« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 86: Portal to Hell in my Twitter Feed and Roseanne

2018-05-30 | 🔗


  • Quick, sincere apologies aren’t good enough?
  • Stop asking for apologies, if you won’t accept them
  • The portal demons…demon after demon
  • Credit for economy, Trump, Obama or George Washington?
  • People mocking lack of North Korea progress
  • Trump increased our debt, but who benefited?
  • Should a “fair” tax system be based on dollar amount or percentage?
  • Kim Kardashian’s White House visit
  • Obama’s unexplained change in policy for dispensaries
  • Did Jeff Sessions change guidelines for minor drug offenses?
  • Prison reform
  • Crowdsourcing trust fund for the wall
  • Crowdsourcing trust fund for Planned Parenthood


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 86: Portal to Hell in my Twitter Feed and Roseanne appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
bump bump bump bumpo hello everybody if you like me and why wouldn't you be really you already have your beverage hello again hello jack and if you have your beverage you know what time it is it's time for coffee was got atoms and the simultaneous sip yes i did get erika not a good one but i just get erika are you ready well what do we want to talk about first roseanne or the portal to hell that i opened up in my twitter feed quite accidentally let's we'll start with rosa
some of you know that i have supported very comedians who have gotten in trouble for things i said under thee under the principle that committee your comedians and jokes and jokes i defended cathy griffin when she showed the severed head of president trump offensive mistake yes funny i didn't think so was meant to be a joke yes let's get over it move on likewise the was it michel wolf who did the routine at the the whatever dinner there was the one who insulted sirocco be sanders and the jokes were not funny to me but other people laughed
or in the form of jokes they were told by a professional humorist i got over it pretty quickly so now we have roseanne who is in deep trouble and keep in mind that the do i just defended and have consistently defended were on the left so now roseanne does something which we must all disavow for its offensiveness and its as some people said racial undertones but let's talk about it a little bit one once we ve started by disavowing it then than we're all good people right so you disavowed i disavowed this of ours and i'll give you my thoughts on the first thought is that i would like to be shared with the team whose approaches you know you the way you look etc
so the whole notion of going after the person instead of the idea is just such a gigantic mistake so forget about it you know before we even talked of yet about but before we even talk about the racial aspect of rosen's joke why are we doing this while why are we going after people individually instead of their ideas is just it's just not helpful it doesn't help the person you who does it doesn't help the people it's done to its just nothing but angry so i disagree with nobody from cathy griffin to roseanne after individuals without any regard to what's the point was the policy what surreal probably says my first problem the second problem is that in
for you to be mad at roseanne mad enough for her to lose your job and and all that you have to make a certain assumption do you know what that assumption is go ahead what is what is the assumption you have to make this nodded evidence an assumption you have to make about roseanne in order for you to be her for this it has nothing to do with the joke actually we have to racist well actually that's that's a pretty good answer that's not what i was going for years i'm sure you have to make you have to make the following a sum that when she was preparing that tweet the hermit no state was something like this i'm going to send the sweet
people are gonna certainly see this is racist that's ok now do you think that's a valid assumption that there too rosy i was thinking well here's the others is clearly racist that's why i'm saying it i dont anything wrong with a bad i have i have a brand new tv show what could go wrong saying an overt obvious racist thing on twitter now in order to make that assumption which is not in evidence right what's in the evidence is that she did something that was hugely offensive i founded offensive most without a defensive a hundred per cent of people agree it was offensive but the second part in the offensive parties objective
meaning that even if people subjectively or offended we can observe them say oh that guy's offended that person's offended so the offensive part is in evidence no doubt about that but why she's thinking of it and also the fact that people are offended because of the racial element to it so these things are in in evidence there in fact but the part that makes it the big problem is that have to read their mind you have to red rose ends mind and imagine something in sanely unlikely happened in order for year your mental model of this whole situation to make sense and that has to be that she was actually sitting there say yes i know this tweet is racial i'm going to send it anyway well it was
we saw in the sense mention the now i should imagine race at all but everybody sought that way right so separating help people saw it because we all saw it the same way i think everybody reside settlers rachel undertones innocence bad do you think she was thinking that when she sent it let me ask you how many of you think thinking thinking over tweed interracial terms when she sent it which doesn't excuse by the way is completely not excused i you too slow but in her mind how many you think she was thinking all this is racist this'll be funny funny erases way somebody said probably not i would say a million to one against it nothing's impossible right but
would you like a million to one against it because now we would she not do that but nobody would do that so or to have the view that is the common view of this situation you have to assume something that's not and evidence is nearly impossible well impossible so strong and so on equally the anybody would make that set of decisions now here's the second part rose at once it was pointed out to her how people were accepting why she thought was a joke she apologized public and in her apology she said yeah she understood it was offensive so she understood the problem she apologized she apologized to everybody who was offended he apologized with what i want i took to be sincerity
why do i think we're sincerity well again carried her mind but let me let me you if your impression is the same as mine do they have you have an impression of roseanne though she ever shades her personal opinion another words do you feel the roseanne where the don't like her whether you like a message you don't like it feel she ever so something there she doesn't mean she's not really that person right he seems to be the person whose biggest problem is that she hey what's on your mind she doesn't have a proper have a problem of not being straight with the public is fair to say so she has very long credible history of not being fully crap though she says things that things even if you don't agree with them right sir
to me it looked sincere it was public happened immediately she showed an understanding of what the problem was as apologies go it was complete would you agree would you agree that the apology was complete she she apologized to the public she apologized the target she did it quickly publicly i saw sincerity in it because very credibility now she she's a strange shooter in that sense and here's what she didn't do she did not do anything like i'm doing right now which is but i was thinking there sir are you to ban offended see any that they do it was a straight timely complete apology here's my question you do you want to live in the world were up
who makes an honest mistake offends people apologizes word company early in exactly the form the everybody likes to see apologies quickly publicly everything there do you want to live in the world where that person losing their job because and here's a key part of something you imagined she was thinking when she wrote the tweet that is almost certainly not true do you want to live in their world i doubt it and i would apply this to anybody if somebody offended me as much as an endless list the amount of offence that the roseanne and i received
we are a hundred times over just yesterday on twitter just typical tuesday on twitter so on twitter people are massively offend people all day long and sort of what it is if somebody theoretically offended me and is pretty hard for me to be a when at one of the downsides of being a professional humorist is if we don't get offended and so is harder for us to see other people getting in other words all people work and humor we tend to get me jaded edgy because you're if you're dealing with all the time unita you need a bigger fix you know you need a little edgier stuff than the normal public does and sometimes it's easy to forget overshoot that's just me the rest of them why can't handle this level of you know i'll say edginess were offensiveness depending on your point of view
so it's easy to make the mistake i've made a million times but if somebody this to me what want to live in a world where a sincere quick perfect apology isn't good enough our living our world so abc i think i agree with the young and pretty much every i've heard talk about this abc i will not criticise their decision there a business and businesses make this and is based on how their public will respond i can say that was a long decision from the shareholders point of view i don't know but is there it is to make another second guess but i don't want to live in the world the abc just created
why do you want to live in a world where and apologies and good enough and again i apply the same thing to cathy griffin i don't remember she ever apologized or not now let me take us to the next level how many times so people asked how many times have people asked president trumpet to apologize for offensive and how many times has you poligized well depending on how you count you might say was at one time he almost apologize for their thing but not quite but basically president rub dozen apologize for offensive things that other people have cooked up in their head he also doesn't he doesn't apologized for things they actually say either end will say to me well that's you isn't like crazy you should apologise when you offend
people and i would remind them if president trample apologized for offending people there wouldn't be time to do anything else because somebody is always offended you you couldn't you couldn't you couldn't make enough time in your scheduled to apologise to all the people who demanded so i've i've suggested that president from strategy of never apologizing first of all keeps him looking like a stronger force which is good for the branding and how he deals with the rest of the world he just like stronger that way actually it's just now practical because everybody would be asked four apologies all day and you know what happens if you do apologize what people say if you do apologize they say it wasn't good enough and you're still fired by abc what was the point
don't ask for an apology ever again if roseanne can't keep her job after that apology do you get it don't ever talk to me again anybody about anybody apologizing for anything ever again apologizing no longer works because both the left and the right i think that the bowed equally guilty in different ways you folks have created the world whereas sera apology to what clearly an accidental offence yours norton roseanne knew what she was doing when she tweeted china was offensive in one way i can't believe that she intentionally senate now
that it would be received the way was it wouldn't it didn't help her a bit stop asking for apologies if you knock and accept them so that's my thing with and then other people said limit me let me take it to another level give myself in trouble because i'm betting trouble lately so people said hey that wasn't a joke well here again i'm a professional humorist rose anders jokes reliving the basic set up by the joke is looks like the other the the result this berries this is the most common joke you'll ever see on twitter what is what is the thing you see all the time how many times have i done i've said for example that
clapper breton look like those two markets here that the old guys muppets now do clapper and brennan actually look like those muppets no then actually look like the markets is just money because here's what makes this money for those of you who need your humor explained to you the reason that is funny to compare collaborator to those two markets the old man muppets is because simultaneously they remind you of each other but they don't look like if they looked just like on it wouldn't be as funny it's because it doesn't like em but is still reminds you of them by design congruity the makes a funny i shall tell you another one president trump
is not actually a cheat oh jesus if you looked at present from you would seem nothing that's actually like it it oh except in a vague way the color of his hair these are really very close to jesus in terms of how it looks or acts but when you say its veto jesus about tromp its immediately funny because you can see true even though there's nothing like that that actually looks like him that's what makes a funny it's funny because he's not that let me give you people ever compared mitch macao to a turtle now if you are looking actual picture maternal and a picture of mitch mcconnell and you go point by point you say organisers actually nothing about in the dark look like a total accept big either does like a turtle so the
doesn't really looked like a turtle but you still see it is what makes it funny it's the end congruity there they are trying to hold two thoughts they can both be true at the same time i a joke before that the best in seoul i saw about myself on the internet with somebody said i looked like a toilet brush with the mouth i think that's good america so much if you imagine yo my my silvery here being a little bushehr somebody said i you look like a toiler brush with a mouth now if you are at put me next to actual toilet brought even if your mouth you would say ok
yeah there's nothing actually they'll looks like that but you still see it that's what makes a body that i dont look like toiler brush where the mouth points you can still kind of feel it right as the vine so that style of joke is both areas and common and the most ordinary thing you ever see on the internet if you're asking me was this a joke while is a professional comedian telling some thus in the format of a joke which indeed made some people laugh that's as close as you can get to a joke is as anything but was it also carrying a political message yes sometimes you can have two variables it was ok carrying a message a political message she doesn't
barely rosanna some problem with valerie jarrett are remunerated us soon there's something be two things it could be a joke the carry the message it's also offensive it could be three things that's enough about roseanne i don't want to live in a world where an apology for offence has not been enough do you let me just ask you do you want to live in a world where roseanne can't make an apology and still keep her job so i put i'll tell you about my portal to hell when i open up in twitter i mentioned this little day yesterday by it it just got worse and worse
i was responding to and i've deleted all the tweets because i had to close the portal portal to hell i spend as much time as i can looking at both sides of the political spectrum i make make sure i'm sampling heavily from all sides but but looking cnn is still the the clean version of yo that that point of view will you actually see the actual demons coming through the portal and here i am talking about these citizens who came on twitter to to attack me it's a whole different level of and then i'm gonna be careful with my language you my worldview the movie i mean they look like demons coming through a portal in hell because they're not rational and they're just
angry and evil they don't even see they dont register entirely as human released on twitter cause you don't see faces and self you to see their ideas if it were true that there were actually do means in the world now that sort of lived among us then young these would be them and they came after me hard and of course the thing they came after me which made made it more frustrating is it i had done reply that somebody but the way twitter is organized it looks like i was replying to the top comment in the thread instead of the commenter and i could have deleted the top person's name from the throw but i didn't i was lazy and that caused the top com and her to come back to me and as people said and i quote the law you got owned dude
you got own so hard ha ha ha ha ha that's what it looks like this oh oh and do after demon came through the portal there were other dale demon all type and they all said man you got owned now i would have been owned had i've been talking to the person they thought i was talking to and had her response to me made any sense that wasn't talking to her in the first place if any of that if any of them they fought happened had had actually happened than men i certainly would have been owned so they work the demons they came through the portal were were creating this movie in their mind in which i had done something that quite obviously didn't happen and is easy to demonstrate because you just click on the tweet
and you look at the first name and you can see who i was responding to you can also see what that person said you see how my response to that person was completely in context and it would make sense that i would have responded to that of the person sorry to make their story supporting so yeah if you explaining you're losing that is exactly right so i was no win situation where i was completely demonstrably correct meaning that might this was right there on twitter you could actually just look at it and it was obvious that what i was saying was true and people still not people the demons kept saying after i pointed out that it was obvious that there were mistaken demons from hell respond when you show them or look just click on this we then you can see that you're wrong i'm just replying to that other guy do they say oh i see i guess my comment and may sense because now
i see that you're replying to somebody else did they say that no they do not they said something more like this shores i was replying to other person nice try own you got on so that's what i was dealing with much of yesterday so i ended up deleting those tweets just so i don't have to look at them more but do you know what happens when you delete your tweet in which everything you did was right and everything your critics did was actually talking about the wrong point do they say i was smart delete ass he didn't have to deal with those demons comes through the portal no they don't he deleted a sweet we'll go to the way back machine will take a picture that
it's coming back its govern back that's what when you delete your tweets saw mix hour later today no cure the other thing there was served movies i won scream situation the thing that get off as i said i had noted some successes of the trumpet the things like north korea is going well and isis been down and the economy was raging now i thought i let me check this with you i thought that those three items were not in question in the other movie and i dont know how i miss this because i think i've been watching the cnn even cnn says the account is doing well right an ironic right even msnbc says vehicle
means doing well i don't i'm imagining that but if you talk to the demons who comes through the portal they say that my claim that the trump economy is doing great is false because of two reasons here's why they say trumped does not get credit for the good economy two reasons number one is not good that the economy right now is actually bad because the data is high and slowing down yo five other reasons certain reason number one term doesn't get credit
the economy now is actually terrible reason number to the term doesn't get credit for the economy is that a bomb i guess the credit you get that let me say it in the voice of deal so it makes more sense well i got to the two problems with you scurry what study i know you think this good economy has something to do will present the whole your own your own but two problems the economy is actually terrible and obama gets credit for it wait that needs
three because obama was great with the economy and everything he did was really good so but the economy is bad now i know i'm mad but i'm no longer sure why well anyway there is no peace in north korea ha ha ha i believe you like that president job did somebody with north korea do you see any peace where's bees i don't see any peace do you see peace owned you go on now sure enough the north korea situation is far from solved but can you really watch somebody says you did get on over the little blue so summit humans have made it over enter under the periscope hello do
from hell and by the way i don't mean to i don't mean to be dismissive of the demons because gave in mind in their movie here the demons so the demons from the portal of hell in both different movies captain there movie i'm the diamond in my movie there the demons and don't make sense but can you really look at north korea and see the pictures kim jong noon literally hugging president moon like they're they're getting ready to kiss like there and apparently there's a very clear indications that the it is going forward because we must be at least close to a deal have ever been this close
and if we ever been talking in such a friendly congenial manner to say there has been no progress or that we're not well let me put it in more stark terms i said that we already have peace with north korea is that not fair wouldn't wouldn't you say that if you are looking at this month there we are literally at peace not technically in terms of aid the paperwork but we're not threatening them we're saying let's go to lunch does that look like war was there ever was a row point with you now in every other war where we said to saddam hussein hastened on one come over for a hug things have been banned the past but let's just let's just hung it out this maybe have a meeting talk how would you work things out and buy the wasted on we'd like to him a lot of money in your country
i gotta happened because i was reckon war whatever happening with north korea right now could turn to a war it certainly was more warlike not long ago just a few months ago but right now right now does look like war or does it look like peace i've never seen anything that look look more like piece of my life how do you miss that huh look like bad news it's a strange world and then the argument that isis is not defeat it well if you have to take the point that ices has clearly been you largely yet i want to choose my word correctly so ices physical territorial ambitions have been eventually obliterated they exist
as an idea and they ve got they ve got training camps in yemen or whatever so they're not defeated as an ideology but to say that nothing good happened in terms of the fight against isis sort of crazy now i'd like to back up to the question of who gets credit for a good economy during any president's administration now people are saying that anything good happened in the trump administration is because president obama did such a good job you're getting their issues the continuation of his success to which i say how far do you take that chain of cause and effect back doesn't george washington get the credit because he sorted got the ball rolling you know that the economy has largely gone up
the founding of the republic we ve had if you don't count world depression which young sort of a liar and a couple of couple a pull backs but basically the economy's just going up forever what point do say do you go back and say well you know without james poke none of this would happen the other things can be crazy is at the demons from the portal of hell are now getting comparing things i think i think i'm seeing somebody doing in the comments let me let me explain some math president obama inherited an economy that was on the brink of destruction it was beaten down like you rarely see an economy beaten down now
you're on the bottom the gains a u get are the big gains the easy gains because you're coming off a base i give president obama hi graze for navigating a very tricky situation from the from the precipice the edge to a solid base there after president trump i give him full credit for that i think that's i think history will be kind to him for that but when you reach something closer to full employment you dont want to keep going at the same rate in other words if we had the same the same le say stock market increase the same amount of you actively economic activity as we coming out of the bottom if you
the same rate at the top that would be bad because you would get over do you wicked hire people where would you hire people were already close to full employment economic terms by the way that the term full employment doesn't means ro unemployment it somewhere word is now somewhere around forty percent you economist say that's full employment because there's always a little bit of people in between jobs but they can get ya easily so if you're an employer you're almost certainly gonna have to pay more higher wages because it's gonna be hard to get employees you can have the bride them to work for you well said but there have been no increases in people's real wages depending on what
statue look there how you slice it you can say that it's true or not true it was more under a bomber whenever but the fact is that with employment this good and growth the strong almost have to get our wages and if you don't i'm not sure that's the problem of the president right if if the if the mechanism of economics just stops working for some reason there wouldn't be any president's problem right the president's job is to talk me me up to high growth rate get get employment as good as you can and then try to enjoy the benefits
right and then i'm also seeing complaints that all trump did was drive up the national debt and you because he's driving up the debt a failure that were whatever economic benefits were seeing are really just because he borrowed so much money to get done and here's the thing i ask who is the beneficiary of the debt so before we talk about who has to pay off the debt which is a more complicated question than any of us can handle who is the beneficiary of the debt where where was the money spent what do you think gimme your answer the so we took on debt to create
money that got spent on stuff it seems to me that our money was down military the big the bigger ticket ireland's military social programmes healthcare the poor so seems to me that the country borrowed to take care of the peace we need a most and the military you could argue about what's the right amount of funding but you can't argue the fact that everybody is better off with it with a military that can keep a safe so the first thing is now who pays a back but who got the benefit of the money in the first place now say that that that was pretty well distributed probably was more concentrated with lower class i would think now you say you up but the tax breaks went to the rich
so here is a fun question to ask your next get together hey you're talking with somebody no it doesn't even better if you're talking to somebody on the left or the right i think this work see the way so you ve saved somebody you know do you think the taxes should be fair and of course most people say should be fair that doesn't mean that you pay the same that ebay right does are all what's the difference variables you know you might wanna progressing etc but everybody wants a system this fair so here's the trick question you're ready for susie i guess we all want a fair tax system how to measure fairness
is it in the dollar amount or the percentage of your income that you pay do you see the trick questioner so let's see your answer so what do you think is a fair tax everybody pays the same percentage or everybody pays the same dollar amount yeah i think if you ask me that people on the right are probably a little more likely to say they like a flat tax but is a fair that day billionaire pays ten percent and a person whose barely scraping bypassed and percent because that ten percent for the person is barely scraping by
is all the money they had left the affair so so you say asked now i guess i think i'm learning here by your answers that this would be funnier if you asked the assembly on the left because i guarantee you that they will pick
those answers will either say dollar amount or percentage and almost certainly say percentage cassandras feels fair and the moment they say that you can point out that that's not even their own preferred plan because the idea is that rich people higher pay both a bigger higher bigger percentage and a higher dollar mouth that's their own preferred plan socio many people you can trap into saying that they agree with fairness means the same percentage were the same dollar amount because neither though neither them is what people in the left think is fair
if we talk about taxes will go down the rabble hole too deeply so that was my experience with the opening the portal from hell and were definitely indifferent movies and there are some terrible terrible people in the world and i don't want to live in a world where offending people and then apologizing isn't good enough i want else's happening understanding kim kardashian is going to be visiting the white house talking to president trop maybe today and that she might ask for a pardon for sixty two year old grandmother who went to jail for long time on a drug events
and in the context of reading about that i read an article and maybe you can confirm whether this is true or not and for some reason blame myself or not knowing this oh can you confirm that this is true so in this article i read it said that jeff sessions changed the what would you call it the guidelines on sentencing for relatively minor drug crimes you're standing is a judge sessions maybe the charging for minor drug crimes worse yet more more massive then under the obama administration which had guidelines that said i am busy on this stuff is that you can somebody confirmed that has actually true
so i saw one yes if it's true and those of you who seemed in our saying ass somebody said about a flip yes sessions past ago so that reason alone is disqualifying and i want to put this in context for you some of you remember that i've i've said consistently pause the things about the obama presidency in general while likewise i can criticise individual things seem as with president trump i can say is looking good in general but i can criticise individual things my biggest problem with obama and the reason that i briefly blog back i think when he was running for re election
that romney was a better choice even if you didn't know anything about romney nother words i said romney is the only person running that was my argument love because obama had slipped on what he wanted to do about canvas selling places in california he campaigned we're gonna leave him alone and then without explaining why he said no we're gonna go hard at these dispensaries and care forty that our legal in california but not legal under federal law which way you either have to explain why you change your mind or we must be left with the assumption that you ve been bought by whoever the private profit private british private prison lobby maybe the the alcohol lobby maybe
big donor who doesn't like canada maybe we don't we don't know under the situation where he made a major change in policy they have impact on my state and didn't explain there's no other rational way to explain it other than he got bored i consider that disqualifying so likewise if it's true that jeff sessions change the guidelines for minor drug climbs to make them worse he's gonna go if it's true their president is on the same side with that i need to find out if this is really true and i need to see how this fits in the context of the
there's prison reform which i understand does not include and sentencing i believe errors argument is first to get the prison reform and the deal with prison reform is that people would get credits for training themselves and in in jail four things that would allow them to get new gainful employment after jail so as a way to ease people into a productive life after jail and they can get less
time for that and i believe jared argument is that if you get that far right it's easier to make the argument that you should reduce the mandatory sentencing because this is a way to reduce the it's all part of the same package i'm not convinced i'm not convinced somebody needs to make an argument that sessions and by definition trump have made the right decision on minor on sentencing for minor drug crimes it looks disqualifying to me write to me now i dont think there's really given that guy the present trump has a history obeying you have
mary anti drug and given that sessions as an even longer history of being a hard ass on drugs when those two people act hard on drugs that may be that they think there s the right thing to do which is a different situation from obama who clearly put a policy in place there was the opposite of his previous paul and was inconsistent with his own his own philosophy which indeed he turned back to in his second term the actually went back to his originals stance of leaving the dispensaries loan so i guess i would be a little less hard on someone who's at least philosophically consistent even there completely wrong probably in my idea in my in my view obama was
consistent with his own promises or his own philosophy and didn't explain it in that case you have to assume money was involved if it wasn't a simple explanation would have been fine that's all it would have taken to change my mind something like i thought about it here's my reason does it i don't even have to agree with the reason i just have to say that's a reason also so the trump administration is simply somebody just said there they're doing saying if as a law work and enforce it so they're just across the board
whatever laws will just enforces that's not good enough there really is and you know that the laws are designed to be managed by people and people can you make reasonable decisions to say this is this is this laws and helping us as much as issued seven these cases will will go easy this is congresses job it's congresses job to make the laws but you some obey this argument before if police officer has a level leeway about yahoo arrest and baby somebody's an informant maybe somebody did something this technically
since the law but i didn't mean it was no big deal you don't want to ruin their whole life so i think we're happier when they when the police have a little bit of judgment involved when the when the court's use a little better judgment and when when the justice department uses a little bit a judgment on things i think that's a healthier situation even though the law has to be obeyed humans are involved a little bit of wiggle room is ok what's your history with drug laws friends or family my history is i've seen people whose lives even currently are completely destroyed by drugs but they usually opium types
haven't seen anybody that i know go to jail for drug charge i thought about it i might be able to think of somebody but i can't think of any i know personally of course i know a number of addicts lavender zachary stoner in chicago last week wake up i never heard the name on another story you dont know any attic somebody just said that they don't know any attics do you think that's true do you think there's somebody in the will ass i was familiar in the united states but it might be do you think there's anybody in the united states who doesn't know any attics you know that means right of
as you know ethics you just don't another attics if you're me we'll know they can tell me pretty much anything and i'm not going to judge them like a determined and lacking to judge them unlike could be talking about so i get it there things that other people are hearing because their judgmental so in my world people are just alcoholics fanatics every problem in the world only because they are willing to tell me because i know i am not going to judge him for many are hiding the indicative addictions so i think that's all i had for today what is your prediction for the energy report i don't have one i think that's a wait and see oh so i want to say so there's a story about immigrants
illegal immigrant children being separated from their parents and people quite quite understandably are shocked and aghast that children and can be separated from their parents and as a human being i sir at every part of that right you know that just une here that parents separated from their children and its it reaches us alike surely depth i'm not even though biological parents but even even i can feel it just as a human being is like all my god that's that's the worst thing but but there's something missing in the conversation what was the alternative
i kept waiting for somebody say yes it's terrible that their separating children from fed from parents here's the good alternative is yes there's a good alternative arm all over it and if there's a good alternative what the hell are we doing but i haven't heard one of you do but we don't really send them all back together right don't we so if somebody rob a bank and they bring their children along doesn't appear going to jail and the children get separated because the children don't go to jail i dont know what the alternative is
somebody says not use a candle i think the capitol pictures were from an entirely different situation centre back together but that's not what we do right when we first catch them dewey doing if we if you catch a family do you actually put them in a ban in the van starts driving toward the border as i work and do we have jails and her family jails should should we build family jails there like a little one room
parliament so you can put the whole family and their including the kids should the kids go to jail i mean temporarily until you until you deportees was so here's the thing i feel it when anybody says separating kids from the parents is is bad i have all the same feelings but i'd like to see the alternative and i dont know i haven't heard because it must be an alternative i saw stephan more news tweet this morning some are related he said there were twenty six billion dollars in remittances money paid by mexican citizens mostly they're paying back into mexico to support families i suppose mostly anders twenty six billion i suppose mostly
and those twenty six billion between whatever months you specified but it was just a part of the year and steffens point was it's like mexico's is begging us to tax it and is there a problem with that plan because it seems to me we that the president would have already suggested that specifically if that was a practical plan is exactly the sort of thing that the president would say even if you even if it was yeah just sort of spitballs things like i will do this or will do that i dont believe
ever mention it can anybody factually and it has the president ever specifically mentioned taxing remittances and if not is there some good reason for that what's the somebody saying flip flop a hundred times some gonna block you just for saying the same thing over however some people saying he has and other people saying he has not so if plus a has and other people say he has not it seems more reasonable to say that he has because the people say he has not maybe just in here it then the people saying he has there are none of them that makes me think probably said something like that so
controversial it seems like that would be the least controversial tax of all time wouldn't that be the least controversial tax every taxes controversial nobody wants to pay them what's wrong with cruz's idea somebody needs to remind me what ted cruz's idea is for paying for the wall is it legal is it legal to tax anybody for anything the fact that it happens tells you all you need to know if they can tweeting it to you
somebody's twenty me the answer is yes and then of course there is the air the crowd funding after this going on now too so that citizens can pay for the war let me ask you assuming that crowd funding legislation goes through which would allow you to donate specifically to a trust fund to the in the government that would only go towards the wall how many of you would donate and put it and if you just one dollar mount the same per year
gimme a per year you would donate for five years some seeing twenty box under box this is four per year five fifty two hundred thousand hundred hundred ten twenty now if you get ten million people who would give a hundred dollars a year that's a lie star along with all these them all these people are willing to give fairly substantial amounts i'm not totally opposed to crowd funding the wall but they should do the same thing with birth control planter emerges the year that the situation where
it may be illegal to get an abortion but why people who were opposed to abortion on moral grounds don't wanna fund it i think that's a fair argument but as long as worsens legal and the people who need them no money would it wouldn't work if just private people fund them wizened through wizened third crowd fun for that and then all the people who say dammit split plan parenthood should be funded there's nothing there would stop them in fact plan pyramid might be funded more than the governor we found them because the government is gonna pay what the government pays but if it's privately there's a fund that anybody can contribute to couldn't be bigger couldn't be better
so i don't hate this model where the most controversial things where the other side has a legitimate moral objection to it they just don't have to pay for it you don't have to do that you can't do that for everything can do for the military year healthcare in other something's they even though people objective at its more that the objective the gold or financial reasons you can't you can't do that but when people have a real serious moral problem was something paying for abortion or building the wall as long as they're both legal and somebody's willing to pay for it on their own let's just make that possible did you do to somebody says they're girlfriend donate to plan parenthood yeah yeah was how much today
mostly made you have planned parenthood is now getting enough money they should be saying that ok the government's cutting funding but you can donate through this website i think that's it for today and i will talk to you tomorrow if all goes well i will be assuming just make sure that that such tomorrow in my periscope i'm gonna be talking to an expert in korea so i'll be talking to someone incur in south korea together get a feel for the
the temperature over their guess or even on the ground impression of what people are talking about what their feeling i think it's gotta be really interesting and i'll tell you more about that and introduce my special guest tomorrow assuming all my technology works so that's probably gonna happen tomorrow don't miss that i can't wait for that one by the way yes what somebody in south korea right now that i'll be talking to walter in south korea and somebody who lives are an ex pat no it's a private citizen living in south korea for awhile who will give us the temperature and note not gordon jane gordon jane is awesome but i will talk to somebody is actually living in south korea which is all different perspective i i'll talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2020-04-02.