Episode 746 Scott Adams: Mean Girl World Leaders, Yang and Whipped Cream, Kamala as VP

Hey, everybody, come on in here. We've got fun news to talk about today. Sometimes the news is sad, sometimes the news is awful. And sometimes, like today, the news is all fun. So join me for fun, fun news. You know what goes well with fun news? I think you do. It's called the simultaneous sip. That's right. That's right. A lot of you got it correct. And all you need for the simultaneous sip is. Is. Yeah, that's right. A cup or margarita glasses, snifter, steincellis, tankers, thermos, flask, canteen, grill, goblet vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I am partial to coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip. Go. I feel the coffee replacing my blood. And it's good. Oh, it's good. Yes. I know what you want to talk about. You want to say, scott, Scott, Scott, Kamala Harris, who is your prediction to be the Democratic nominee? She's out. She's out, Scott. What do you say to that, Scott, Scott, you lost your bet. Scott. Are you so ashamed, Scott? Do you feel bad? Scott, how will you ever get over the massive humiliation, the embarrassment that you're experiencing right now in public? I'll tell you how. It's in my new book, loser think. It's in the chapter about learning to manage your embarrassment. There actually is a chapter about that, and I've talked about it being a superpower. Do you think that I feel embarrassed that for a year I've been making a prediction which turned out to be, I think we can all agree, the worst prediction anybody's ever made, because it turns out, and I didn't know this at the time of the prediction, that Kamala Harris has no skills at all for being a politician? None. You know, some people have some skills. They're good at some stuff, but they're not good at other things. Kamala Harris doesn't have any skill for being president or being a candidate for president. Now, I didn't see that coming, because at the time that I called her, I hadn't really seen her in public much. And when I did, she was doing lawyerly things, like at, you know, Senate hearings where she's sitting in a seat acting like a prosecutor. Now, when Kamala Harris acts like a prosecutor in her role as senator, I saw that and I said, it's pretty good. Pretty good. And so I said to myself, well, if she can do that, she can be on TV acting like A prosecutor in a Senate environment, probably. She could take those skills into the realm of being a candidate. She could not take those skills into the realm of being a candidate. And I say this with no ambiguity whatsoever. She's the worst candidate I've ever seen in my lifetime. By far the worst. Not even close. I mean, if you were going to say, all right, maybe not the worst. She'd be in the category with these two or three people who are down at the. You can't even think of anybody. You literally. You literally can't even think of another candidate who did as bad a job as she did. Now you ask me, am I embarrassed? Do I feel shame for my utter and complete failure in public? No, I do not. Because I do not feel shame and embarrassment like normal people. Because as I talk about in my book, Loser Think, which makes a great gift if you can learn to embarrass yourself in public and then discover. Watch this. I'm going to give you a little bit of a demonstration here. As you know, I've been shamed and embarrassed with my bad performance in my prediction. But watch this. Watch this. You won't believe this. All right, watch carefully. If you're listening on the podcast, audio only, I've picked up a mug of my coffee and I'm going to take a sip from it. Watch this. Watch this. It tastes exactly the same as before. I was embarrassed. You know, this coffee didn't change taste at all. It's exactly the same. You're still here. In fact, my audience is bigger than ever because I think a lot of people came in here to see. To mock me for my bad prediction. But what do you do when you make a bad prediction and you are humiliated in public, absolutely shamed and dragged through the mud? What do you do? Double down. Right? You double down. I will now double down on my prediction of Kamala Harris being the Democratic nominee. What? What? How's that even possible since she suspended her campaign? Well, let me tell you about Kamala Harris's path to the nomination, which just improved. What? She just quit. What? How could her path to the nomination have just improved? What? Well, I'll tell you how. Kamala Harris had no chance of getting the nomination fair and square. She had no chance of being the one with the most support when it came to the convention. But she did have a chance of insulting the other candidates to the point where they didn't want to talk to her again if she stayed in the race. And she would have spent a bunch of money, and it would have been A waste of time. But now imagine that Biden gets the nomination. Easy to imagine, right? You can't imagine him winning, but you could kind of imagine, as weird as it is, as weird as it is, you can imagine it, right? So imagine Biden gets the nomination. Who does he pick for his vice president? You hate where this is going, don't you? Oh, you hate it. Stay with me. Stay with me. So Biden has to pick a vice president. Now you're going to say to yourself, and I know you're saying it right now, it's in your heads right now. You're saying to yourself, but Scott, you idiot. You idiot, he's not going to pick the worst candidate in the history of candidates. He's not going to pick the only person of color who isn't even liked by people of color. Right? But consider this, consider this. In order to pick a good vice presidential candidate, what is the main things that that person has to have? What qualities? Well, I'll tell you that they have to show that they could be a politician at a high level. And any senator can show that they're capable of being a politician at a high level. Ish. You know, then somebody says, but she called Biden a racist. Yes, she did. How many times have you seen the vice president chosen as a running mate who had previously said terrible things about the person at the top of the ticket? Normal routine doesn't matter. Yeah, it did happen, but it doesn't matter. Wait for it. Wait for it. I haven't even got to the good part. In order to pick a vice president, besides the fact that they have some qualifications, you'd like to have them from a good state. But I think that may be a problem because there's another variable that you have to get right. Are you waiting for it? Biden is running in the party of diversity and inclusion. He's running as a Democrat. He's an old white guy. He has already said, I believe, fact check this, I believe that Biden has said he would pick or he would consider or pick. I forget what he said, but he's already suggested that he would balance his old whiteness on his ticket. Now, the way you balance being old and white is by having old white woman or a person of color or a woman who's a person of color. Now here's the good part. Wait for it. The president has to pick somebody who looks less capable than the president, him or herself. Hillary Clinton picks Tim Kaine. Who do you think was the better president? Well, Hillary Clinton certainly had more, you know, juice and really more everything than Tim Kaine. President Trump picked Mike Pence. Compare Mike Pence to President Trump. Pence is sort of the low voltage version of Trump. If you took away all the interesting things from Trump, you'd have Mike Pence. Perfect. That's a perfect Vice president. Ronald Reagan picked George Bush Sr. Who was sort of a weaker version of Reagan. And then when Bush became president himself, he had to find somebody who was weaker yet, and he ended up with Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle was barely capable of finding his way to work. But you have to pick a vice president who's weaker than you, or else the contrast doesn't work. You don't want to go into an election with everybody saying, hey, I think the person who's at the bottom of the ticket, the vice president, should be at the top. That's the last thing you want. Now, who among the Democrats that you know would not immediately look like a better candidate than Joe Biden? You see it yet? Who would be a better candidate? No, let's say who could Joe Biden pick? Who wouldn't obviously look like that person should have been the president? Think about it. If he picks, let's say Joe Biden goes for Klobuchar. If you saw Klobuchar and Joe Biden both giving a little talk one after the other, which one would you think should be the president? Klobuchar. It's not even close, right? If who is the. Just saw a name go by the woman who lost her race. But we think. Can you remind me in the comments, what's the name of the woman, the African American woman who lost her race? Stacy. What's her name? All right, it'll be in the comments here in a moment. Now, suppose he picked her, and her name's gonna go by here in a minute. So, damn it, somebody tell me her name. But you know who I'm talking about. So if you pick somebody who barely lost a race and is black, I think a lot of people are going to say, hey, why isn't Stacey Abrams. Why can't I remember her name? But people are going to say, why isn't she the top of the ticket? So Biden would have to pick somebody that you've heard of, ideally, and somebody that is unambiguously less good for president. Stacey Abrams is the correct name. Stacey Abrams. People would ask, why isn't she at the top of the ticket? Now you may say, well, you know, maybe Biden is better than her, but I don't know if it would look that way. Remember, it's all about appearances. So here's the. Here's the prediction. Do I think this is likely? Well, nothing's likely, but because it's fun and because I have not gotten yet enough of your shame and embarrassment and your mocking from my bad prediction about Kamala, here's the prediction. Joe Biden picks Kamala Harris because she won't hurt him, even though she's sort of a cop. You know, And I guess the black voters don't love Kamala Harris, but they also don't vote for vice president. Nobody really cares too much what the vice president is about because they vote for the. They vote for the top of the ticket. So she wouldn't hurt him, but she would balance out the ticket. And she's the only person who's famous and serious enough who also looks unambiguously less qualified than Joe Biden. You got to thread that needle. You got to find somebody who looks qualified and is still less qualified than a guy who can barely know what cities. There's not much room there. Thin band. All right. And then before. Before the election itself, the further prediction is that Joe Biden essentially is considered incompetent or takes himself out of the race for health. Health reasons. And then the bottom of the ticket becomes the top of the ticket. Bam. There you go. All right, there's my new prediction. So we'll have to wait a few months to see how that goes. So the big news, of course, is gossip stuff. Gossip girl stuff. So Trump, I think he's still there at the. At the NATO conference. And there was a video of several of the leaders talking behind his back, or so it's assumed that's who they were talking about, because it looks like it was. And so it was Justin Trudeau and Boris Johnson and Macron of France and some other guy I didn't recognize. It was sort of a gentle mocking about him taking up all the time for the press conference or something. And somebody said his team's jaws dropped to the floor. I think that was maybe Trudeau. So Trump was asked about that in a conference later. And Trump called Trudeau two faced. That's right. President Trump called the guy who's famous for dressing in blackface. He called him Two Face. Oh, that's good. Oh, that's good. And it took a while. It took people a couple of beats to connect him. Wait a minute. What did he just call Trudeau2Face? What does that make everybody in the country talk about blackface? He got that for free. It's one of the best. And I'm not going to say it was completely intentional. It could be that he was thinking blackface. And by the way, this is how your brains just normally work. If he was thinking Justin Trudeau, he might have been thinking blackface, you know, as something, you know, that's associated with Trudeau. And then he needed a word that wasn't that. And so face was in it. So he said two faced. So I wouldn't be surprised if the blackface thing wasn't influencing his choice of words, even subconsciously. But man, it was perfect. Calling the black face guy two face. So the video shows, you know what Boris Johnson looks like, right? He looks like he's got a bird's nest on his head. And then Macron is the guy that the President essentially humiliated in a press conference just before that. So there's this video of these little gossip girls. You basically have the black faced guy, the, the nest head guy, and the guy who just got dressed down in public are bitching about the President behind the President's back. Now, I saw the press trying to turn that into a negative and they did a pretty good job. Did a pretty good job. But how do you take it when you see that these leaders were talking behind his back? How did you take that? I'll tell you how I took it. I'm the author of the Dilberg comic strip, so of course I have a little bias here. But what I saw is every beta male talking about their leader. Isn't that what you saw? I saw every lower level employee bitching about the CEO. That's all it looked like to me. So who was talking about Macron behind his back? Probably nobody. Do you know why? Was it because Macron did all good things? Could be. But maybe he wasn't terribly important. Who was talking behind Trudeau's back? Maybe somebody. But if you had to pick the most important person in the room, it's got to be the person they're talking about. So I think this just looked like Trump being the most important person at the meeting, because he was. And this is exactly what you'd expect people to be talking about, you know, sort of. Sort of talking behind his back. Maggie Haberman, who. I don't know how to characterize her. I suppose she would call herself a journalist, but I don't think anybody would say that's entirely what's going on here. So I'll leave it at that. And she tweeted, can't get over this video. Both for the fact that POTUS Hates the thought of anyone laughing at him, of course, as an attack against his predecessors. New York Times reporter Maggie Heberman reacted to. So they're enjoying it because. Because it looks like it's bad for the President. But if the worst, if the worst problem that the President has this week, and it might be his worst problem, the worst problem the President had this week is that little were complaining about him behind his back. That's it. That's the, the worst thing that happened is that little were complaining about him behind his back. And it wasn't even like much of a complaint. Now, does it matter that the President used his attack, that the other countries were laughing at us? Well, look at the language. So Maggie Haberman is paraphrasing the President as saying other countries are laughing at us. Who is us? Is us the president or is us the United States? Well, I think us means the United States, the people in it. Right? Now, what this little gossipy situation was is the leaders talking about the President himself. Is that the same? Is it the same to mock the President as it is to laugh at the United States itself? No, it is not the same. Do you know what nobody there was doing? Wait for it. Wait for it. I'll tell you what none of the leaders of the NATO alliance were doing. None of them were laughing about the United States. Because what the United States did was elect a bully to go over there and pick their pockets. So while the bully that we elected to go over there and pick their pockets had his hand into their pockets up to his elbow and was rummaging through their wallets to get them to pay more for NATO so that we would pay less. Do you think that as he was pickpocketing them, that they were thinking, ha, ha, I laugh at the people of the United States. What's this in my pocket? I barely noticed. Wait, what? There goes all my money. Damn you, people of the United States, for electing a leader who would go pick my pockets. So I think that two things are being conflated. What do leaders think about the United States? Which is, frankly, all I care about, versus what do leaders think about Donald Trump in particular? It's the same thing that everybody thinks about him. We love the show, we talk about him, we gossip about him, we, we drink and yell about them. So basically, as long as these leaders respect the United States, and I think if we're over there bullying them to pay us more money, and they are, they might be respecting the United States. So that all looks fine to me. If that's the Worst problem the President had this week, and it might be so. Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University. He's Republican, but not a pro Trumper. And that's important because everybody's opinion depends on whether you're pro or anti Trump in the political world. And he argued that the impeachment thing is a bunch of BS and there's nothing there. I'm paraphrasing, but here's the kill shot quote from Jonathan Turley. And bear in mind, he's really good. Turley is. Turley is really good. He communicates unusually well. I've even quoted him in my book loserthink. Have you heard of it? It's excellent. Makes a great gift. And he says, here's the killshot quote from Turley. If Trump honestly believe that there was a corrupt arrangement with Hunter Biden that was not fully investigated by the Obama administration, the request for an investigation is not corrupt, notwithstanding its inappropriateness. So he did agree that it was inappropriate. Do we care? Does anybody care? Should you care that a law professor or another senator or anybody else believes that the way the President handled this is, quote, inappropriate? Does inappropriate cost you money? Does inappropriate cause you pain? Does the President acting inappropriately affect you in any way? No, doesn't. So, okay, people think it was inappropriate. Do you know what else people think is inappropriate? His tweeting, his presidency. Everything he's ever said in his entire life. So, yes, I'll acknowledge that people think the President acts inappropriately most of the time, but it seems to be working. Seems to be working. Doing what's inappropriate sometimes can shake the box. All right, but here's the key point from Turley, and it's the one that I basically, I'm not a law professor at George Washington University, but I've been saying a version of this from moment one, and it goes like this. If the President had any reason to believe that there was really something there, that's the end of the story. It doesn't matter if it's also good for him. It doesn't matter if it's inappropriate. Doesn't matter if it's non standard. Doesn't matter if it should have been handled at a lower level. Doesn't matter if he should have done it earlier, doesn't matter if he was. If he should have, you know, should have shown more interest in corruption in other places. None of it matters. There's only one salient fact. Did he have a reasonable reason to believe that there was something real there that needed to be investigated? And you and I Think so. Right. We have the same information he has about Hunter Biden. Don't you want to know more about that? Of course you do. There's enough there to ask some questions. So that's pretty much the whole story. So I think Jonathan Turley is not only great at communicating, but he's great at coming down to the only question that mattered. Did the President have reason to believe that there was something real that needed to be investigated? And since there's no counterfactual to that, there's no evidence whatsoever that the President didn't really think that, it's the end of the story. There's nothing else you have to ask. You can talk to a thousand witnesses and you hear what a thousand people have to say, but if it's not on this point, doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. That's it. This is the whole thing. And, you know, I've criticized Representative Jordan and others who have defended it by saying that there's no evidence of the quid pro quo. That's a bad attack. Because if you're asking if there's evidence of the quid pro quo, you've somewhat accepted the framing that the only reason he's doing this is for political reasons. You should never accept that framing. You should do what Jonathan Turley is very clearly signaling that the President should have been doing. Do you get that? He's not saying it in direct words, but he's saying it as clearly as you could possibly say it. There's only one thing that matters. It's the thing I said from the very start, which is, did the President have any reasonable belief that there was something to investigate that was good for the country? And the answer is yes. Now, one of the attacks, you see is why didn't the President show interest in this sort of thing or corruption in other countries or whatever earlier? You've heard that, right? People are saying you can tell his motivation so you can know his interior motivation, because he wasn't interested in corruption in general. He was only interested in this at this very moment when Biden is actually running against him. Why wasn't he interested in this before Biden got in the race? People ask, do you know what a stupid question that is? Let me ask you this. Was it important to the country? To the country? Was it important to the country that Biden might have some connections with Ukraine if Biden didn't run for President? No. No. His priority would be low if Biden was not running for president. Suppose Biden was running for president but he was polling last instead of first. If Biden had been polling last, how important would it be to the country. To the country that there was some connection, allegedly with Burisma and Ukraine? Well, if he's polling last, it doesn't matter too much if he's polling first to be the President of the United States, which he is, and there's a real connection here to the most corrupt country on the planet, that's what makes it a priority. So if you're asking why is he treating it like a priority now when he didn't treat it like a priority before Biden was running for president, let me say this clearly. It's because Biden is running for president. That's what makes it a priority. And it's because he's polling at the top. That's what makes it a priority. Of course, it's not a priority until those two conditions are met, that he's in the race and he's polling at the top. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. And I would imagine if Biden had been polling at the bottom. Let me ask you this. If Biden had been polling toward the bottom, do you think the president would have bothered? No, he wouldn't have bothered because it was a low priority, both politically as well as what's good for the country. All right, that's enough on that. I think when you see a here's my way to predict legal outcomes. Are you ready? This is how you can accurately predict one of these ambiguous legal outcomes. Because I know you and I, we're not lawy. Most of us, some of you are. But we look at this situation, we say, ah, how's it going to go? They've got all this evidence and they're making this argument. And I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a judge. How do I judge? Because other people are saying it's a lot of nothing, but some people are saying it's something. All right, here's the rule. You ready for this? If your legal experts are looking at the same facts and agree on the facts, in other words, the things that have been presented as evidence, they're all looking at. They're all looking at the same stuff. And you've got a condition where some of those people are saying, oh, yeah, it's very impeachable. Look at all this evidence. And yet other people who are completely credible, and Jonathan Turley, even his critics would say, he's credible. He's an expert now. He's a serious guy. Cat needs to get on my lap. So here's the prediction technique. If it looks like I'm doing something down here, I'm petting my cat in my lap. That's all I'm doing. I swear. If you have your lawyers looking at the same information and they disagree, whether it even means anything or whether it's even a crime, you can always predict that you're safe. In other words, you're never going to get a conviction. When even legal scholars can't agree if an actual crime has happened. It would be one thing to say, do we have evidence that somebody did the crime and you know the crime happened? But if your legal experts can't even tell if a crime happened, you don't have to worry about it. There's only one way that's going to go. This would be the part of boo that you can see the tail. All right, she escaped. So that's my prediction. I think the hearings in which the Senate is it, this is the Senate, I think is going to be talking to these legal scholars. That is not going to go well, I think for the Nadler team. All right, did you all see by now the video of Andrew Yang and the whipped cream? I know that's why you're here. You want me to talk about Andrew Yang and the whipped cream. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you just said to yourself, andrew Yang and whipped cream are in the headlines. That can't be good. And let me tell you, it's not good. It's not good. So you have to see the video to understand what I'm talking about. But if you haven't, the basic setup here is that Andrew Yang was with some supporters and two young 20 something year old men for whatever reason asked him to shoot whipped cream from a bottle into their open mouths while they got on their knees in front of him. And he filled their mouths with the whipped cream bottle which he held at roughly belt level. Do you have the visual yet? And then to the horror of his handler or staffer or advisor who was standing nearby, another young man asked if he would do him next. And he did. He shook it like this. That's right. He picked up the shaving cream and he shook it like this. Before he had the other young man get on his knees and he held it down at belt level and he filled the young man's mouth with whipped cream. Now here's the good part and you have to see the video. His assistant is. By the time he's doing the second guy and Yang's having a Great time. The assistant is, like, hitting him on the shoulder kind of hard. It's like, yeah, let's go, let's go. Okay, that's enough. Two's good. Two's good. All right, let's go, let's go. You're done here. Gotta run. We're a little bit late. Car's waiting. Car's waiting. And so, in this moment, I believe I found the man that I would like to be our next president. Now, I know you don't see this coming, but having watched this Andrew Yang whipped cream situation, I was watching the video, and I said, that's the man that I want to be my next president. Not Andrew Yang. No, I'm talking about the assistant, because the assistant was in the same room with Andrew Yang, but only the assistant knew this was a very, very bad idea. So Andrew Yang, I don't want that guy as president. My God, look what he did on camera. But his assistant, he shows some good judgment because the assistant was trying to drag him out of there as quickly as possible. So I don't know the assistant's name, but I'd like to endorse him for president because that guy's got some good judgment. Andrew Yang wasn't his best day. But the assistant, that's presidential material right there. All right. Another fascinating story, which is the best they can do, meaning the anti Trumpers to say bad things about the president even when his news is good. So I love looking at good news for the president that his critics try to. Try to use words to turn it into bad stuff. It looks just kind of funny. And so let's see the Deputy Director of Intelligence, Susan Gordon. So I guess she's the ex. She's a former Deputy Director of Intelligence. So she was involved with briefing President Trump on intelligence issues. And people asked her in some public events, they asked her what that was like. And she went on to explain that he was very interactive. She used that word. And that he would challenge the intel assessments and that one of his most common comments to intelligence briefings was, and I quote, I'm not sure I believe that. And then also he would ask questions like, why do we do that? Why have we done that before? Why are we there? So he would ask questions to understand how we even got in this situation in the first place. And then he would challenge them as to whether they were accurate. Now, the former Director of Intelligence, Susan Gordon, was careful to explain that she was framing this as a positive. Right? She was very clear about it. She was framing this as a positive Somebody who was pushing against the intelligence briefings, because as she said, intelligence briefings are not facts. They're assessments based on percentages. And she was saying there's nothing wrong with pushing against something that's just the best guess, because that's sort of their job is their best guess. And so when I listened to her say it live, it looked entirely positive, like she was saying that he was asking good questions and pushing back against intelligence, and probably you should. Somehow the anti Trump press made this sound like a bad thing, like he doesn't believe his own intelligence service. Do you know who else doesn't believe his own intelligence service? Everybody. Everybody. Is there anybody here who believes our intelligence services are right all of the time or even as much as we'd like? No. No. There's not one person who believes that they should be trusted at this point. So the fact that the President doesn't trust an entity which we know not to trust, you know, I think they're on our side most of the time, but it would be unwise to trust them uncritically. So this looks like 100% positive story about Trump, that because they can change the headlines to make it look bad. Trump doubts his own staff. You know, Trump doesn't leave the assessments that all the intelligence people believe, so they can turn him into an idiot. But then you look at the details and even the person who made the news by talking about him, and it's completely clear that she's describing a good leader asking the right questions. So it's a weird story. So if the worst thing you could say about the president is that he asks the right questions and he doubts the things that should be doubted, well, that's not so bad. President Trump made a comment about Adam Schiff. He was asked about Adam Schiff and the impeachment stuff. And the President characterized Schiff as a sick man who has some. I think he said, complexes, you know, some. Some mental complexes. And. And the president goes, for obvious reasons, that he was damaged somehow in his past. And the President says, for obvious reasons, that is so bullying. That is funny. All right. And I have a theory here. Now, you've heard this theory. I think there's an R and K theory or something that's similar to this. But here's my armchair, armchair psychological evaluation of the entire country in regards to how they see President Trump. And it goes like this. I think everybody who experienced bad bullying as a kid dislikes the president. And everybody who has not experienced bad bullying, maybe because they were bullies or just Lucky they didn't have any bullies. The people who have not experienced bullying just see him as a strong leader who's bullying people that you want to get bullied because that's his job. I think you know this. And of course, there's nothing that can explain everything, but this feels like a really strong predictive variable. And it seems like the President was saying pretty much the same thing about Schiff, that if you look at Schiff, it's obvious that he got bullied as a kid. Do you think Schiff was ever bullied as a kid? Do you think Jerry Nadler was ever bullied? Seriously, do you think that Schiff and Nadler were ever bullied? Pretty sure, yes. Pretty sure, yes. And I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying that we think we're seeing politics, but we're seeing some kind of a high school, grade school psychodrama being played out with proxies. God, I'm proud of that sentence. But I digress. It feels like they're playing out with some kind of a play from their past that they're doomed to repeat. You know, they were damaged, damaged young. And now they have. They're in a loop and they just have to fight bullies or they have to believe they're fighting bullies for the rest of their life, and they can't leave that frame. So is the President a bully? Yes. Yes, the President is a bully. Does anybody disagree with that? I mean, come on, you could be the biggest supporter in the world. But that's just true. And did he run as somebody who would be our bully? Was that not exactly what he offered? I'm going to be a bully for you. I'll bully the other countries, make them pay their share. I'll bully them to stay out of our country. If they're coming in illegally, I'll bully the isis. I'm going to go bully stuff for you. Did we not know that was exactly what he was offering? Is there anybody who was confused about exactly the proposition he was offering to his voters? I think people voted for him knowing he was a bully and that he had offered to bully on our behalf. And then they watch his progress for three years and they say, true or false? True or false. He has been bullying nonstop on America's behalf. And the answer is yes, he has bullied like crazy. Now, does he bully everybody all the time for, you know, just because he can't help it? No. No. When I visited him in the White House, did I feel like he was Trying to bully me? Not even a little. He's just the nicest guy in the world. If you have a private conversation with President Trump, and it's weird even coming out of my mouth that I've actually spent, you know, half an hour just chatting with him in the Oval Office, and it still blows my mind that that even ever happened. But if you spend time with him privately and there's nobody watching, I promise you he's the nicest guy in the world. And the bullying is for effect. I'm sure he's never been the recipient of too much bullying. So I think that model explains just about everything. Now, I will say, for my part, although I had attempted bullies in my childhood, I handled my bullies with violence. So I did have bullying, but I also ended my bullying with violence. Violence is very underrated for a number of different things. In my small town, that was completely acceptable. If you were bullied and you employed violence on your bully, people would slap you on the back, they'd shake your hand, they'd say, oh, we get, you know, maybe you have to punish you a little bit, but good job. There was no adult when I grew up who would have told you not to punch a bully. That wasn't even a thing. All right? Am I right? I mean, is there anybody in my age group who would. Who had confirmed that in my generation, punching a bully, even if it's in school, you could do it anywhere. You could beat up a bully right in the hallway of your school and you wouldn't get in much trouble as long as everybody understood it was a bully, even the adults and the principals, and they say, well, we got to give you a day off of school or something. We got to do something. In fact. True story. This is a true story. My brother punched a bully down a flight of stairs. Now, I'll save you the build up of it, but suffice to say, there was a bully and he was bullying my brother and his girlfriend as they were walking up a flight of stairs at school. And my brother just reached his turning point, the point where he had too much. And when they reached about the top of the stairs, my brother turned around and just backhanded him with a fist and knocked him down an entire flight of stairs. Now, of course, as you might imagine, my parents were called to the school. I don't remember if my father was there. He might have been, but my mother was there, I think both of them. And they were called into the principal's office, and my brother was called in and he was there to explain why he punched another kid down a flight of stairs. So my brother, who is watching this periscope, I know, I hope you don't mind me telling at least the highlights of the story, my brother, in very direct terms repeated to the adults in the room, my parents and the principal, what it was that the bully had said and done for the past, I don't know, months. And I don't think either my parents or the principal could care less now. They had to give him a suspension, so he had to stay home a few days, which was sort of like a reward. And my parents reaction when we got home was, well, he had it coming, basically. My parents didn't give two, two beans that he had punched a kid down a flight of stairs because he was a bully. So my experience with bullies were mostly happy endings. So I'm not afraid of bullies because I don't have an experience where they've triggered me from the past in any permanent way. But I could imagine that if you did have that experience, that President Trump would be a problem for you. Like, it just might trigger you just to see him bullying. That's my theory. There are those who have been bullied, those who have not. It would make complete sense that women would be less likely to vote for Trump because women, every time they leave the house, there's some kind of male danger. So if your life is. Every time you leave the house, men are harassing you, maybe President Trump isn't your first choice. So I can see that. All right, that's my theory, that there's a bully and bullied, the bullies and the bullied, and maybe that's the biggest variable in terms of who likes whom. That plus team play. All right, that's all I got for now, and I will go off and do something else and I will talk to you later.