Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive August 22, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

ng about the long-term climate implications, right? At the same time we're all explaining that to each other. Haven't you seen, is it my imagination or do I explain this to people about five times a week and then people explain it back to me like I've never heard it? It's the damndest thing. Are you all experiencing the same thing? If you're having the same conversations are you experiencing the…

← Previous segment →

North Korea will give up its nukes. He should be fired for that. Dan Coats should be fired for saying that. Absolutely you should be fired.

Now the president had every right to tear him a new asshole in public for saying that because we're still in a negotiation. What's the worst thing you can say if you're in a negotiation? The very very very worst thing. There are probably a lot of bad things you can say when you're in a negotiation but the worst thing you can say is we don't expect to get the thing that we're asking for. There's nothing worse than that. Because what did North Korea say when they saw that the head of the intel said they're never going to give up their nukes? If they're smart and I believe they are, North Korea said oh they don't even expect us to give up our nukes. Why should we even try? Why would we even put that on the table? They're not even expecting it. Dan Coats should have been fired for saying that in public.

Now more importantly, as I'm saying in the comments you're prompting me, more importantly it's a mind-reading opinion. The worst of the worst. The fact is we don't know. If he was sticking with the facts he would have said we're asking North Korea to give up this stuff. The history suggests this is going to be a tough fight. We don't know how this will end well. We're definitely going to push hard as we can. Those would just be facts, right? Facts are fine. If Dan Coats had said facts that disagreed with the president I would say no no I'd rather see the facts. The exception would be if there's some persuasion kind of thing that's important.

So Kim Jong-un has generals who say similar things because they're on the North Korean side. Yes maybe you're agreeing with me. I may have misinterpreted that.

Here's another one. They were I guess the intel chiefs, I forget which one was disagreeing with Trump that ISIS is beaten. Disagreeing with Trump that ISIS is beaten. Whoever said that should be fired. Tell me why in the comments. Whoever disagreed with the president and said that ISIS is not beaten, whatever beaten means. Everybody agrees that it's a permanent problem but whoever said ISIS is not beaten should be fired.

Why? Here's why. Do you know what's good for recruiting? To say that they might win. To say that they have a chance. Do you know what's bad for ISIS recruiting? They're so beaten down there's nothing left of them. Yeah there's remnants but basically they're beaten. The smart way to play this is to say they're beaten while acknowledging that it's a permanent ongoing smaller problem. The last thing you want to do is to say that the biggest military in the world has been fighting them for however many years and they're not beaten. You need to get fired for that stuff. That's like one of the biggest mistakes you could ever say in public. Those are terrible.

Now what was the other thing? Something about Iran I believe. And so the president also was trying to keep maximum pressure on Iran by saying that there you know a maximum problem. How is our negotiation helped by the intel people acting like Iran isn't that big of a problem compared to what the president is saying? You should get fired for that. You should be fired for disagreeing with the negotiating position of the commander-in-chief. You should get fired for that.

So given that the intel chiefs made some of the biggest mistakes I can't even conceive of in public, was it acceptable or is it a problem that the president called them out fairly immediately and in public? Was it a problem? To me not a problem. I love the transparency. The transparency is part of what we like about this president. That's what it's a feature it's not a bug. If somebody makes that kind of mistake, I mean these are monumental mistakes. These are the kind of mistakes that cause wars. And this is a war-sized set of mistakes by his intel chiefs. Yes he should call them out. Yes you should do it in public. In public absolutely. In public. Yes it should be immediate and yes you should tweet it. So absolutely he should have called them out for that. He should have embarrassed them in public and he should make sure that nobody is dumb enough to do it again. All right, I don't even think he was hard enough on them. I think those were firing mistakes.

All right, let's talk about Howard Schultz. So I've been getting to watch a little bit more of Howard Schultz doing in

Context —

terviews. So he's doing the tour and he's selling a book. He's doing a great job selling his book I'll bet because he's getting all kinds of attention. And I'm starting to form an opinion about him that I didn't have before. So here's my opinion. Number one in a normal world where we didn't have these weird parties, you know the Republicans and the Democrats were not worlds apart, in a normal wor…

Next segment → →