's enemies were well bringing person after person on to say with explanations wordy conceptual explanation well let me tell you the definition of a spa no this isn't a spot this is simply a human and for hired by an intelligence agency to do secret operative work and inform back to us supply and so really sort of getting away with it a little bit
like that attempt to call it not spy was actually working so what is the president do spiking spike now if you watch and this has been my hobby lately is watching the news try to cover the story without using the word spy i i can't do it anymore he took that away from him he used to be they could have told the story without using the word but you they can say well there was a human informant and you know that trump is the trump supporters are calling it although yes it was a human informant but the supporters or calling us by us boy oh god believe anything suckers suckers so gullible
like sean hannity tells them something they believe everything spy now spike it we in you watch that they can't not satisfied though but they say it this way which president trump calls spike gate which other people say is actually in a human form but what do you hear what you've heard spy and you've heard it from the president and he put it in a clever little name the best of all the gates it's a frickin spy now it was spy until he will he branded it but now it's a spy so i know i get excited about all the wrong stuff but this this little piece of branding is is so good that i think historians are going to talk about this one with low energy jabon crooked hillary
this is now in the pantheon i like this this is in the my god we've never had a president who could do this before never have one again maybe we will but i doubt it he the this will this this is the sort of thing that just seals him as as the best at this you know whether he's the best president to be determined but the this for sure you probably also the you have a little press conference thing really talk to the press not a press conference on his way the helicopter and and he says you know i could he goes to present a ghost i colors spygate you call a spike gate i was a part that every time they show the cliff i laughed a lot you know i call it spiky
you call the spygate because because even the you call a spike gate part is just perfect i call the spygate you call us by gate everybody calls a spike in they'll spiky spiky there's a spy emoji all right uh oh let's also talk about the wall so there's some legislation that would allow individuals to donate to a special trust fund that would only be spent for the wall i think that's uh data idea not that i know how much would it would take a i think it would be something like you know if ten
one million people gave one hundred dollars a year you prob we pay for enough of it you know given the rate at which you can build anyway he can't build the whole thing in a year i think i think ten million people giving one hundred dollars a year give somebody could do the math it's probably something like that it doesn't matter if the the funding will get to you know twenty five percent of the wall or or what it will create progress on the wall and if you have progress and funding is just going to look like the walls getting done and the government couldn't couldn't make it
may we may be on the border of of taxation not being what it used to be in the old days the congress had to decide what you are getting taxed for it and you we have this weird situation where people were saying can you tax us more at least half the country was but taxes more we want to pay for that wall we can't do it directly just tax us some more why can't you guys just access we want to pay for this thing now that obviously that's not most of the country but some part of the country is saying all pay more taxes just give me a wall and so we may see this hybrid governments asian where you just have a direct way to fund the things you want on top of the things you had to pay taxes for so we might see more this for the popular stuff here's another example
of funding for planned parenthood there you go and somebody said it just as i was going to say that plan para red is really sort of a perfectly perfect case for this 'cause the people who pay the most well let me put this in economic terms if if i said give me ten dollars and i'm giving you nothing that you want you'd say aah dollars i don't want to spend that's just a waste of ten dollars but if i say give me ten dollars and i'll do something that you really care deeply about that ten dollars is going to buy you something you so want you want it deeply then you said yourself it's only ten dollars why not yeah and for the people what planned parenthood to be funded it's really really important and if you say them look
so you care about this and i know you want the whole government to pay for it but i think i think the people who are in favor of abortion everybody understands that the people who are against abortion are not astles alright well you can say that about everybody at any group so there are always bad people in every group but people who think life is sacred and then it starts at birth they're not jerks right you can disagree with them a lots of your good klay reasonable ill levels you can disagree but they're not jerks and so i think that they're they're entitled to not spend their own money on something that they believe is murder that's not my personal opinion by the way that you know not my opinion on abortion is to leave it to women
in other words if women as a majority want abortion to be legal or not legal under one under whatever conditions that's the majority of what women want i'm just going to say men let's let's recuse ourselves and support it but when it comes down to who spends money for things then i think everybody has to be involved and if some people want to spend money for this option let them somebody says that's a cop out no it is the opposite 'cause my opinion is very firm what makes a law kredible and let me give you some background on why my opinion if i don't say this every time things get taken out of context the reason my opinion on abortion is that men such as as myself should recuse themselves from the argument and just back whatever is the majority of fear
well opinion is that for issues that are literally life and death and abortion is life and death no matter where you say life begins at some point somebody is on the wrong wrong side of that and so it's a life and death question but have to have a a result abortion will either be legal or not legal and whichever it goes a big part of the country is going to be hopping when you have that kind of situation which is kind of rare a lot of things no matter that much there aren't that many there aren't that many issues that are actually life and death to that same extent right other things it can involve your health and maybe kill you later but this is a c top level life and death situation and in that unique situation what's most important for society is
whichever way the law goes ban it or allow it you need it to be credible if the law is kredible then the people who didn't get what they want can go with the system and they say i hate that l come with every fiber of my being but it was obtained in a credible fashion you know if you believe in the constitution you believe in you know majority in most cases creating the laws you can kind of buy into something that with the way you didn't want it to go you can hate it you can protest against that but you're not going to you're not going to leave the system you're not gonna cause a revolution because the system got what this
we should get the majority rule so my my deal is this if women collectively but i have an opinion and that's what the law becomes the majority female opinion without man being you know directly involved in that that's the most credible law so i will support the law that the majority of women want because that's what's best for the system so when somebody says that you're copping help by not giving an opinion it's the opposite i'm giving you an opinion about how to keep the entire system stable and credible and that's a bigger priority bob bomb but they don't have the same opinion i know women don't all have the same opinion how could you miss the point by so much how could you miss them
by so much i only care that the majority of women that their voice gets her not not every not every woman on the same side ok all right somebody saying it is a stupid point you left out the reasons surprise yeah the the so the people who say really dahlem shockingly dumb those opinions you'll notice a nobody would put a reason and you've got lots of characters so show me your reasons or you doesn't have to be a full reason you can just him that basically what your problem
as with that opinion good why is it only women's issue i didn't say that go ahead gotta give me give me your results i truly wish to avoid this topic women can't impregnate themselves as some reason yeah what do you say this right you're saying that the reasons against actually don't make sense it's not that i disagree or agree they're not even topic yeah so you see that the people who would say that i'm really dumb can give you a reason why that makes sense or is even on topic
somebody says onboard have rights no nobody said that eighteenth amendment has nothing i don't know if the house through the because men have father rights had nothing to do with that yeah that's not part of my calculation that's just a true thing is half the father's child correct has nothing to do with my point right right so you have lots of statements that true but they're not they're not about my points because the father with a father rights within the in all get in all situations men should have a say in the life they created where's your reason i gave you a reason i said that the way that i would prefer things makes the system more credible that's a reason
but you didn't give me a reason you just said father's have rights too or let me let me do it this way father's have rights too i hate i hate the dahlia but fathers have rights to is not a reason nor is it true people have right when the law and the constitution allow it i mean we can decide who has what rights somebody says reason jesus zero so somebody saying that jesus is the reason for why the law should be one way or another that i'll go with that as a let's say if your reason is is a religious interpreter
then i will respect that so i respect the some people ever religious interpretation but women have religion to so with women as much early or on one side i will allow their religious interpretations to be the form of credibility for the uh somebody said what if women oh my god the natural rights are inalienable false false we can make a law against anything we want it's not inalienable uh yeah jesus never talked about but but forget about the religious argument because women have that covered
something that men are going to add to the religious argument that women don't say on themselves so women don't add anything sparkle life etc yeah i'm not seeing any reasons so just check your check your thinking compare whatever it is you're saying on this topic about why men should have why men should not recuse themselves from having an opinion on this and compared to mine my reason is that if women majority or agree with whatever the law becomes on abortion that's the most credible income for the system even if you disagree with the outcome so be that reason and you've got something but the the no reason stuff doesn't make sense uh you don't believe in natural rights i sometimes there are some things which are so painful it's almost hard to talk about
so there's this idea that people have something called natural rights that they're sort of born with rights that's true if you wanted to find it that way another word you have a right to do anything until the law tries restrict you but we live in a world in which we always use the law to restrict people in a whole number of ways and that's our permanent situation it's not going to change so pretending that we could somehow just have the have the constitution or the laws of the rest of society not bother us while we express our rights it's just not a real world thing to say
women the only ones involved in making babies correct has nothing to do with my point children have them you recuse yourself don't recuse i'm not recusing anybody else ok so if any of your objections have anything to do with what i'm saying you might have a point but so far saying things that are true that just don't have anything to do with my point here comes the leftist idiocy from scott left out the reason i'm open to reasons and by the way if somebody sees me miss a reason going by you know feel feel free to just amplify it
somebody says i'm ignoring comments that make valid points i may have missed something made valid points but i'm not intentionally ignoring anything uh do you do fetuses they grow up to be women have a voice that has nothing to do with my point the law is supposed to protect the individual has nothing to do with my point murders not ok no matter what
nothing to do with my poor eight yeah none of this has anything to do with my point this is incredibly weak well we already talked about the trump letter that was the first part of the periscope all right maybe we should do a separate periscope on this there's so many comments on a probably missing so single father opinion should matter not to the law you give me a reason to believe your plan makes it the most credible i can i i can fill out that reason but i'm going to wind it down for this for today the the reason why credibility matters is is take this mental model
imagine that the law the laws on abortion were only created by men just just a mental thought i thought but imagine that all the abortion laws whether it's legal or illegal were only made by men and women didn't get a vote would that lobby kredible well it would not because women would say what the hell were the ones actually having the babies that we don't even get a vote that would not be a kredible law even if even if the man got the right answer in your opinion it's still not a credible law society wouldn't hold it would be too disruptive there would be riots in the street
if men and women both vote which is the current situation you get the current outcome which is there's there's there's a law but people don't feel it's credible necessarily there's there's a lot of the a lot of people want to change that law but now imagine yes seventy five let's say seventy five percent of women this is not the case but let's say seventy five percent of women were on the same side of abortion whatever side that is that would be a pretty kredible law because the women are the ones who they accept the biggest risk even if they don't have babies they are assumed to be fertile when they go into the workplace and that might influence whether somebody hires them they've got more appreciation for yeah the entire process so if women as a whole
for only on one side or the other you gotta pretty kredible rule the people with the most most death let me give you let me give you another example capital punishment the death penalty who gets killed in the death penalty well it's almost entirely men all right menace who get killed by the death penalty sometimes a woman gets the death penalty but it's so rare you barely hear about it so if you said well let's reverse that around scott do you agree that since the death penalty is almost entirely men that the mail opinion or whether these men should be killed or get life imprisonment should count more than women's opinion well this is a special case 'cause women are the victims right so there's nothing that's a perfect example but if somebody argued of the men should decide whether men are killed or given life imprisonment
i would say i'd listen to that argument but that's a special case because there the women are more often the victims were often the victims all right that's all for now sorry i went too far afield and i will talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2019-11-14.