Scott Adams

As soon as you see the analogy, it feels like there's a lack of argument because it's not really like Reagan and the Soviet Union. The big difference is that Trump is threatening to bomb Iran any minute now. I don't believe that when Reagan gave his speech, you know, tear down that wall, I don't believe we were threatening to bomb the Soviet Union any minute now.

As soon as you see the analogy, it feels like there's a lack of argument because it's not really like Reagan and the Soviet Union. The big difference is that Trump is threatening to bomb Iran any minute now. I don't believe that when Reagan gave his speech, you know, tear down that wall, I don't believe we were threatening to bomb the Soviet Union any minute now.

So you can't really compare those two situations. But I thought about it. My first thought was, that's not going to make any difference. The Iranian people are not going to buy that, especially if you have a sword over their head. Because what would he say? I mean, he probably would throw in the threat. And if he throws them the threat, it's going to make things worse.

So you can't really compare those two situations. But I thought about it. My first thought was, that's not going to make any difference. The Iranian people are not going to buy that, especially if you have a sword over their head. Because what would he say? I mean, he probably would throw in the threat. And if he throws them the threat, it's going to make things worse.

Because if the Iranian public hears you need to do this or else you'll get bombed, that's not going to make friends. If the idea is to get the public on your side, that's not going to do it. So I don't know how he could do this in the context of threatening to bomb them at any minute. But I do think there might be something to it if he could not mention the bombing.

Because if the Iranian public hears you need to do this or else you'll get bombed, that's not going to make friends. If the idea is to get the public on your side, that's not going to do it. So I don't know how he could do this in the context of threatening to bomb them at any minute. But I do think there might be something to it if he could not mention the bombing.

Because Trump does have a way of communicating that's unlike anybody else. And if he did say the right things at the right time, he might find a way to connect. So I think as long as you don't mention we're going to bomb you if you don't give us what we want, just don't mention that at all, then you use the documentary effect.

Because Trump does have a way of communicating that's unlike anybody else. And if he did say the right things at the right time, he might find a way to connect. So I think as long as you don't mention we're going to bomb you if you don't give us what we want, just don't mention that at all, then you use the documentary effect.

The documentary effect is where there's one side of an argument presented over a long period of time and there's nobody on the other side. That can be very persuasive. So if he gave a speech directly to the Iranian people and he made it persuasive, and there wouldn't be any counter-argument, it would just be his speech, the odds of him having an upside, surprisingly good result, are pretty good.

The documentary effect is where there's one side of an argument presented over a long period of time and there's nobody on the other side. That can be very persuasive. So if he gave a speech directly to the Iranian people and he made it persuasive, and there wouldn't be any counter-argument, it would just be his speech, the odds of him having an upside, surprisingly good result, are pretty good.

The downside risk... probably nearly nothing, as long as you don't put a threat in there. If you put a threat in there, there's no way that's going to turn out well. So I guess I would be cautiously in favor of this if it were implemented correctly. My next story gets to the concept of what I call, how lost are the Democrats?

The downside risk... probably nearly nothing, as long as you don't put a threat in there. If you put a threat in there, there's no way that's going to turn out well. So I guess I would be cautiously in favor of this if it were implemented correctly. My next story gets to the concept of what I call, how lost are the Democrats?

I love hearing their best and brightest people, the ones who should be helping them correct the ship. I love hearing them give advice that really sounds bad. So CNN's Van Jones said on air that Trump should investigate and prosecute the Doge staff. quote, I don't think what they're doing is legal. Now, he didn't give examples of what he thinks are illegal.

I love hearing their best and brightest people, the ones who should be helping them correct the ship. I love hearing them give advice that really sounds bad. So CNN's Van Jones said on air that Trump should investigate and prosecute the Doge staff. quote, I don't think what they're doing is legal. Now, he didn't give examples of what he thinks are illegal.

But that might be some of the worst advice I've ever heard. Because obviously, Trump's not going to do that. And all of this is attacking the people who are trying to get something done on behalf of the American people, such as get rid of the fat and bloat and corruption. So once again, we have the pattern developing where Republicans are trying to get something done. That would be Doge.

But that might be some of the worst advice I've ever heard. Because obviously, Trump's not going to do that. And all of this is attacking the people who are trying to get something done on behalf of the American people, such as get rid of the fat and bloat and corruption. So once again, we have the pattern developing where Republicans are trying to get something done. That would be Doge.

And Democrats are trying to use some kind of legal process to prevent them from getting anything done. How do you miss the pattern at this point? Even if you're a Democrat, do you not realize that Republicans are trying to get things done? Sometimes you won't like them, but they're trying to do things that are good for the country.

And Democrats are trying to use some kind of legal process to prevent them from getting anything done. How do you miss the pattern at this point? Even if you're a Democrat, do you not realize that Republicans are trying to get things done? Sometimes you won't like them, but they're trying to do things that are good for the country.

And Democrats are almost entirely involved with stopping any progress in any way. It's kind of hard to miss the pattern after a while, isn't it?

And Democrats are almost entirely involved with stopping any progress in any way. It's kind of hard to miss the pattern after a while, isn't it?