Back to episode — Episode 332 Scott Adams - Wondering Why Wall Funding Can’t be Negotiated in Public
Context —
And the other thing that was hilarious about this is I saw that the press, whatever you call it, talking to Pelosi and Schumer afterwards. And then Schumer were arguing these technical budget things. You know, it sounded like, well we've offered a CR like last year but the continuing resolutions, the process. And I'm just listening to it going, I really don't know what you're saying. We don't care…
← Previous segment →And here's the thing. I'm not even sure I have a bias. I don't think I have necessarily a bias on this topic because to me it's a technical question. It's not a political question. It's just what works. You have both sides agreeing that they want something that works for border security. So the critical part of the disagreement is no disagreement at all. Everybody wants good border security. So I don't have any kind of political bias that would be relevant because everybody is on the same side to begin with. There are just some questions about how much would it cost, how long would it take, is a wall as good as a fence. Just technical stuff.
I could have this solved in 24 hours. Put me on camera with two experts who know what they're talking about. We'll have this all sorted out in 24 hours. The only people who can't have solved this are the people who have a political stake in it. So the president has such a strong political motivation about calling it a wall and the Democrats have such a strong political motivation to not call it a wall. That's actually the only remaining problem.
Do you get that? That our government is displaying a level of incompetence that I don't believe we've ever seen. This might be the new highest level of incompetence, at least one that we can understand as voters. We don't understand everything they do because you can't really tell if they've done something wrong if you don't know exactly what they're doing and what's the right thing to do. But in this wall situation we know that both sides agree. We know that the money is available. You have two people agreeing with each other as hard as they can. That's a very unusual situation. They just want to use different words for things.
If you have a situation in which people agreed on the fundamentals and the only thing they were arguing about is how you express it and what you talk about and how you persuade and what words you use, that's all it's down to, who would you call to help you solve that problem? Yeah, you'd call me.
I'm not qualified to do everything. You know, the list of things I'm not qualified for is infinite. The number of things I am qualified to do compared to all the things people can do, it's very small. My total collection of skills is very small compared to all the things one could be skilled at. But this is exactly what I do. This is what I do. I figured out how two people who are in complete agreement can present their case in a way that breaks the logjam.
Context —
All right, first time watching me live? Well it just gets better and better, doesn't it? Trump promised Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Well that wasn't really the important part of the wall, was it? So apparently money is no longer the problem because the Democrats have promised money. All right, that's all I had to say about today and I will talk to you later.
Next segment → →