Episode 824 Scott Adams: The Bernie Bomb, Bloomberg's VP Pick, Irrelevant Biden, Stealth Reparations

Hey, everybody, come on in. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams. And you know what that means. Yes, you do. It's the best part of the day. It's the thing that makes everything better. And to participate. Got dope? Somebody says, good. Well, your simultaneous sip may be different than most of the rest of you. If you would like to participate in the simultaneous sip, it doesn't take much. All it takes is. A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like 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. Ah. Better every time. Just when you think, I know, you're probably thinking to yourself, it can't possibly be better every time. And then you do the sip and you think, it is every time. It gets better. Let's talk about all the fun stuff in the news. I'm coming up with a term which. Let's see if I can get this to catch on. I call it the Bernie Bomb. Bomb. B O M B, as in things that explode. And the Bernie Bomb works like this. And I'm sure you've noticed, and it turns out that CNN has now noticed because they did a piece on it, that Republicans and President Trump in particular, and Trump supporters in particular seem to be very pro Bernie Sanders. Suspiciously pro Bernie. They seem to say nice things about Bernie's supporters and about his fight and his consistency and gosh, it's so unfair when Bernie gets robbed of the nomination. It would sure be a shame if it happened again. Sure would be. Now, of course, cnn John Avlon did a little piece I was just watching in which it seems that they have figured out that Bernie would be the worst matchup because socialism is just a terrible matchup for Trump during a strong economy. If the economy were weak or even just somewhere in the middle, well, maybe people would listen to a new message. But when things are unambiguously working, well, people are not going to take on a big risk. So the Bernie bomb works this way. And here's the beauty of it. The Bernie bomb goes off no matter what. So you can try to defuse it, but then it'll just go off. Or you could leave it, and then it will just go off. You only have two options with the Bernie bomb, and they're both exploding. Option number one, he doesn't. He doesn't get the nomination, despite having the greatest Number of votes, what happens? The Democratic Party is blown apart. Bernie Bros defect in at least large enough numbers that the Democrats have no chance of winning the presidency and it might rip apart the party with some permanent damage. So if Bernie loses because he gets into the, you know, into the, he has the most votes, but he doesn't get elected when he actually comes to the convention, doesn't get appointed, appointed, picked, what's the right word for a convention? So that's one way. The other way is if, let's say Bloomberg just beats him fair and square. If Bloomberg beats him fair and square, meaning that he debates well, he buys a lot of ads, he just gets more votes and then Bloomberg gets the nomination, what happens? The Bernie bomb blows up. Because it will be clear even to Democrats that Bloomberg literally bought the election. What is more opposite of Bernie than buying an election? Nothing. Nothing. So if Bloomberg wins fair and square, or if he gets the nod in some kind of a brokered convention situation, the Bernie bomb blows up. But what if Bernie gets the nomination? Then he runs in the general election, gets destroyed by Trump and half of the Democrats, at least the parts that are pro democratic, socialist, their entire thing gets discredited as something they can't win and suddenly the Democrats blow up. So there are three ways that the Bernie bomb can blow up and there is no way to defuse it. It's already too late. It's an undefusable bomb. So I've never seen President Trump in a stronger position to win re election than right this moment. Now you assume that things are going to change, right? There's just so many months between now and election Day. We'll have surprises and all kinds of stuff is going to happen. So you can't say anything about the moment, but at this very moment, if nothing changed, the President's in the strongest position we've ever seen. Now, interestingly, according to a Zagby national poll, and I don't really know which polls are credible and which ones are not, so help me out on that. But a Zogby poll put Bloomberg at number two nationally. So among the Democrats, Bloomberg has already bought his way to the second spot behind Bernie. Now think about that. What does that tell you about the nature of reality? So the people who went from not supporting Bloomberg to supporting him, and apparently millions of people have made that journey and fairly quickly, what has Bloomberg done to earn their votes? Was it because they learned about his policies? No, that didn't happen. I'll bet there's almost nobody who knows what Bloomberg's policies are. I pay attention to the news. I couldn't tell you what his policies are. I mean, in a general, I know he's a sort of a centrist Democrat, so I can take some guesses, but I don't really know. I don't really know what Bloomberg wants to do and I pay attention. Is it because people saw him debating and he did such a good job? No, no, he hasn't debated yet. So what it tells us is that brainwashing works. Somebody in the comments says advertising works. I'm not sure it's advertising when you do it at this scale. I would say that advertising is telling people that your product exists and here are some good things about it compared to the competition. That would be advertising. Simply making somebody aware of your product and maybe put it top of mind and maybe give it a good feel to it. I would say that's properly, you could call that just advertising. But when somebody with $70 billion or whatever it is decides to spend as much as it takes to change people's minds, it's not really advertising anymore. Because first of all, it's not about giving you information that's useful and accurate and compares you to the alternatives. It's mostly lies. Mostly lies. That's what campaigns are. Campaigns are mostly lies. Lies of omission, lies of context, that sort of thing. But mostly lies and doesn't matter who it is. That's what it is. So he actually bought enough brainwashing to make him number two in the Democratic Party. Now, if you're a Democrat, how does that feel? How does the party that doesn't like income inequality feel about the guy who's one of the richest people buying the election or at least buying the nomination in their party? Now, if he'd bought the nomination as a Republican, I think Democrats would say, well, see, this is exactly what we've been talking about. We have a target now. Our target is that damn Republican who bought the election or at least bought the nomination. Then they'd have a real clear, you know, a very unambiguous on message on brand. Hey, these Republicans, they use their money to buy the election. We must stop them with our grassroots movement. But what if it's their party who buys the election right in front of the world? The one thing I actually appreciate about Bloomberg is that he's not hiding it. He's actually just buying the election right in front of us. And there's nothing hidden about it. Which actually weirdly, is the only thing that's making it okay. If Bloomberg was Hiding any of this, we'd all be, oh, wait a minute, this looks like a coup because he's stealthily trying to buy the election, but because he's doing it right in front of us, hiding absolutely nothing, we have a slightly different opinion about it because it's so honest and we're looking at it and saying that doesn't feel right. But he's not violating any laws and he's sort of on our side if you're, you know, if you're some types of Democrats. So it's the worst thing you've ever seen in your life, a billionaire buying an election. Maybe the worst thing you've ever seen in the United States. And still we're all watching the worst thing we've ever seen. But because Bloomberg's doing it somewhat honestly, I mean, you have to appreciate that, right? It's completely honest. I'm going to buy this thing. It's for sale. I'm going to buy it. That's the only reason it's allowed, is that he's doing it transparently. I have to appreciate that. Actually, there's a story about he's, I guess Bloomberg had funded. This is separate from the election, has nothing to do with the election, but it ties in conceptually. Apparently he was funding attorneys to handle climate change cases in different attorney general's offices. In other words, Bloomberg was paying the salary of people who could optionally be brought in by these attorney generals. They all had the option, but they had to choose the option and then he would pay their salary and they would have a new employee who would just work on climate related stuff. And I thought to myself, that is literally an example of a billionaire buying government. You know, because the attorney general is not technically government, but it's sort of, yeah, let's just call it government. It's close enough. Even if the attorney general is not elected. It's close enough. Or are they? Attorney generals in the states are all elected. Right, but the point is that Bloomberg is literally buying democracy, but he's doing it in front of us. Now, here's a question for you. Who do you think would be the perfect Bloomberg vice president pick? I know, I know what you're thinking. You're already thinking ahead. Well, so here's the trick. If you're picking a vice president, you want to pick somebody who complements you and fixes some gaps that you have in your brand. So if you have some holes that need to be plugged, sometimes your vice president could do that. For example, let's say you needed More support from a certain part of the country. You might pick a vice president who represents or is popular in that part of the country to try to get those votes. In the case of Bloomberg, he's way too old, so that's one of his problems. So he would need somebody younger. Right. He's the biggest complaints about him and the things that are starting to define him are coming from the critics. So there's only so much Bloomberg can do to define himself. The other part of the job of defining him is what his enemies are going to say. And his enemies have decided that their, their attack is going to be on race and misogyny and his past. Comments. Somebody asked me on, well, somebody sent me a message yesterday saying, why don't I apply the 20 year rule to Bloomberg and say, well, if he did these things 20 years ago, we should just not count them. And internally I do. But let me say it externally, I don't really care what he did more than 20 years ago. If he did something last year, let's put that in the mix. But if he did something 20 years ago and it was not only, well, I don't care. I'm not even going to make the argument that times were different. I think that's a weak argument. I'm going to make the stronger argument that we're not the same people we were 20 years ago. So I give Bloomberg the same pass I would give anybody, which is he's not the guy he was 20 years ago, but still his critics are going to define him as being that guy. And especially the stop and frisk stuff. So if he's got a woman problem, he's got a race problem. Who fixes that? Who is young? Bam. Kamala Harris. Now, yeah, everybody knew where I was going with that. Now here's an interesting factoid that I just learned. I don't know if this has changed, but when Harris was still in the race, she was the third best in getting support from African Americans, which I didn't know. So number one and two were Bernie and Biden. And then the third best was Kamala Harris. Now, assuming that Biden isn't going to make it, that would make the number one and two maybe Kamala and maybe Bernie. But if Bernie doesn't make it, what can Bloomberg do that would get him the most automatic black support? And this is important too. He's got that stop and frisk thing. Having somebody who was, who has Kamala Harris's background in law enforcement might, maybe that helps a little bit. I don't know, maybe it hurts. I'm not sure about that. But anyway. Now here's another thing. If somebody was 78 years old, I think that's Bloomberg's age, right? So you should assume if he won and he served, he would be what, 82. 82 in the final year. And not really, you wouldn't really run for re election. So he'd have to be running for one term. But would he even make it one term? Do you think that Mike Bloomberg might plan to run two years and then turn it over to his vice president? Because do you think that Mike Bloomberg thinks we should have an 80 year old president? I'm not going to read his mind, but I'm just going to say that Bloomberg does seem to be a rational guy. Say what you like about what he's done right or done wrong. You know, I'm not going to get into the policies, but I would say, and you see this in his switching from Republican to Democrat, he's sort of a technocrat, meaning he cares about what works more than he cares about party affiliation or anything like that. So I had some point I was going to make there, but I lost it. So talk about something else. I found a really rough week. I wake up at night in screaming pain every night. I mean, just horrible abdominal pain. And I don't know what that's about yet. So pardon me, I'm not doing a lot of sleeping and I'm heavily medicated right now. Jeff Bezos put up $10 billion to fight climate change. So I put this math quiz on Twitter, see if he can answer the question. Jeff Bezos pledged 10 billion of his own money to address climate change. How much money would Bezos have pledged if Bernie had eliminated income inequality? Now, of course, there's no specific answer to that. It's just fun to think about. But what would the world look like under a Bernie perfect world where you don't have income inequality? Well, you wouldn't have a Jeff Bezos. So you wouldn't have somebody giving $10 billion to fight climate change. So I asked this question and I thought to myself when I posted it, I sure hope no economists answer this because then it's going to get complicated. It took about 10 seconds for an economist to answer it. Joshua Gans, an economist, I'm familiar with him. We've communicated over the years over Twitter and email. And he weighs in. He says they would be effectively the same as the government would have that 10 billion. In other words, if Bernie were president, he would tax away all that money. The Government would have it, and then the government could spend it for climate change. So I'm thinking, damn it. My clever little tweet, which wasn't meant to be too rigorously mathematical, has already been debunked by an actual working economist. But I'm not done yet. No, no, no. Just because Joshua is smart and never engages in loser think does not mean I agree with him in all cases. So here's my response. I said partial credit for a correct short term answer. The correct long term answer is that no one would have any money because income equality would, by definition eliminate all personal incentives to work hard, start businesses, get promoted. Any of that. There just wouldn't be any point to any of it. So eventually nobody would have any money. So the government wouldn't have it. Jeff Bezos wouldn't have it. So the answer is zero, because we would all be a poor agrarian society. But here's the good news. Once the economy of the world is Destroyed, not much CO2. So works out, I guess. And then Joshua came back with a criticism of mine, thinking that I changed the game. Move the goalposts. Well, I didn't do that intentionally. But my point is that economists tend to debate each other and understand what the other said. So when I made my case, Joshua Gans made a perfectly rational response to it. I made a response to it that I think he also understands. He made a response that I understand. If he and I debated a few more rounds, I think we would get to some point where we realize we all agree and that would probably be the end of it. So that is the opposite of loser think. All right, Bernie has a commercial that he's playing now in which he's claiming in his commercial. This is like the feature point of the commercial is that he's potentially the, quote, first Jewish American president. And in this commercial, he evokes, and I assume this is. I think this is an approved Bernie ad. He evokes the fine people hoax again. The fine people hoax. The most debunked hoax in American politics, the belief that President Trump called the neo Nazis fine people, easily debunked. You just have to look at the transcript, look at the full video and realize that the part people see is an edited out of context thing. Is that possible? Can you edit things and take them out of context and turn something into nothing? Well, let's ask Bloomberg, because Bloomberg recently had a piece of video taken out of context in which he said. In which he said. Which he said, I wish I. Oh. He once claimed during a television Appearance. This is Bloomberg. So here's his quote. Take it in context. So you see how easily this can be done by getting rid of the stuff surrounding it. He said that there's, quote, an enormous cohort of young black and Latino males who, quote, don't know how to behave in the workplace. Oh, my God. Is that the most racist thing you've ever heard in your life? Oh, my God. Except that the context was, apparently he was funding some program directly. Directly to help people solve this problem. Doesn't that change it completely? If all he's saying is, hey, it looks like there's some identifiable group of people who, quote, don't know how to behave in the workplace, that's horrible. But if you know, the context is he's just funded some massive program to help people understand how to integrate into the workplace, then you say, oh, actually that's kind of good, right? It just completely reverses it. So you can see this all the time. It's happened. I don't know, maybe it's happened four or five times with Bloomberg alone, where his stuff taken out of context reverses it. And it happened with the fine people hoax. Because what the president actually said was the neo Nazis should be condemned totally. He said that directly and it was still taken out of context. They leave that part out. Blah, blah. So here's the point. Bernie's got this commercial in which he's. He's making it a point of his ethnicity. Now, how many times have I told you the thing that Barack Obama did right was not running to be our first black president? And that made it perfectly acceptable for everybody who wasn't black to say, oh, thank God there's somebody who's not making it about race. Let's just judge him on his qualities. Hey, he's pretty good. And wouldn't we like to get past this and have a black president? Yes, we would. We would. That's our own personal preference. But don't tell us what we need. Don't tell us we need a black president. That's too far. Let us decide that. Right? So that's what Obama did. It was brilliant and it worked. What Hillary Clinton did, as I said many times, she said a woman would be better for president. At which point a lot of men said, no, I'm out. As soon as you say that your gender is superior, you're disqualified. Bernie is trying to make it an advantage that he would be the first Jewish American president. So let me say the same thing I said with Hillary Clinton. I'm out. I'm out as soon as he makes it about race or ethnicity. It's not part of the American experience for me. You know, as soon as that's. He didn't say much about it other than he would be, but still, I don't need that from the candidate. I would love to say that about him myself, if you let me decide. I'd say, oh, that's cool. We got a Jewish American president. I'd like to check that box, too. If it's up to me, I'm happy about it, but I don't want to be told to be happy about it. Do you get the difference? That's completely wrong. If somebody running for president tells me I should care about his ethnicity, I'm out. So that bothered me. But the worst part is that the only thing good about Bernie was that he seemed somewhat ethical and somewhat genuine. But his use of the fine people hoax as his primary attack vehicle in this ad, I think puts the lie to all of that. So Bernie is now he's going full racist and full liar. So everything that you liked about Bernie is that, well, at least he's consistent. He doesn't get into that identity politics stuff too much compared to the other ones. And he at least is playing astray. He doesn't seem to be lying. And now that's all changed. Somebody says he's always lied, but in terms of reputation, he had a cleaner reputation, I think, than other people, other politicians. So I think now that I'm going to agree with Alan Dershowitz, who said, I think it was Sunday night on Joel Pollock's radio program on the Breitbart radio. I think it was Dershowitz who said that if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, Dershowitz, who is a registered Democrat, voted for Hillary Clinton, said it might force him to leave the Democratic Party and campaign against him nationwide. And I join with Dershowitz in saying that if Bernie gets the nomination, I will register Republican and I'll vote for the first time in a while. I voted a long time ago, but I haven't voted in a long time. And I'm not going to be voting for Trump. I mean, I will vote for Trump, but the point of it would be to vote against Bernie because I think Bernie could legitimately destroy the country in a way that a normal politician, even a normal Democrat, even a normal Democrat wouldn't destroy the country. I don't think there's a chance that Bloomberg would destroy the country. And that's the whole reason he's running, right? He doesn't want to destroy the country. So if Bloomberg gets the nomination, I'm not going to vote. I'm not going to vote because I'd rather. I like to keep that at least. Little crumb of independence, maybe that's already gone. But Bernie I would consider a national threat. He would be a national threat to actually everything. You could lose everything with Bernie, but you're not going to lose any everything if it's some other Democrat, if it's Biden or something, you know, we won't do as well, but you're not going to lose everything. So I'm anti Bernie to the death because he crossed the line for me. That the fine people hoax just trips my wire. I mean, if you're going to be that bad, then you just can't be president. All right. The interesting thing about Bernie as a candidate is he would be the first candidate who was hated for being. I try to say this right because it's confusing. He would be the first candidate who was ever hated by, let's say, racists, who just hated him because he was Jewish American. So he'd be hated for being Jewish by some portion of the population who are racist. But he would also be hated by people who think he's an anti Semite because his policies and opinions about Israel are not where the most pro Israel people would like it to be. So he's the only candidate who could be elected who would be hated for being Jewish and for being anti Jewish. What are the odds of that? Can you ever think of a worse candidate? Somebody who's hated by some people, the racists, for being Jewish, but hated by other people for not being Jewish enough? I don't see there's any way he can win. Now, what's interesting about this is if. Well, I'm not even going to go there. So I think Bernie is the weakest candidate, but not the most fun candidate. The most fun candidate by far would be Bloomberg, because a Bloomberg Trump fight would be billionaire on billionaire. It would be a fair fight. It would be dirty. Fair and dirty. In other words, within politics, you expect a little bit of dirt. So somehow that seems fair. But I think Trump would destroy them both. All right, let's see what else we get. Biden. So Biden gets. He does a TV interview, which is always a mistake for Biden because he's Mr. Gaff. So they usually try to keep him away from cameras. But he said that white supremacists are very enthusiastic about Trump. That's what Biden slips in there. And I'm thinking I don't even know a white supremacist. Like, actually, have you ever met a white supremacist? There are definitely racists, there are definitely white nationalists, there are definitely neo Nazis. But I don't think any of those groups I named think that white people are superior. Do you? Is there a white supremacist somewhere in the country, in the United States in 2020 who has a television set and they, you know, they can see a little bit outside of their, their hovel or wherever they're living? Is there anybody who can turn on the TV and say to themselves, you know, I don't think black people will ever make it in sports. And then they turn on the TV and they're like, oh, okay, well, apparently black people are good at sports, but they're never going to make it in the arts. And then they turn on the TV and like, oh, okay. Well, it looks like they're really, really successful in the arts and music and every form of entertainment. But you'll never have a black person who will be president. Okay? Obama was president, you know, and you can just go down the line. Like, I've never met a white supremacist who thought that, that white people are better than other people. Have you? I mean, seriously, have you ever met anybody? I've never even, I've never even seen an interview recently. Now you have to throw in recently because if you go back into our dark American past. Yeah. You'll find every bit of that. But in 2020, could you find me one person who said, oh, yeah, this race is way better than this race on every dimension? I don't think so. I don't think so. No, Ann Coulter doesn't think that. And you're going back to Margaret Singer. You have to go back to the past. I'm talking 2020. In 2020, I'm going to make the claim that there's no such thing as an actual white supremacist, meaning thinking that one race is superior to others in all the important ways. I don't think that exists. There are just people who have preferences which maybe you wish they didn't have, but it's not that anyway. So Biden, I think he's just lost in the past in some past where there were such things as white supremacists in the old fashioned way that he thinks of it. All right? And I think he's cleverly trying to conflate that term with other terms to add to the badness. I love the effort going on now to force Bernie to disavow his own supporters. I don't think it's going to happen, but I think it was Biden and maybe others who were calling for him to disavow his Bernie Bro supporters who are misogynistic and whatever else they are. I just love watching the Democrats tear each other apart. All right, here's a thought for you. You know, for a while there were lots of talk about reparations, but you haven't heard about it lately, right? During the early parts of the Democratic primary process, you saw some of the Democrats talking about, hey, yeah, I would do reparations for slavery, but I haven't heard it lately. It feels like it dropped off the top 10 of things that people are talking about. But let me just throw out this idea. So recently the Trump administration joined with Congress in a bipartisan thing. So it's not just the Trump thing, but Trump signed off on it. So the administration usually traditionally gets credit, even if Congress did most of the work. As long as the president says yes at the end, the administration tends to get some credit for that, even if you think they shouldn't. So one of the things that fits in that category is that the president signed a bipartisan bill back in December that will permanently provide more than 250 million a year to the nation's historically black universities, along with dozens of other institutions that serve large shares of minority students. Now, if the government and our Congress decides to put 250 million a year toward primarily black interests and black education, in particular higher education, I think the emphasis here is on STEM type programs. So there's, you know, there's a real interest to get the higher paying jobs, you know, cranked up here. So is that not reparations? Is that not reparations? Now? Apparently it's bipartisan. So Republicans and Democrats both looked at it and said, you know, not bad. The trouble with doing something that's more traditionally reparations, meaning you cut a check like was done with the Japanese Americans who were held in internment camps in World War II. They just got a check which covered almost nothing compared to what they lost in many cases. But that's not really practical with slavery reparations because you've got all the people who weren't here when it happened. You've got what about people were black, but they came in after slavery, they came from other countries. You know, there's going to be, it would be impossible to just write checks. So that's never going to happen. But if you may recall that I once, not too long ago. A few years ago, I was writing blogging about where we could do reparations in a way that would make everybody happy, which would be funding college for black students with some kind of favoritism. And that's what this is. So it's a favoritism for black students and other minorities in which they get some favorable funding from the government so that they have high level institutions. Now, does this matter? Is it enough? Well, I would note that Kamala Harris came out of one of those colleges. So it's clear that those colleges are producing leaders. And I would say this is a really, really strong approach to something like reparations. So here's the fun part. Think of the things that Trump has done for the black community, including the opportunity zones. I think Tim Scott was kind of in charge of that. Or so there are, I may be using the wrong thing, special opportunity zones or something. But it's basically, again, it's government funding for, for disadvantaged areas, which are primarily black and minority areas. So we have two areas in which the government is very directly funding very large amounts of money to black interests that you could say that's not reparations. But I think that's just word thinking, because it looks exactly like reparations to me. The best you could do since you couldn't write checks to everybody. There's no way to do that. All right, let's talk about something else. Does it seem to you that Trump is the only one who is working on unity while the Democrats are working desperately to divide us? Just keep that in mind as you're watching, because I just gave you some examples where Trump, you could throw in prison reform and other things. Low unemployment rates. So President Trump is continuously doing things which are obviously designed to bring people together in the United States. And the Democrats are obviously doing the opposite. They're very obviously doing the opposite. All right. The Boy Scouts of America filed for bankruptcy amid a surge in legal costs over his handling of sexual abuse allegations. Now, this story, the actual details of the story, I'm not interested in. I mean, they're important and they can't be swept under the rug, of course. But just for our purposes today, the actual details of those cases, I'm not too interested in. Here's what I'm interested in. Incentives work. Every time you see a situation in which there's a clear incentive to do one thing versus the other, you should expect that that's going to make a difference. And if you create a national organization which by its nature pairs adult men with otherwise unsupervised young people. Eventually, that organization is going to attract not just good dads and good moms who just want to help out, but. But it's going to attract more than its share of people who say, are you kidding? That's exactly what I want. The people who have bad intentions and just want to have access to children. Really. So every time I see somebody who's a coach for some youth league or something like that, there's always a little bell that goes off in my head which says, I hope they just want to help. I hope they just want to help. But what I use is the shoe salesman analogy, and it goes like this. And by the way, I have no evidence that this is true. Just think it through. My belief is that the industry of shoe salesperson has existed for a long time, and over time, you would expect that it would attract more than its share of people who kind of like feet and shoes more than the average, if you know what I mean. So in theory, sooner or later, most or all male shoe salespeople should have a little love of shoes. I'm trying to keep this G rated, but you know what I mean, right? So overtime incentives always work. Just keep that in mind. All right. I saw trending on Twitter the name Kenan Thompson. And Kenan Thompson is a comedian from Saturday Night Live, member of the cast for a long time. And as soon as I saw it was trending, I thought, oh, no, another tragic death of a comedian who's left us too young. And I click on it. It turns out it wasn't any bad news. He got the job of hosting the White House Correspondent's Dinner. So congratulations to Kenan Thompson. But what's funny, as I read the comments on the hashtag and it was funny, how many people had the same first thought, People were clicking on that like crazy to find out, oh, my God, I hope he's okay. And he's okay. So how often do you get good news? It's like, hey, Kenan Thompson, congratulations. You got a good job and you're healthy as far as we know. Did you see the video of Sanders was giving his speech, I guess, in Nevada, and a young woman came up and grabbed the microphone away from him. And then another young woman or two of them came up and took their tops off and dumped pink colored milk on them because they were protesting dairy, I guess the horrible dairy industry they were protesting. And so Sanders, when the first young woman tried to grab the microphone away, he just let her have it. And he stood back, he let his Security do what his security does, and they took care of it in a reasonable manner, professional manner. So on one hand, you could say, oh, you know, actually, Sanders handled that perfectly because he avoided any conflict. He got out of the way, and he let the professionals who were there for that purpose, the security do their job, and then they did it. But that's not how it looked, unfortunately. It looked like a weak, weak leader because he just got, basically a young woman just pushed him off the stage and took control, and he let it happen. So logically, he did the right thing, and I really think he did just getting out of the way. But the look didn't serve his purposes. It made him look weak. But then he made some good jokes about the free entertainment. So I think he recovered a little bit from that. And I thought to myself, if I were a political operative, and let's say I were a political operative who was working for Bernie, but I was the dirty tricks person, what would be the best dirty trick that you could pull that looks like it's against Sanders but would work in his favor? Would it be the suggestion that there might be female nudity at his next rally? Because I think that would increase his crowd size. Am I wrong? Just the fact that it made it more interesting is going to make some people say, well, that might happen again. Right? So if they can make that happen twice. I'm not saying it was a dirty trick. It was probably just a real grassroots movement. But if it was a dirty trick and they could make it happen twice in a row, by the third time, Sanders is going to have a record crowd. So I think that would be hilarious. All right, I had a couple other things to talk about that I think I'm not going to. I'm already in enough trouble. So here's an update. I think I told you that I've been working with Google, their team that handles the YouTube demonetization stuff. When these videos go over to YouTube for replay, you can also watch them on Periscope for replay. But I put them on YouTube as well, and they usually get demonetized based on keywords. So the algorithm just picks out keywords. Today's presentation doesn't have a chance of being monetized because it has so many bad keywords in it that in the way I presented them, there was nothing bad about them, I hope. I don't think there was anything I said that was even controversial today, but it will be demonetized, and I'm still working through that. Just so you know, Somebody says you probably have Been, quote, working with Google. Okay. I don't know what that means. Yeah. So the other story that Joel Pollock broke on his radio show, Breitbart Radio with Dershowitz. Dershowitz is apparently going to reveal sometime in the near future based on some, I don't know, some legal case that's going to be filed or whatever, that Soros once asked Obama to investigate somebody. I think that's the story, but I would say that's a wait and see. I wouldn't put any weight on that until you see the details, because that's either a big deal or a no deal. And even Dershowitz said it's not that unusual for people to whisper to presidents and, you know, say, hey, you ought to look into this. All right. Somebody says, will Comey Brennan and or Clapper be indicted? I would guess no at this point. And the weird thing is I don't know that there will ever be a reason, do you? I just don't know that we'll ever see a reason that they're not indicted. I think it just won't happen. So I almost had Tulsi, Tulsi Gabbard on this periscope yesterday. No, I almost had her on Friday, but I couldn't schedule it because she couldn't do it at this time and I couldn't do it at her time. So they did circle back and tried to do that, but I couldn't schedule. Bloomberg de Blasio ticket? No. Got anything on McCabe? So McCabe will not be charged. And honestly, I don't really understand the differences between one person lying to Congress, relying to the FBI. I just don't know what makes one illegal and one not. I will observe that there doesn't seem to be a standard way that that rule is applied. Somebody says, then what is Durham doing? Well, I don't know what Durham is doing. I just predict that you're not going to see those guys that you mentioned indicted. Got lots of questions here. All right, What leveraging, Bernie? I don't know about that story. All right. I think that's all I got for today and I will talk to you tomorrow.