« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 782 Scott Adams: Iran and Impeachment Because Most of our Real Problems are Being Solved

2020-01-09 | 🔗

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a

Content:

  • Why I’m a President Trump supporter
  • Paul Krugman’s computer
  • Ted Cruz calls some Dems apologists for Iran
  • Imminent attack, Congressional briefing
    • Rand Paul says he didn’t see proof
  • Ukrainian plane that went down in Iran
  • President Trump slurring during his Iran statement

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 782 Scott Adams: Iran and Impeachment Because Most of our Real Problems are Being Solved appeared first on Scott Adams' Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
i'm gonna bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump on everybody go earlier wows at my imagination or do you get better looking every day i think you do because you're smarter you're more fit you're just serve a better person the news to be going in the right direction could work on that but if you'd like to make your day even better than it already is i've got a suggestion for somebody called the simultaneous up and it doesn't take much all it takes is a copper among our glass attacker jealously stiva kantian jogger flask of vessel of any kind shuttleworthy favorite liquid like coffee and join me now
the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine held the the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous go less good looking good very well there's not too much new to talk about this is one of those weird news days there follows a big big news events where you just rather news sure the important things happening but they don't seem important because the other news is so big so run through a few things and first of all a one of that one of the questions that people always ask me is how can you be a trump supporter scott they often try
you me by saying stuff like scott you're smart how can you be a trump supporter which of course is just another way to insult me and i always have the same but the story doesn't always sound as clear and will say rational as it does this week so here's my story and it goes like this there's no such thing as the ideal president each presidency brings a different package of skills to the office and if that package of skills happens to be a good match with the situation good match with the times could match with the specific well will then it looks like you got a good president but is really only a good president whose perfectly matched with the current challenges
and what i said about tromp is that use the usa is like a hundred year flood the candidate the only get in the rarest situations you could ever have a president shop and the rarer situation is that he also had the skill to become president on top of whatever of other skills who breaks so what i've said is answers as there are certain set of problems they become ossified just go sort of stock and end if you ve got a certain set of problems that have been stuck and they ve been stuck for years or decades or something maybe you can fix the stock problems with the same president who is pretty good at least say getting you another economic decline or maybe the same president and was a good water precedent same president who is really good at social services or brain
your less division to the country you could think of a lot of things you want your president to do and they had all been good at certain substances that but every now and then and maybe it every hundred years you really need somebody like tromp crucible just changes all the variables his is the ultimate box shaker ask yourself if anyone else would have done what trump did with ran things so right is it can you imagine any of us standard president's being present with it weather with a range of options about what to do with a ram and picking kill their top guy who else would have picked that option nobody literally no one would have ever pick that option is the the guy that's the point of a trump presidency
nobody says he's not gonna break any additions but he says he's not gonna make people angry nobody says he's not gonna scarce and people nobody says its cost free it's gonna be exciting every time you had shrunk to a situation and that excitement can translate to i'm afraid risk i got ptsd so is definitely a changer and every now and then you need somebody who can make it the eu can make the choices simply the choices that no one and he is and he is certainly that guy now i would go so far as to say just to complete this that the president who follows this president does need to be anything like it and maybe that's good said somebody was saying about cardiac for twenty twenty four it
maybe that this president breaks free some of the big problems mean let's just imagine imagine if you will the we gather some kind of they either some trade deals with china but mostly wait couple that's good suppose we reach some kind of better were less lee less lethal understanding with north korea and iran maybe the only thing the changes is whether were at each other's necks but there's big young there's some kind of stable situation there and then our enemies that's pretty good too you can imagine time that the president after this one would would be best if they had a different set of skills for whatever the new problems are so that's just the point and i think that the taking out solemnly isn't the central
best example of why every hundred years you'll need a job you need a drop every hundred years to just break the stuff that was was frozen you gotta piping he can't can't get it open sometimes you just gotta take the other the torch just cut the pipe off so inga guy and so far as it is to be worked out on some of the big issues are so it looks like they had ever heard there's this thing called impeachment trial it's not a real impeachment and it's not a real trial and i really has no importance anything whatsoever but is the top had life how did you come to be the door top headline something that's not even real
and by not real i mean it's not much of a trial if you already know how it ends it's not much of a process everybody knows what the end state is and you don't need any of the in between states to get to the unstable there's no mystery in this one unless something new happens and if something new happens well that would be news but something new happens it's the impeachment that isn't impeachment further trial that isn't the trial and the witnesses that won't be called for the decision we already understand what is gonna be there's almost nothing there's like it's like a bowl of soup except you put this then there's not there's no soup
you got the boy you get the spoon this lunchtime you ve got everything but the soup and were all just like taking big spoonfuls another guy i gather that another rightful about and above all how much more nothing isn't my ball well according to see it in as far as the latter another why don't why am i not getting filled up the key beating the nothing do you eat super you drink it it's a big question i so impeachment is so boring i haven't even to say about it except those born tomorrow if i talk about the beaten i'll probably talk about this outcome somebody reminded me about the story about paul krugman programme and famous no
winner of the nobel in economics and also a big anti trapper whose famous for some bad predictions one of his bad predictions that trump would thank the economy upon election that didn't happen so their allotted transporters who are not big zanzibar krugman and so that the contacts we have now heard before i tell you the rest historic ass if you haven't heard paul krugman tweeted and this is the part this got everybody scratching red why would he tweet this there that's her dad some hack with his computer and that someone else had been using his ip address to make it look like it was him and downloading child porn
i am only getting use that phrase once cuz i get demonetized enough so he tweets that they that they've discovered this on his computer and they're looking into it and and of course as walking the internet and said why did you tweet that is that is it exactly the sort of thing you shouldn't wheat because if we never heard about it it didn't happen and wouldn't it be better if we never heard about it so i would like to surprise you all and by the way he did an update later where he said he thought it was heck brother was something was scam word maybe somebody said they hacker or something like that so withdrew his original tweets and thought it was maybe some have a scam contacted guiding us widowed mother details doesnt matter here's my point
allow me now to do where you don't expect gonna defend poor grognon when is right is right what is wrong is wrong i'll try to call them out equally i have nothing is paul krugman he's a brilliant guy who got a few predictions wrong he's on the other side but i'm sure he doesn't want what's worse for the country none of us to all right so we're all we're all americans let me defend paul krugman here some people said why would you bring up the fact that your computer has been associated with the worst crime you can possibly imagine what we didn't even have to think about it you know about it and here's your answer the answer is because ball krugman is smart at least in the sand he's smart i would have done maybe the same thing here is why he was presented with two impossible choices
remember he works for a newspaper organization the new york times and they were looking into her for him probably if it was on her work computer or something but the new york times was evolved the endless police were involved and he's a famous person here is the quest what were the odds that this story wasn't going to get there was some other way well maybe it's possible the story would never have come out and in that case we would just never european maybe what it meant it might leak how'd you like to have to catch up to a story after it leaked by somebody else suppose the story came out that there had been an investor creation of this material which can say again on his computer and then after the story comes out call would be forced to defend oh no it was alive was a hack ignores argues the scale would you believe it
what would be your your credibility the story well if you heard his defence sometime after you heard the accusation you probably say to one's one one the accusation is correct just automatically is just your brain would go there because we're we're sort of pride i too believe that anyone who is accused of anything doesnt matter what the crime is sort of poised to believe three two one for the one is probably true not necessarily still innocent until and guilty but three two one forty one probably do not now look at the way you did it it was so crazy to come out and be the first person to tell the public that the story this is happening that your first impression is oh well it is sketchy sketchy and you know you get a little suspicious when you hear it
topic in general if you pair any mail adult with this topic which are not going to mention again are you automatically think well dollars maybe his something to it but the fact that he went first when public and you know it was an embarrassing thing to bring out at all biases me to think that there is no forty one ten to one whatever that is not true that they had nothing to do with him but rather that use telling the real story about something that happened to him so he had to terrible choices one he go public himself which was terrible or he could not go public
himself and take the risk was somehow got out another way way worse waivers so you basically other choice of its leg was trapped in the bare bear trap and he could you off his own late to get away where it can stay in the bare trap and die maybe if nobody found them he chewed off his life to get away i can't fault him for that he had two horrible choices just horrible choices i think he took the one that had the best risk management balance so i defended paul krugman for going public with it it was kind of ball z and i think he correctly read sk management of it what do i always tell you about a calmness i always tell you economists are good looking at the comparison if you do not look at the comparison you say what
heck are you doing paul grognon why would you say this in public and make us all to think this about you when we never have to take it and the answer is he compared to the alternative which was worse i economists gallon tell crews accused some of the democrats being apologists for ran i hate that were i hate it when people call me an apologist for anything and i hate it when ted crews this is against the other side i just i think that's it's a good it's a good will save persuasion workers it probably has an impact on people so persuasion wise does have an impact it's one of those words are really bothers the people we hear it i know what i heard it bothers me is not like other insults because is
true when somebody insult me about something that i feel is a little bit true kind of ever bothers me know that mean i don't have to tell you how many times i been called old ugly a barber i've been called la things but when somebody says hey your ugly i think to myself how well let's not totally untrue energy than doesn't but when somebody calls me an apologist when i know that i'm doing a pretty rigorous job of trying to look at both sides calling out there the negatives and passes it really bothers me because it's not true so likewise when i get all the racist or anything that's just not true that bothers me more than something that i say well ok that's just your opinion
see why say that so either word we should bear the other thing that the other thing that ted is talking about you he got challenged on this claim that obama gave a hundred and fifty billion or one point a billion turann are used if used as i am i had to go google this because i didn't what the hell is going on so here's was confusing me there are two things i hear the news all the time not from authoritative sources but people on twitter etc and they say something like this a bummer gave around a hundred and fifty billion dollars also separately obama gave them one point eight billion dollars and i said to myself waiver which is the number one point eight billion which doesn't sound like damage in the big
scheme of things or is it a hundred and fifty billion it's totally sounds like a lot how many of you know did give a around one point eight billion or did we give them a hundred and fifty billion or did give nobody anything because it was their own money and we just allowed them we stop stealing it basically two different things are thank you i was some of you were actually way more informed that i'm good one this is actually good i'm actually impressed i'm impressed with her well enough all of you are so most of you are giving the correct answer which is it was two separate things other similar in the sense that it both had to do with money to iran that used to be blocked but now it is so the one point eight million was the actual physical cash the we directly gave them
the one hundred and fifty billion was more conceptual meaning that around the countries around the world there was a hundred and fifty billion it wasn't all us the united states blocking it it wasn't all clear if it was all free and clear or some that was later to debt what's the economist look at that one hundred and fifty to start shrinking so it's not one hundred and fifty is the highest not other people say the estimate is not one hundred and fifty is more a hundred and then other experts say well you even if it's more like a hundred probably won't i'll get on blocked because it's a series of different reasons in situations so maybe some of the hundred billion will get unblock around put the estimate at thirty five a hundred and fifty billion turned into thirty five billion when i ran talks about it
but when people use hyperbole they picked the biggest number honoured and fifty what's the real number that between thirty five and one hundred fifty billion does anybody even now but these big numbers let me put this in in this context the gdp of iran is four hundred and fifty billion or let does it work seventeen number so somewhere another area of under five hundred billion so if the amount that we gave them was just the cash that will just be point or for other gdp we wouldn't be much if it was thirty five billion as the iranian say it would be seven per cent of the there annual gdp now you're talkin some serious money and italy
honor and fifty billion is like a third of their entire gdp spurious serious serious money now what ted crews was challenged with is that that money went directly to too bad uses such as funding their proxies sarah now he was challenged by whoever interview challenge them and said basically basically this is my own where's my basically how do you know that money less specific money went to the proxies the bad uses layer pal you know that too is tat true said i love me some tat grew sometimes because whether you agree with her crews or not whether you think he should be present or not he's a really smart guy i've we
all agree on that right is one of the smart you guys in the sun and his answer was that money is fungible how many of you know what that means looking up tell me how many of you know what he meant when he said buddy is fungible is in economic terms and you know your lot i use it i use it when i want to show off but i only use at one not good enough to explain it does most people don't know what the word means summit said friedman said it so let me explain what fungible means fungible beans that could use for everything meaning that oil and cash or both fungible meaning that if we have some cash you can spend a raven if you have some oil the oil can be sold to anybody
everybody buys oil so a barrel of oil a pile of money are called fungible because they can use for all kinds of different purposes not just what purpose so that was ten cruises answers that money is fungible but there was a clever answer because a reporter probably didn't know what it meant what are the odds that a journalist understood this economic term that is for trouble because it made the question go away which has caused a brilliant it was a smart answer people probably at the look it up when they did look it up this at all ok that's a good point that their money is fungible but here's what they want to catch in the argument is that it wasn't enlargement because it was actually an argument against what
it grew so saying not forward in other words ted cruising debunked his own argument and still made it look like we are whether that because people don't want fungible means if you know the fungible means money can be spent for anything that was the reporters point for this point is this money went to eradicate winder central your bucket of money their budget and then separately always separately and this is this is important economic term completely supper lay there was a new decision what want to spend our money on not just that money but all of it what's our budget so in a real sense that money did not go directly to malign activities button it is true that a little extra money now that the
suddenly so it is only true that iran is a certain size they have a certain budget and if you had a little to it they ve got a little extra money is not oh true that their money went right to hezbollah or something but it in it indirect wag i it it now this is what those arguments that people try to shade and then they try to win with persuasion if you try to win with facts is just whoop we release some of their own money went into their budget and then they may some decisions about what to do with it we don't like some of their decisions could they have done everything that they did anyway without that money that we gave them and the us yeah the other kind they could have done everything they did without their money they just would have had to cut the budget somewhere else
we found out another way to make money nobody cared about that now about this briefing on the on how imminent the attack was if we had not taken out solemnly the pontio and trumpet said that it was is that we had in tell that there was an imminent attacks coming so is a good thing we took him out because it saved us from those imminent attacks on american people assets but of course we the public cannot see these secret secret topsecret skippy like information so we are relying on the people have the very special people can see it some of the very special people who can see that information include much to the unhappiness of the administration rampart and senator lee ran paul comes out of the secret secret
skippy location and says and see any evidence of an imminent attack i was there i was in the secret skiff room i i don't know from the skiff was wherever was they did the briefing i've just throwing a skipper there because it's a funny word so he comes out of the meeting saying nope there is nothing about maiden said there was never an attack was just generalities stuff i read in the newspaper do you believe who do you believed you believe might bumpo who said earlier definite information about imminent attack or when he showed all the information and others did turann paul repulsive nope no information there i'm lookin out i'm listening to you and i'm seeing no information who do you believe well
the quick answers ran paul ok if you ever so let me say this ran paul is rapidly becoming a national treasure you need you need the centres of that caliber here's the highest quality dissenter than we might have in this country although you now i'm not gonna money this up by saying that there are some on the left who are good dissenters as well i will name names but but ran paul is a high quality dissenter and what that means is that even when i disagree with them looks like he's asked even when i disagree with him he's got a reason and its solid for why he's on the other side that high quality descent i loved
when i disagree with him i know somebody saying rubio believed it etc lemme get back to my analogy you're gonna be sick of this one two people are in a room close room one of them says look at that elephant the other one in a small room looks around and says there's nothing in this room it's just us there's no elephant which one is right it's the one who doesn't see the not a hundred percent of the time but is a pretty reliable rule hallucinations are positive there not subtraction the put the person who doesn't see the elephant is not subtracting an elephant from their environment and not see it but it is very common for solutions add an elephant and see something that is their seeing something that isn't there is common not something that is their when you're looking right at it
read was in the room her the same stuff saw the same subtler burials didn't see it who do you believe i say there are ninety people see it and one doesn't who do you believe if he ran paul i'm gonna go with rainfall in italy meaning that we see as a good argument that is not there now it could be some subjectivity because these things always are now here's where i disagree with ramble so again i just love the hell out of the fact that you so good at this being a dissenter a patriotic center was saying and i would say in africa the centre to where's words were them it doesnt matter a bet whether that evidence was solid work there's no impact everything the fact that so many had
twenty solid years of doing that kind of thing is all the evidence i need that it might do it again do you need more help situation scholarly solemnly as a twenty year record of doing this sort of thing and he was doing the sort of thing recently this week at the rate of this sort of thing was increasing do you need more evidence gideon evidence of this specific future thing you're gonna do i sure as hell don't need any that why would you do that you know that so of course we had all the justification we needed to take him out and the president the right to call i think you know maybe they tried to bolster their case a little too hard by saying that you know what is imminent threat maybe they felt they needed to say that for the public's benefit both for my benefit you did not for my benefit his track record
told you everything you need it now about the likelihood of future attacks and i was high as it that's all story the likelihood of future attacks was high without any info information about future tax saw you did it how surprised are you that the initial reports that the ukraine airline they went down after taking off from turann during the missile tax or shortly after i guess how so riser you that ukraine has withdrawn its initial opinion that it was mechanical failure surprise nobody i don't think we have to wonder if that got taken down by an uranium action because avenue over taranto wasn't ass
it wasn't the russians it was in the air space near turann turann karen i can never pronounced iran sosa later we can find out that probably some missile defence went wrong wishes or about at the end of yesterday's will get to the slayer what do you think of trumps slurring of his speech during his statement about a ram was i yes the time has just changed me there was yesterday's usanga was yesterday feels like yesterday so long like i was so interrupted the statement about a rare and he's learned some words
several words actually you slurred and it was it was very noticeable that you couldn't you couldn't not notice it and i didn't see much reporting about it on the news was probably a little bit bios on social media but were were brutal and often in the comments if you said anything positive about the outcome the comments will be buddies lowering his words is obviously losing it what was wrong with you how can you not see it to which i responded he was literally up all night preventing world war three he's in the seventies if you are in your sovereignties and europe all night literally i imagine i can't imagine you slept then you ve got to sleep if you are the president and you maybe just created world war three i'll think you're gonna sleep not that night maybe later but not that night so
you show me a guy and has been seventies who can stay up all night worrying about personally starting world war three personally like you person looks like you started world war three if you can to sleep last night well there's what's wrong with you you probably a sociopath i'm you have to be a sociopath to get to sleep that night and so if he slurs his words during a rally i'm going to worry because you know he's going to plan for a rally you know he's done it a million times she's not nervous about it you know we got a good night's sleep but in this case you know he did not have a good night's sleep and he acted exactly like a guy won't let me put it this way i joked on twitter that if you're up all night worrying about to start world war three it would make you the energy equivalent of job bush by the next day and you know
the drink speech he was very subdued and low energy he looked exhausted and asian about you shoulda exhaustion i bet would you be more worried if he if he had been well rested i'm just think about that imagine he had looked completely well rested after an evening in which world war three was on the line wouldn't that be a little more worrisome i don't want a well rested president world war three is on the line i dont think world we're three was ever on the line but the stakes right have you noticed the there's probably no better example it was so far of how our republic has shifted we used to be a republic this i say this lot we
form does republic but a social media has gonna taken over the role of what the government used to do now of course trump alone apparently made a decision about taking out solvent nay but that's what are those your secret thing is that the public couldn't participate in any way and should but the decision after that about how to respond whether to go to war with the red etc isn't my imagination or was the decision made by social media think about it was the decision made by social media and i'm gonna even narrow that more was the asian to go to war with iran were how we o them etc by our politicians directly wasn't made by twitter and the twitter measures i would argue that twitter made it impossible to go to war i don't think the present wanted to go to war anyway
but in terms of who's running the country is felt a lot like it was twitter now you could say the news organisations or a big part of it and they are buying even the news organisations in my opinion follow twitter they follow the dominant voices on twitter of dominant opinions it seems to me therefore the big decisions twitter as is evolving into a sort of eight a national brain now towards theirs there is almost like a mind forming which is the collection of all the twitter users and i'm not counting facebook and instagram cuz they're are different concepts forms the political stuff really gets concentrated on twitter says the political mind anyway of of the country and travel to his credit and i said
this is a positive is very tapped him to a social media saying and very tapped into a fox news about the other news or say but i would argue that the news follows social media now they they break the stories but how they talk about the stories often guessing warmed by help people are responding to the stories on social media as they want more of this or lesson that they get the response so just look for that look for that that the that winter has formed a a national brain which is the sum of all its parts and that is running the show and that our government has to be responsive to it can still make decisions that the social media doesn't care about or can't know about because it secret but the the amount of decisions that are elected officials are making let's say independently is shrinking where
the influence of twitter as a as a whole as a brain if you will is increasing twitter is global but in terms of what i'm talking about it tends to operate more nationally at the end of i just had to bring up this topic again because his blowing my mind so if you watch my periscopes from a few days ago i was talking now in my opinion i was predicting that the future was wearing a ring the ring would have a loose little speaker and at that you could talk to your additional assistance you could control your environment and that everything was gonna go towards a ring the very next day apparently as he asked to see us amazon announced this ring their works with their digital system and has a button
has a little the little microphone in it and what are the odds are that i'm that was this wind blowing my mind all day i point that out those sort of assimilation winking at me let me summarize this whole situation with a red this way i believe that more and more people are going to be saying what i said very early on this the solemn and i was the real power in iran and that the i told her i was sure of unease all to overrule solomon acres holiday on this security services and the entire military and had the loyalty of the troops and i my gases if it's like every other situation we ve got two powerful p
they both wish that they had been the one in the power i've got a feeling that he does not have the same hard line instincts as the guy we just took off the field and if i had to guess i'm going to guess the it's gotta be more flexible now there's reporting reliable is that iran has already told their proxies to stand down now maybe they're always standing down for now so you don't know that's bergmann of course or and that they can control them honoured percent but everything is looking positive everything that's currently happening
looks very very positive in terms of a ran the united states being able the work something out but it also has to be said that if a ran had no intention of being positive whatsoever this would be the perfect time to fake it until they can just get the current tensions behind us so can't tell you out of there faking it was real but everything you are doing is consistent with something positive at least being passed so not a rule around and here's the other overriding consideration colony is eighty years old i dont think age can be ignored because when you are eighty you're thinking about here your last play you thinkin about your legacy does come any wanna die or even be in his final year of life
with a situation where is at war and is destroyed his own country probably not does he want to be at peace both in his a tree in and with himself in his final years probably so well where is more of a young man's game and the young man was just taken off the field the general i have a feeling that age alone may have mellow this guy and i think that the death of solid today which i believe he did not mourn remember it's it's a big tell that the that they consider us even after we took out the number one or number two guy and their country and all they did was send some bombs into the some into the desert that's said and then they said we're even
does it sound doesn't sound like an iranian trade to give up does it sound like an iranian trade to say are you killed her most important guy we threw some those missiles into the desert or even does that sound like something they would do if they really really cared about this guy that we killed doesn't it sounds it sounds it's not mine reading it speculation so indifferent mind reading says you know what they're thinking regulation means yeah you're you're just doing the odds while they're probably think he or they might be thinking this and hearsay evidence why i think that speculation is fine
mind reading where you sure you know what they're thinking is just crazy so is the certainty that the problem not not the speculation speculations iceland so my speculations as this may be heading in the positive direction because europe is not acting in any way like they give us this guy's dead you know that the size of the crowds doesn't mean anything really doesn't it's the way the leadership responds that matters i think we're heading the positive way did khamenei soften when he got older well we also don't know who is running running things when the last ayatollah was in charge so i got a lot of questions about
and by the way remember in speculation you only playing the odds so if you say to yourself there was another old person who stayed hardcore until the end well that could be true we're only talk about the odds that most wars tend to be started by and actually years that's a good question when let me ask this question are your second question for historians are there any historians watching answer this question name and eighty plus year old leader who started a war there was an already started thither probably plenty of words that were under way what about the bands yamamoto held woozy other examples in history of
eighty year olds starting wars world war one who was it was started in the one world one i'm not sure that there was one person started war brush nerve in afghanistan was brezhnev eighty the other not many eighty year olds i thought you said history wasn't predictive it has not history is not predictive but they can teach us things so certainly we can learn limitless s nice
that's more like science if you do this study and found that you have all the butterflies did this or that might tell you something about future butterflies if you do a study about all the people of a certain age they only do things only happened at a certain age has not so much about history that's more about people so what i have always said is that people are people but history doesnt rebate necessarily and they could by accident but not the sole hoochie men he didn't really start the worthy so that's just question for historians and for now will i see people say world war one but can it be said that there was one person who certain world war one it's a question for these stories can actively on that and i'll talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2020-02-05.