Episode 1817 Scott Adams: It's Time For President Harris To Take Over For Decomposing Joe Biden
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Why are gas prices drifting lower?
Elon Musk vs Rupert Murdock?
Pope's apology tour
President Biden, morning vs afternoon
The women's party vs the parent's party
Fentanyl profits vs military industrial complex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and aren't you glad you're here?
You know, we could call it Coffee with whatever your name is, but that wouldn't work nearly as well.
Maybe we should do that sometime.
I'm going to pick a popular name.
Let's see. There are probably lots of people out there named...
Dorothy. So it's coffee with Dorothy today.
Dorothy, it's your day. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chelterstein, a canteen jug or a 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 of the day, the thing that could even animate Joe Biden.
It's called coffee.
And it happens now.
Go! Well, let's start with our first little bit of gaslighting.
And this comes to you courtesy of CNN. Now, I made the mistake of looking at the CNN website and clicking on one of their links.
Here's what I found.
On the front page, this is what the link says, right?
So the link says...
CNN poll.
A majority of GOP voters don't want Trump to be the nominee in 2024.
So that's what the link says.
The link says most Republicans don't want Trump to run.
So if you clicked on that link, what would you imagine the story would be?
Do you think the story would be something about...
The Republicans don't want Trump to run.
Right? All right, here's what the title of the piece is after you click the link.
So the link, again, says Republicans don't want Trump to run.
Click the link, and here's the headline.
I swear to God, I'm just reading this off of CNN's own site.
All right, I'll click the link.
All right, Republicans don't want Trump to be the nominee.
And then the story is by Kate Sullivan...
CNN poll, 75% of Democratic voters want someone other than Biden in 2024.
54% of Republicans didn't want Trump running.
75% of Democrats don't want Biden running.
The title to the piece is about Trump.
The headline of their actual story.
This is CNN's own story.
They're not linking outside their site.
This is all within CNN right now.
You can go look at this yourself.
The story is the opposite of the title.
The title tells you there's something wrong with Trump.
The story is about something wrong with Biden.
Have you ever seen something that direct?
Isn't it just a link error?
Nope. It's not a link error because the story does include the fact that the GOP, 54% of them don't want Trump.
But it's a buried context within the larger story.
The larger story is people don't want Biden.
I mean, how much of the general public, let's say the CNN viewers, how many of them would even notice this?
Do you think they would even notice?
Or would they just read the headlines and say, well, Trump is unpopular in his own party.
And would they just move on?
It's amazing that they could do this right in front of you.
Right in front of you.
And, you know, shamelessly.
Are you worried about robots taking your jobs?
Do you think robots will put us all in at work in the future?
Well, let me give you some context here.
It's happened once before.
Robots already took all of our jobs once.
Well, I'm extending the definition of robot to, let's say, a farm tractor and industrial farming, which is, you know, a lot of machines involved.
So I saw a tweet from EvilGnome6 on Twitter.
And Evil Gnome 6 reminds us that before the Industrial Revolution, 80% of humans were working agriculture.
And now it's 1%.
So we went from 80% of the people having a certain kind of job, and then machines and tractors and everything made that unnecessary.
And we basically removed 80% of all the employment on Earth.
It didn't make any difference.
We were fine. We just found other things to do.
Now, do you remember, if you're a certain age, you might remember that there were predictions that television, you know, the invention of television, would make the radio go away.
Because, you know, who's going to want to listen when you can listen and watch?
But what happened?
Well, nobody saw Rush Limbaugh coming, and suddenly talk radio...
Makes sense. Suddenly, if you're driving and you're caught in traffic, oh yeah, it turns out that traffic is getting worse and worse, so we spend more and more time in our cars, so radio is more important.
So predicting that TV would kill radio, that didn't work out.
How about, do you remember when everybody said that computers would make us a paperless office?
So when you went to work, you'd have your computer, but no paper.
It wouldn't need any paper.
Yeah, let me show you my paperless office here.
Here's my paperless office.
The paper's all over it.
Papers, papers.
Yep, it's 2022.
Do you know what's the best way to handle some things?
Paper. Do you know why I printed out my notes on paper?
Because it works better.
It works better. Basically, we are terrible at predicting what's going to happen with these large societal things.
And also, keep in mind that if robots take our jobs, they also might make the cost of living drop like crazy.
So we can see the cost of energy approaching zero with fusion someday.
We can see the cost of labor approaching Approaching zero, because machines will do it all.
So maybe you don't have the same access to the same job you could have had before, but would you care?
What if everything is almost free?
Let's say there's no delivery costs anymore, because you just 3D print what you want.
I mean, you could imagine a world where you could live on $1,000 a year.
You could. You can imagine living on $1,000 a year and having everything you want.
It's not impossible.
Who knows what's going to happen, but we're not good at predicting the future.
All right, here's some more interesting news.
Apparently, Ukraine has blown up one of their own major bridges to keep the Russians from advancing.
I guess they probably, we don't know for sure, but they probably used one of these HiMARS systems, H-I-M-A-R-S, that the U.S. provided.
So these are long-range, accurate missiles.
Looks like they took out that bridge.
But here is a question I ask you.
Have we reached a point in which nobody's ever going to be able to move big equipment into another country, as long as that country that's being attacked has access to these types of weapons?
I don't see how the Russians can advance if we're providing these accurate missiles.
Because it doesn't take too many missiles to disrupt the supply chain, does it?
Failed to blow it up in the initial invasion, yeah.
Well, anyway, Ukraine is saying that they've got only a few of these HIMAR systems.
They need at least 50 of them to hold back the Russian forces and at least 100 of them for an effective counteroffensive.
Do we want Ukraine to have an effective counteroffensive?
Is that even good for anybody?
I don't know if it's good for anybody, actually, like literally anybody.
You know, there might be some people who prefer to be Ukrainian instead of Russian.
I'm sure that's a thing, and vice versa.
But for the world in general, I don't know if we want Ukraine to beat Russia, do we?
Or do we just want to stand off so maybe they'll stop fighting?
I feel like you want to stand off.
I don't feel like you want a victory.
I'm not sure if anybody's better off if Ukraine gets back that territory.
Are you better off?
Do you think your life would be a little bit better if Ukraine gets that territory back?
I don't know. I don't know how it's going to affect anything, except the people in that territory.
So gas prices continue to drift lower.
Here's my question.
Why? Does anybody know the answer to that question?
Gas is getting cheaper.
Why? Why? Inflation?
No. Futures? Well, but why are the futures changing?
Yeah, obviously it's futures, but why is it changing?
Recession? I don't know that people are driving less, are they?
It's summer, it should be up.
Demand should be through the roof.
Are people driving less?
I don't notice it.
Where I am, the roads are just packed.
To me, it looks like more traffic than I've ever seen in my life.
Like on just a Wednesday in the summer where I live, on an average, just a Wednesday, there's more traffic than I've ever seen any time I've lived here.
So is it different where you live?
M2, money supply dropped.
I don't think we know.
I mean, I'm looking at your answers and none of them look...
Persuasive. So, I mean, what it tells me is that the rise in prices was never real in the sense that there was not an economic force, probably.
It was probably just the gougers could gouge, so they did.
That's all it was, right?
Is the only thing we saw price gouging?
Because nothing changed, as far as I can tell.
Why is there not a national story...
Something did change.
Somebody says, instability? Eh, I don't know.
You think instability, things are more stable, and therefore the risk was taken out of the price?
I don't know. That doesn't quite track for me.
There's a lot of this stuff that's happening in the economy that I don't think we quite have a grasp on what's happening here.
I definitely don't understand what gas prices are going down.
Because I'm not aware of anything changing.
Here's a question. I saw a claim on Twitter that the oceans have been cooling for a while.
And that that would be the opposite of what climate change says.
How long did it take somebody to debunk that?
Oh, about 10 seconds.
And do you know how you debunk it?
You just change the start point.
You just change the start point.
If you pick your start point at a certain point, it looks like the temperatures have gone down or are somewhat stable over a long period of time.
If you look at it from, let's say, June and then compare June and prior years, it looks like it's way up.
Same data. Same database.
So the people have concluded it's clearly getting warmer on the oceans, Are standing right next to the people who are looking at the same data.
Same data. They say, I'm looking right at it, it's going up.
No, I'm looking right at it, it's going down.
No, I'm standing right with you.
We're looking at the same data.
It's going up.
No, I'm standing right next to you, shoulder to shoulder.
Look at it, same data. Now, if we can't even agree with that, it's one thing to be looking at different data, right?
We're looking at the same data, and we can't even figure that out.
My God! Doesn't that make you doubt just everything?
What could be...
It would be one thing if one side was saying the data is inaccurate, which is a separate argument.
If you're not saying the data is inaccurate, and you're looking right at it, and you can't tell if the numbers are going up or down, that's pretty basic.
Up versus down.
That's where we're at.
We can't tell the difference, literally, between up and down, at least in terms of prices or temperatures.
All right, well...
Here's a story that is kind of weird.
You know, here's a major through line in a lot of things, is that the news is all about a different use of a word.
Right? So when Biden says insurrection, he's just using a word wrong and trying to make something out of nothing by using a word.
Right? Right?
The fine people hoax was about a word.
The drinking bleach hoax was about a word.
Basically, everything's about what you find.
Did Trump want to find votes?
So everything's about a word, okay?
So your context is that the news is all fake...
And the way that they make it fake is by telling you that recession, right?
That recession doesn't mean what it used to mean.
Somebody tweeted Reuters that I think on the same day or maybe the same week, Reuters defined a recession as two consecutive periods of negative growth.
At the same time, Reuters also was reporting, oh no, you don't simply look at two cores of negative growth.
It's a holistic kind of thing, you know, the Biden administration take on it.
Now, here's the thing.
I actually totally agree with the Biden interpretation.
I think that if you took the simplistic explanation...
of a recession, of just two periods of negative growth, that doesn't make sense coming out of a pandemic.
Because coming out of a pandemic just changed everything, right?
So if you had a temporary, you know, a reset, I shouldn't call it that, if you had a temporary depression coming out of a pandemic, it could be that all of your assets and resources are in pretty good shape.
They just have to be spun up again.
So I do think that the Biden administration is accurate.
And by the way, I would have defended Trump for saying the same thing.
If Trump had said this, I'd defend it as well.
I do think that this specific case, just this specific case, you do have to look at it holistically.
So I hate to agree.
I hate to agree because they're sort of weaseling the thing, but it's not wrong.
That's not wrong. I think you have to look at it holistically.
Because it's weird that employment is still good, right?
That was the part that was a mystery, but I got the answer to that mystery.
We'll talk about it. All right.
Here's another example of news being created out of a word.
The news in the Wall Street Journal, which I believe has been completely debunked, in my opinion, this is not true.
I don't know. But in my opinion, what I'm going to read to you is a fake news story from the Wall Street Journal who claimed that Elon Musk had an affair, that was their word, an affair, and this is the word that's going to be questioned here, an affair with one of the founders of Google, Sergey Brin's ex-wife.
Now, the reporting is that this alleged thing which Musk and the woman involved and Sergey Brin and basically anybody who knows anything denies, and I believe it.
Their denials look credible to me.
But here's the part that I'm not going to be able to release on.
The reporting from the Wall Street Journal, which I believe is false, It says that the, quote, affair happened during a time that Sergei Brin and his wife were separated but living in the same home.
Now let me connect the dots here for you.
The Wall Street Journal says Musk had an affair with somebody who was single.
You see where I'm going with this?
That's not a fucking affair.
That would be two single people having a date if it happened, which apparently it didn't.
Do you know what an affair is?
I had to look up the definition because I thought I was going fucking crazy.
I thought I was going fucking crazy.
I go, what the hell do words mean?
I thought an affair meant...
That somebody was in a relationship and the person they were in the relationship with was unaware that they were doing somebody else.
Did we stop using the word affair to mean that?
And now an affair is two single people who are dating?
Just think about the fact that this Murdoch property, the Wall Street Journal, Did a hit piece on Musk in which the entire story, first of all, it's probably based on fake information, but even if it were true, the story would disprove their own reporting.
If it were true, which it isn't, their own story, the way they reported it, disproves their own conclusion with no ambiguity whatsoever.
Am I wrong? The meaning of the fucking word means you're not single when it's happening.
If you're single, which is what they reported, separated means single, there's nothing here.
So there's this giant hit piece that's based on probably nothing that really happened, and if it really happened, it would still be fucking nothing.
Still be fucking nothing.
And it's a major story.
How do you explain this other than Murdoch wants to blunt Musk's power?
I feel like Elon Musk was becoming too influential in the news business simply by tweeting and maybe taking over Twitter.
We don't know if that's going to happen.
But I feel like Murdoch was feeling that his own...
This is just speculation, right?
I have no way of knowing this.
But the speculation is...
That Musk is going to be hit with these hit pieces because the more powerful Musk's persuasion is, the less powerful Murdoch's entities that he uses persuasion for would be.
This looks like a billionaire fight.
What would you say? I think it's Murdoch versus Musk and there's nothing else to it.
That's what it feels like.
Just speculation. Well, the Pope has gone on an apology tour.
He is visiting Canada to apologize for the Church's role in...
Well, listen to this allegation.
And I guess the Pope is confessing and apologizing, so I guess it's beyond an allegation.
So this is history, I guess.
So, it's a pilgrimage of penance, he says, to apologize to the indigenous populations for, I guess, the Roman Catholic Church...
From the 19th century through the 1970s, right?
So a long period of time, more than 150,000 of the indigenous children were taken from homes and put into residential schools run by Christian churches on behalf of the government to assimilate them.
They were taken from their families and put into residential schools, which means that they literally took people's kids from them.
They literally took people's children from them and put them in residential schools.
Now, even if we acknowledge they were well-intentioned, yikes!
But here's my question to the Pope.
It feels like a little bit of a slippery slope to start apologizing for the history of Catholicism.
At what point do you feel you're done?
If you start apologizing for things that the Catholic Church has done over hundreds of years, where exactly do you draw the line and say, well, I think we've apologized for everything.
It's all covered now. I'm not sure you could ever be done with that job.
So... And, you know, if you're new to my content, let me remind you, I'm pro-religion.
So I'm completely pro-Catholicism, pro-Islam, pro-Buddhism, pro-religion.
Because people do make religion work for them, and it benefits their life.
You know, despite any abuses by the organizations themselves.
And I just think it's funny, you can see how apologizing doesn't work, right?
Even if it makes you feel good at the moment, when an entity like the Catholic Church starts apologizing, I just don't know where you stop.
At some point, you just have to say, yeah, we sucked in the past.
Let's see if we can get it right.
Catholicism.
Somebody says it's pronounced Catholicism?
Catholicism.
That's not right, is it? Alright, well, it doesn't matter.
How many of you think that Klaus Schwab, the person associated with the Great Reset, how many of you believe that he once said that in the future you won't own anything and you'll like it?
How many believe that he said that?
In the future, you won't own anything and you'll like it.
Have you ever tried Googling that to see if that actually really happened?
Never happened. It's one of the most pervasive beliefs on the right.
Never happened. Nope.
Didn't happen. I'll tell you what did happen that people think happened.
What he did say is in the future you might have things delivered to you by drone that you would rent.
That you would have things delivered by drone that you would rent.
You wouldn't own it. Now he did say that, right?
Am I right? He said that you would have things delivered by drone and that you would rent them, you wouldn't own them.
Right. And I'm agreeing with you.
It's in a video that things would be delivered by drones and you would rent them, not own them.
Now, what kinds of things can be delivered by a drone?
What do you think? What kind of things can be delivered by a drone?
Well, I can think of, let's say you needed a specialized tool, or even a specialized medical device.
Let's say you needed a medical device, or like the other day I needed a tool to check on my internet connectivity.
So I wanted a special meter that would tell me if my Ethernet jack was alive.
Did I need to own that?
Did I need to own that?
Or if I could have called up a drone to be there in an hour with that tool, and I rented it, and I put it back on the drone and returned it, would I be happy?
Probably. Probably.
I'd be happy. Because I wouldn't have to buy it for something I would only use once.
And I'd be happy.
Now, here's the context.
How do you get to the point where drones are delivering things you can rent?
What is the possible way you could ever get to that future?
I can only see one way.
Market forces.
Just market forces.
They'll make the drones better.
Leasing is better than buying for some types of products, but not all.
All I see is Klaus Schwab, all I see is him saying the obvious, that market forces will have us delivering things that we rent and we'll like it.
Why wouldn't you like that?
It's just an option. They didn't take away your ability to own a tool.
They just said you can get one for rent if you want it.
To me, this is just a statement of the most obvious market force predictions.
Drones will deliver stuff you can rent.
Now, how about owning a private automobile?
Do you think the World Economic Forum wants you to not own a private automobile?
Probably. Probably, yeah.
Yeah, I agree. Do you know what's going to make that happen?
Market forces. It's not going to be them.
The minute I can not own a car, I'm all over it.
The minute I don't have to own a car and I can still get anywhere I want, I am getting rid of my fucking car that day.
The day I don't need a car, it's gone.
Now, you might say, no, I love my car, and I'll bet you get to keep it.
I'll bet you get to keep your car for a long time.
Probably your whole lifetime. But at some point, it just won't make sense to own a car.
It won't make sense for you as an individual.
You can use your garage for something else.
So what I see with this old Klaus Schwab thing is that he talks about market forces delivering us a different kind of society that we would enjoy, but not taking away all our options, just giving us more options and it would move in a certain way.
Now, so somebody says, here it is, here's the video.
Now, I can watch the video, but remember, I just agreed with you what it says.
So watching the video doesn't move our argument forward.
Because you're saying it and I'm saying it, the same thing.
He did say that you'll rent things in the future.
He did say that. We're all agreeing on that, so I don't have to see it.
But what's it mean?
He didn't say we're going to introduce some communism so you can't own things.
Market forces alone will make you not want to own a car.
I already don't want to own a car.
Owning a car is the worst deal in the world.
It's terrible. Right?
Unless you love cars. Then it's fine.
Then it's more like a hobby. All right.
But anyway, I would ask you to do this.
Whenever you see any kind of Klaus Schwab reset stuff, just take a look at the debunks.
You know, just Google it.
Because I think you've got that story.
At least some of you have that story completely wrong.
Feels like it to me.
Yeah, so they predicted, the World Economic Forum, I guess, that by 2030, people would rent what they needed and they'd be happy about it.
I don't know. Andres Backhaus tweeted today, there's some stats coming out from Germany, that consumption of natural gas in Germany was down over 19% compared to 2021, and even more compared to the 10-year average.
And consumption in 2022 is down 14%, almost 15%.
And as Andres points out, if it continues, the EU gas-saving targets might be feasible.
So the EU is looking to fairly drastically cut back on gas production, and it looks like it might be doable.
Might be doable.
So here is another application of the Adams Law of Slow-Maving Disasters, and it gets us to an edge case.
The only other edge case that was kind of clean was the year 2000 problem, When we thought the computers couldn't handle the year 2000 and society would break down.
I felt like people didn't get serious about fixing that until a year before it had to be fixed.
But in one year, it was completely fixed.
I don't think there was a single problem that I heard of.
So it feels like the Adams law of slow-moving disasters, if it's software, Could be fixed in a year.
Software is easier to fix.
But what happens when you know, let's say a year in advance-ish, that you might have to cut back your energy production by 20% or whatever the guideline is?
Is a year enough for people to change all the things they do enough to cut back 20%?
And I think the answer is yes.
It looks like the answer is yes.
That people can cut back 20% if you give them enough time and adjustments and they know they have to do it.
Yeah, if you have COVID going on.
But this is sort of semi-post-COVID. Likewise, Germany just said it's going to fire up three more nuclear plants.
If this sounds like a repeat...
It's three more. So they already announced they were going to reopen some plants, and they just announced three more are likely to be reopened.
And apparently they can do it quickly.
Apparently they can do this in a year or so, because they're already built.
They just have to be fired up.
Does Adam's Law apply to Lake Mead?
The answer is yes...
In the sense that, will California run out of water?
I think not. But I don't know how we're going to avoid it.
Frankly, I have no idea how we're going to avoid running out of water in California.
But we do have time to figure it out.
So I think we'll figure it out.
But who knows?
Anyway. All right.
Anyway, Germany looks like it'll be okay.
Despite how Putin's threat to them is pretty serious, I think they'll be okay.
Here are two news stories that are happening at the same time, and we're pretending that they're not.
Number one, the January 6th story, is that Trump was allegedly too slow...
178 minutes too slow in speaking out against the protests and the potential violence.
And that, of course, was during the fog of war when Trump probably didn't know exactly what was going on because nobody did.
So that's one story.
That Trump was too slow.
Now, nobody's saying that he did the wrong thing when he acted because he did tell people to be nonviolent.
But the complaint is it took too long.
So that's one story.
Trump took too long, minutes actually, too long.
Second story, which we're going to pretend is unrelated to the first, is that insiders are complaining that in the Biden administration, Biden is putting off important decisions for as long as a year.
So Trump can't be president, the Democrats say, because in the fog of war, it took him 178 minutes to act, and two of the major publications that dominate the Democrat world, the Washington Post and the New York Times, have both debunked this, but still, that's the claim, that he waited too long to act.
Minutes, I say.
He waited minutes to act.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden puts off important decisions for up to a year, and nobody knows why, and they're really mad about it.
Well, I'll tell you why.
He's not capable. Is there another reason?
He's not capable. Now, here's a little mental experiment for you.
Imagine if Joe Biden had been in charge when something like January 6th happened.
You know, not January 6th, but something like it.
Can you picture him in charge and making quick decisions when he puts off normal decisions for a year?
He's clearly not all there.
And it's a fog of war.
And people are telling him competing things.
But just put that in your mind.
It doesn't go well.
It doesn't go well.
Have you seen the back-to-back videos of Biden speaking twice in one day and how he looks like a completely different person?
One of them looks like, oh, he's okay.
I mean, we keep making fun of him for being old, but he's doing a good job.
He's reading that prompter. Looks like he's present.
He's in the moment. And then you see the video from the same day.
And he's deranged.
His eyes are bugged and he sounds like off.
It's the same day.
Alright, you can't have a president who's not even the same in the morning as the night.
Does anybody understand what kind of a danger that puts us in?
That the president isn't even the same person in the beginning of the day as the end of the day?
At the end of the day, he looks sort of agitated and not quite himself, does he?
Is that the guy you want making some world-important decisions?
Yeah, I don't know if it's a sundowner problem, and I don't know if it's that he did or did not get some meds, but Joe Biden is not one person anymore.
He's two people.
I don't know which one's going to be making the decision.
If you told me that the first Joe Biden, the one in the video where he looks fairly put together, if you told me he was making a decision, I'd say, well, I might not like the decision, but he looks like a guy who could make a decision.
He looks like he's at least all there.
By the afternoon, he clearly wasn't all there.
I mean, humans can tell.
You can tell if somebody's not all there.
I mean, that's not that hard.
That's not a high bar.
You know, you don't have to go to a lot of medical school to know when somebody's just not all there.
That's not a high bar.
He's not all there. We all see it.
So, it's time for President Harris.
I think Republicans should just stop acting like he's in charge.
Just stop pretending.
You say, we don't know who's in charge, but we need to have an investigation to find out.
Imagine, if you would, that Republicans launched an investigation to find out who's making the decisions for Biden.
Wouldn't you like to know?
Because I'm pretty sure I don't know.
Now... Yeah...
It'd be interesting, wouldn't it?
We've never had to do this before.
You always suspect somebody's making decisions for somebody else.
But this time you'd really have to...
you kind of have to wonder.
Because remember when people thought Cheney was making decisions for Bush Jr.?
That matters.
Do you remember when people thought Nancy Reagan's astrologer was influencing Ronald Reagan?
That matters. That does matter.
That's not irrelevant.
Not irrelevant.
Yeah. So yeah, let's look into that, find out who's in charge.
But as much as I dislike Kamala Harris's abilities, she's at least sane.
She's at least the same in the morning as she is in the afternoon, whether you like it or not.
I think it's time for Harris to take over.
And by the way, I don't even...
Well, maybe I am. I'm biased.
I don't think this is a political statement because I'm saying replace him with somebody that's worse.
Worse in terms of, you know, more Democrat than the Democrat.
So I would be willing to take somebody who's worse on policy, worse in a lot of ways, just to know she's there.
You know, just to know she's all there.
Because the alternative is just scary.
It seems random.
You don't know what he's going to order.
You know, angry Joe. So I think even Republicans should be calling for Harris to take over.
And if I were them, I'd start taking meetings with Harris and skip Biden.
Because you don't know who's in charge, right?
If you don't know who's in charge and you want to get something done, are you going to take a meeting with Biden?
I wouldn't. I'd just say, we're going to meet with Harris because we don't think Biden's capable.
Imagine if the Republican said, from here forward, we're not going to take any meetings with Biden because we don't think he's mentally capable.
So we'll take all of our meetings with the Vice President, if she'll have us.
I mean, obviously she would immediately say, I won't take those meetings.
But you should say, we want to meet with him as soon as possible.
But we'd like to meet with Harris because we don't think that Biden's in control anymore.
I mean, it would be a political thing to do, but it would be interesting.
Well, the Washington Post is saying that the Justice Department is investigating Donald Trump's actions as part of its criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 elections, blah, blah, blah.
Have you figured out by now that the Democrat plan is to keep Trump permanently under investigation for one thing or another that didn't happen?
It's pretty clear that their plan is to keep him criminally probed forever without ever finding anything.
Because if there was anything to find, I don't know if there's ever been a better vetted president in our life.
This would be the one guy I wouldn't be worried about finding out something after he became president.
You worry about that with every president, don't you?
What happens if this president gets in office and a minute later we find out something we wish we'd known?
How in the world could there be anything about Trump we don't know at this point?
I mean, that we could find out.
Maybe. Could happen.
All right. Have I ever told you before that the Democrats are really the woman party?
The woman party?
Now, you think of them as, you know, the party of LGBTQ and the party of, you know, black Americans and more inclusiveness and, you know, of course women.
But you don't think of that as the lead necessarily.
But in my opinion, the women are running the Democrat Party, and they've started to paint the Republicans as men.
So here's a tweet...
From, let's see, who is this?
Midas Touch. So this is a Democrat group that tweets and does other stuff.
And they're saying that Republicans, they're characterizing Republicans this way as, quote, we're going to make women our property, turn America into a dictatorship, and raise the Nazi flag once again.
That's Midas Touch, right?
Um... And they complain that the media is complaining about the price of gas instead of talking about how the Republicans are trying to make women their property.
To which I say, you know, Republicans can be women.
Am I wrong?
I'm pretty sure Republicans can actually be women.
And... Yeah.
Right here. So...
It's amazing that somebody who's a Democrat actually, I think, is admitting that they see it this way, that the Democrats are the party of women and the Republicans are the party of men.
But are there more Republican men than women?
I don't even know that. There might be.
Can somebody tell me that?
If you just looked at Republicans only, are more of the voters women or men?
Because there are more women than men in general.
Right? Is there...
Probably more men because the philosophy leans a little bit male, it does.
Huh. It's changing quickly.
Anyway, but my point is, I do think that the...
Somewhat accidentally, the Republicans have become the parent party and the Democrats have become the women party.
Because I don't think that the Democrats can do anything that women don't agree with.
Here's your test.
I don't think the Republicans can do anything that women don't agree with.
Could the Republicans do things that black voters don't agree with?
Yes, they could. They could.
Could they do something that women don't agree with?
Nope. Not a chance.
Not a chance. Am I right?
Right? They wouldn't get away with it.
Now, let's take that same argument to the Republicans.
Is there anything that Republican males...
Would not want to happen, that could happen, because there were enough other people who wanted it.
Well, probably not.
I've got a feeling that the Republican Party does have a male bias, and that the Democrat Party does have a female bias, but the Republican Party seems more explicitly parental in nature.
It's more about adults, right?
It's an interesting matchup, women versus parents.
And you can see it in so many ways.
Well, by more than 4 to 1 margin, according to Rasmussen poll, Americans say the nation's problem with opioid drugs, fentanyl being the worst of them, is getting worse, not better, and they don't think Biden is doing enough.
So 44% of Americans believe that the crisis has gotten worse, And just 10% think it's gotten better.
How in the world could anybody think the opioid crisis got better?
There's more drugs?
10%. Crazy.
Oh, another 16% are not sure.
Oh, oh, let's see.
10% think the opioid crisis is getting better.
16% are not sure.
The math, 10 plus is 16, 26, 26%, nearly a quarter.
About a quarter of the country is batshit fucking stupid.
Well, that's a surprise.
All right. So Biden's failing on that.
And I think that the...
Here's a prediction that I will bank on.
You know how follow the money always explains everything?
Right? Follow the money explains everything.
If you look at the opioid and the fentanyl situation, follow the money tells you exactly what's going to happen.
Number one, there will be more fentanyl shipped into the country.
Why? Why?
Because it makes money.
So fentanyl shipments in the United States are profitable.
Would you agree that there will be more of them?
Of course. Of course.
So follow the money guarantees there will be more, not less, fentanyl coming into the country.
Now, Have you heard of this thing called the military-industrial complex?
We don't like it.
We wish it didn't exist.
But it does exist.
It does exist.
And so you can't ignore it.
And what would the military-industrial complex do if the potential profit...
From attacking the cartels went from, ah, it looks like that would be a smallish operation.
What if it goes to a big operation?
Suddenly, the military-industrial complex says, whoa, a new line of business attacking the cartels.
But it's got to be big.
Like, the scale of it has to be big enough that the military-industrial complex can get interested.
It has to be big, otherwise they don't make enough money.
So the fentanyl business will keep getting bigger until it crosses that line.
The moment it crosses that line, the military-industrial complex is going to have a trillion-dollar payday because they're going to say, you know, we're going to have to sell you some really expensive weapons to take out those cartels and to guard the border or whatever we decide to do.
So the two things that you can guarantee is that there will be more fentanyl coming in until the problem is so bad that the military-industrial complex sees a huge profit, at which point they will vaporize, It'll take a few years because you need to spread that profit out.
But they will vaporize the cartels.
There isn't any other way this can go.
Because of money.
Now the cartels will try to make enough money to change something.
But money guarantees that the cartels will be vaporized.
Am I wrong? It's just not profitable to do it yet.
But it's getting close. Let's say when fentanyl deaths reach 200,000 a year, which should be in a year or two, maybe five years.
But there isn't any chance it's not going to happen.
We'll get to, you know, a quarter million deaths a year, and then the military and the people who make money from selling military equipment will say, well, we could take care of that for a trillion dollars, and then we'll pay a trillion dollars, and then we'll go vaporize the cartels.
Do you think I'm wrong?
There's no other way this can go.
I don't see any force from anywhere, any variable, that would change the guaranteed direction that we will attack Mexico.
Guaranteed. Now, should we attack China because they're sending us the drugs?
Now, I don't know if you know how China gets away with it.
So, President Xi said, yes, we'll make fentanyl and the precursors to fentanyl, we'll make them illegal, So, you know, that's good, right?
We'll make that illegal in China.
But what they didn't do is make all the variants illegal.
So the fentanyl precursor people, they just changed the formula a little bit.
It's just as bad, but it's not technically the thing that got banned.
Now let me ask you this.
Do you think China can't figure out how to solve that problem?
That their law is not including enough stuff?
Can't figure that out, right?
Do you think they care if their law doesn't cover those things?
No, they don't care. If they wanted to stop it, they would just go arrest the guy who's in charge.
They wouldn't care about which precursors are illegal or legal.
They would just go arrest the motherfucker if they didn't want it to keep happening.
Obviously, obviously the leadership wants it to continue.
It's too easy to stop.
So obviously they want it.
What should we do if China is sending precursors, essentially military equipment, to the cartels who are killing Americans?
Well, I don't think you want to start a nuclear war.
I don't think you want to invade.
But we need to kill the dealers on the ground.
You can't tell me that we can't find anybody in China that we could bribe to go kill those fentanyl producers.
We can't do a terrorist act in China.
We can't set a bomb next to a factory in China.
We don't have anybody in China who has that ability to blow something up.
Those should be exploding.
Maybe it is. Maybe somebody is.
We should definitely be attacking China...
To destroy the fentanyl production.
Would that trigger a nuclear war?
Well, that's the risk that China's going to have to take, isn't it?
If China wants to kill a quarter million of us a year, which is where it's going to go to, then they need to risk nuclear war.
They need to. So, yes, that is the risk that they should be looking at very directly.
All right. Let's see.
We've got some more gaslighting keeping going on here.
I don't know if it's just me, but when I heard Biden talking about, again, the insurrection that Trump ran, here's what I hear.
Every time Biden, the elected leader of the United States, uses the word insurrection...
My mind imagines people who look a lot like me going to jail for nothing.
Like, I can't unpair those two things.
Every time he uses the word insurrection, I see him trying to put me in jail for nothing.
And I think I made a turn today.
Because it's one thing for him to say insurrection before the January 6th hearings have concluded.
It's another thing to keep saying insurrection when his own hearings, well, I'll say it's his own, have shown that there was no insurrection or planned insurrection or actual insurrection.
Once it's been debunked, if he comes on television and says it again, he is targeting me.
That's how I feel.
And if my president targets me...
A law-abiding voter who just has maybe different opinions.
If he's targeting me, and that's what I feel, then he's my enemy.
He's not my president anymore.
Now, it would be one thing if I were breaking the law.
Yeah, if your government targets you because you broke the law, well, that's on you.
But he's targeting me for something specifically that we know I didn't break any laws.
I mean, he's putting me in the same boat with anybody who thought that the January 6th thing was not so bad.
The violence was bad.
But in terms of it being an insurrection versus a protest.
I'm taking this personally from now on.
Before the January 6th group debunked the insurrection charge, I was willing to let that stand as, well, who knows?
But now that it's debunked, this is personal.
And this is Biden against citizens.
It's against Republicans, basically.
And this is the thing that Democrats continue to do.
They're not targeting policy or preferences.
They're targeting people. And this is a dark term, yeah.
So that whole dark thing, shark eyes.
Yeah, Biden did have shark eyes.
Like, I saw that too.
There's something wrong with his eyes.
But it does feel like the precursor to hunting Republicans.
And so let me say this.
I don't feel Biden is even a president at this point.
He's just a malign force.
Because I don't think he's capable of doing the job.
Who knows what's behind it.
But this is personal now.
So I want the Republicans, the Democrats to know that they're walking up to a line.
And they've already crossed the line of making it personal.
But let me say this as menacingly as I possibly can.
There's another line that And you're getting really fucking close to it.
Do you hear that? There's another line.
There is another line.
You know what I'm talking about.
There's another line, and you're getting really fucking close to it.
And if I didn't warn you how fucking close you are to that line, I would feel that I was not doing my job as a patriot.
You're really fucking close to the line.
You better back up. Back the fuck up.
It's okay if you make this just political.
Political's okay. We're all used to that.
You can lie.
That's political. But when you start painting half of the country as insurrectionists, that's a line you need to back the fuck up off of, okay?
And we need to be as clear about this as possible.
Lying's okay. I mean, we accept it.
It's not okay, but we accept it.
Politics is good. Words are good.
Fighting hard. You know, trying to game the system.
It's all okay. But you're getting really close to the line.
And his last speech was dark and chilling and directed as citizens, in my opinion.
That's how I took it.
I took it directed as citizens.
You direct your shit as citizens who are law-abiding and were trying to do the right thing.
I'm positive. I think January 6th was people trying to do the right thing.
They didn't.
But I think they tried.
But I don't know how I can say this more carefully.
There is a line.
Back the fuck off it.
Are you with me? Is this just me?
You see the line too, right?
Don't pretend there's no line.
There's a fucking line.
And back the fuck off it.
And when I say back the fuck off it, I mean with the insurrection talk.
You need to correct that, Mr.
Joe Biden and Mr.
Democrats. This isn't play, right?
You've been in the political play field, and that's okay.
A little bit of play, hyperbole, you know, even a little lying.
It's all part of the political process.
That's good. As long as you're talking politics, as long as you're insulting, you know, politicians.
You could even, you know, I don't even mind if you make some, like, general statements about Republicans or general statements about Democrats.
That's fine. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, all the Democrats are socialists.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, all the Republicans want to control women.
Whatever. That's fine. That's all fine.
But you have to know, there's a fucking line, and if you don't see it, don't say you weren't warned.
Right? You make this personal, you better back the fuck up.
So, that's all I'm saying.
Somebody needed to say it.
Alright, that's about it.
That's about it. Alright.
Yeah, I don't even care about the hypocrisy.
You know, there's just a whole bunch of stuff that's okay.
Just because historically we've allowed that in politics.
Yeah, the hypocrisy, the lying, the hyperbole, the dirty tricks, the scheming, the fake news.
That's okay. Yeah, we're used to that.
But just make sure you know where the line is.
All right. You want an insurrection?
I'll give you an insurrection. Yeah, CNN headline, right-wing cartoonist calls for civil war.
Well, I'm calling to avoid a civil war, is what I'm calling.
And I'm saying that...
You know that slippery slope thing I keep talking about?
Where I'm usually debunking it, but then changing my mind halfway through?
Democrats can push...
Now, let me ask you this.
Do you have the same feeling I do that it feels like Democrats are people who complain about everything no matter how small, and Republicans are people who are okay until they're not okay?
That could be just I'm reading my own personality into some things.
It feels like that, right? And here would be the blind spot.
The blind spot would be if Democrats are looking at Republicans and they're not seeing as much complaining as they would expect.
Because if the Democrats were in that position, you'd see lots of complaining.
The lack of complaining from the Republicans should not make you feel comfortable.
Right? You feel me, right?
The lack of complaining from Republicans about the way they're being treated should not be taken as comfort.
Because Republicans are okay with things until they're not.
Democrats are just mad all the time about everything because the way they get resources is by complaining.
How do men get resources in the traditional...
Let's say the sexist world.
They go work, right?
They get a job, they go work.
How do women get resources in our sexist world?
Again, lots of exceptions, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
How do women get resources?
By making men feel bad.
Complaining. Sorry, that's how it works.
You know that. Don't give any trouble with this, because you know it's true.
You know it's true. Now, if I said that's true of every woman, I'd be lying.
And if I said that's true of every man, I'd be lying.
And if I said the world were only men and women, well, I think that that also is too simplistic, because you've got lots of gender ambiguity.
Yeah, some people's wives are the boss of the family.
Plenty of exceptions.
But when I say that the Democrat Party is sort of the woman party, complaining is their operating system.
That if you complain enough, you'll get some stuff.
The Republicans are more like, if we have a good system, we'll all get better stuff.
See the difference? It's a complaint-based operating system that Versus a, let's say, a system or machine-based thing.
Like, if you make the machine work, we all get good stuff.
So let's work on the machine.
And the Democrats are more like, if I complain enough, I can get some of your stuff.
So one of them is based on an abundance mindset.
I'll go work, I'll create a system that makes more for everybody.
And the other is based on a shortages mindset.
That you've got some stuff, I don't have some stuff, I need to get your stuff from you, and it goes to me.
You know, a transfer.
Now, is there a difference between men and women in hunting versus gathering?
I'm way out of my depth here, so I'm just speculating.
Is it true that historically the men did the hunting and the women did the gathering?
The hunting is you go out and make something happen.
And the gathering is you find things.
You find it.
You just find it.
And I think that the Democrats, being sort of a woman-dominated party, are all about, well, we don't have to make things.
We just need to find them.
And I found it. It's in your pocket.
Hey, I found some money.
It's over there in Elon Musk's pocket.
Well, problem solved.
I need some money.
There's some money in Elon Musk's pocket.
So let's put those together and problem solved.
Right? There's a very big philosophical difference between hunting and killing.
I'm sorry, between hunting and finding.
Very big. And I feel like the Republicans are hunters and the Democrats are finders.
They're gatherers.
Now again, huge number of individual differences.
I feel like I can only say that to Republicans and get away with it.
I could say, well, there's a general thing going on here, but you all understand there's tons and tons of individual exceptions.
And then the Republicans all go, well, that's true.
Yeah, you're talking about a general thing, but of course there are plenty of exceptions.
What do the Democrats do when you say that?
You racist. I go, no, no, no, you sexist.
No, no, no, I'm saying there's plenty of exceptions.
And we respect all the exceptions equally.
Well, you bigot.
I'm really just talking about a general theme here.
I'm not talking about any individual.
You misogynist.
So that's the way it works on the left.
On the right, you can handle the fact that individuals can be different than the average.
Apparently that's a concept that's not universally understood.
Somebody has a very funny female joke that's extremely sexist and you can't say it.
Well, why did you announce it?
Don't announce a joke you're not going to tell us.
Let me introduce you to the humor rule.
The humor rule goes like this.
You can't tell me there's a joke you can't tell me.
You can either not mention it or you can tell me the joke.
Those are the rules. I didn't make them up.
I did not make them up.
But I would not encourage you to say that joke on YouTube.
If this were the locals' platform, they could tell that joke.
Do you know why? Because people on the locals' platform would know it's a joke.
That's the difference. And they'd say, ah, okay, that's insulting, but it's pretty funny.
On the locals, people insult me all the time, but if it's funny...
That's fine. It's funny.
All right. You're saying gathering and hunting are both harvesting?
Yeah, I feel the difference.
I see what you're saying.
You're using a word to change the argument.
Don't use words to change my argument.
You know what I'm talking about. All right.
I haven't seen any big California fires, somebody was asking me.
It's possible that California has figured out how to stop the big fires, because they now have that emergency helicopter brigade that gets on stuff quickly and works at night.
Now they can operate at night as well.
Is Yosemite on fire?
Okay. Well, it's not nearly as bad as it used to be.
Our air quality is actually good where I am.
All right, well, I hope they get that Yosemite fire under control.
All right.
All right, I'll catch up on the Yosemite fire.
I haven't seen anything about that yet.
We're going to smoke from the Yosemite fire as we...
Really? All right.
So I guess I didn't know about the Yosemite fire.
I'll take a look at that. There's an Oakland fire?
Did California clear the underbrush?
You know, I didn't hear anything about that.
But I also don't know, is there any use for underbrush?
Is there any way you can monetize underbrush?
Can you collect enough of it to turn it into anything?
Can you turn it into some biofuel?
You can do a biomass thing, right?
Mulch. Fertilizer?
Does it work as fertilizer?
Underbrush makes the soil of the forest.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, I guess they do need soil, but do they always need more if you have enough for a tree?
Oh, the oak fires out?
All right. What about Zelensky?
All right, I think that's all we've got for today.
And I believe that we've done our job.
Is this the best livestream you've ever seen?
Am I mistaken?
Or does it look exactly like it is?
It is. It is.
And let me ask you something.
So good it hurts.
Let me ask you something.
Do you think we make a difference?
Like collectively. So I would have no impact on anything if I didn't have an audience.
So the audience basically imbues me with whatever energy I have.
I think we do. I think we do.
Because I think we're approaching the point Where if you and I, collectively, all of you, plural, if you and I collectively thought something was a terrible, terrible idea, I feel like it would be harder for a government to do it.
Just because our opinions do have enough of a reach that it would be embarrassing to do something that was just a bad idea and had been clearly described as a bad idea.
So clarity is one of the things I feel like we can add to the system.
What do you think? Maybe that's the only thing.
Maybe the only thing I add to the system is clarity and context.
Because that's all I'm trying to do.
I'm trying to only add clarity and context.
If I add clarity and context, you should come to the same conclusion as me.
So I'm not trying to necessarily change your mind...
With argument, I'm trying to make sure that you see the same things I see.
And once you see them, I'm confident that you will end up with the same opinion.
So I don't need to directly change your opinion.
I'll just change what things you've been exposed to, and it should be the same thing.
It should be. Not every time, but it should be in the long run.
Scott, would you do your own show on Fox if offered?
No. No. No, I wouldn't.
See, the trouble is, as soon as you get a boss, you're useless.
You all get that, right?
The moment I have a boss, I'm worthless.
Because then it's just the boss.
The only thing you know you're hearing is what the boss allowed me to say.
Do you think there's anything I said today that a boss would have let me say?
Just think about today's show.
Think about the live stream you just watched.
How much of that...
Do you think I could have put on a network show or even a cable show?
Almost none of it, right? And I certainly couldn't do the level of emotion.
I would have a set time limit, and I guarantee you that I would have conversations about offending my sponsors.
Well, first of all, who would sponsor this?
I would probably already have sponsor offers, even with this size of an audience.
I would already have sponsor offers if this were not absolute poison to sponsors.
So one of the things that I can offer you is that I will continue to be poison to sponsors.
I'm not trying to do that, but apparently, if you're honest, you can't get sponsored.
Because the sponsors need you to be just generic and family-friendly Stay on the political right side of things.
So I'm not trying to do that.
ED products. All right.
Yeah, it's hard to speculate under a major brand.
You're right. So I do a lot of stuff that's pure speculation, and I label it.
I don't have a date yet for the Russell Brand conversation.
Yeah, if I had sponsors, they would influence me.
I think they would. So, as you know, I do a comic strip for newspapers.
Do you think that I can do in the newspaper, and online, I mean, probably more people see it online, but do you think I could do a Dilbert comic that's exactly the comic I would want to write, and that the people who are my clients would be okay with that?
And the answer is no. No.
No, they would not be okay with my honest opinions on stuff.
They need something that's family friendly.
So you may notice I'm pushing the boundaries in the past several months.
I'm kind of making all of my editors and my clients uncomfortable with the content because I'm going after some of the woke stuff, etc.
You know, some of the pandemic stuff.
And there are papers that are not running me.
So my comic about the character Dave, I think there were some newspapers that didn't run it because it was too dangerous for them.
So I do keep my content within the realm that I know the clients will allow, even though I'm pushing the edge.
Which, by the way, that's what they pay for.
If your client buys you as a cartoonist, especially my kind of cartoon, They're paying you to push the boundary, but not too much, right?
They need you to be a little bit edgy.
That's part of the entertainment.
So you're going to see Dilbert getting a lot edgier in the coming year.
I suppose I'm breaking news now in a small way.
So Dilbert is going to get cancelled, let's say, by design.
Because as I'm approaching my retirement planning years, I don't want to go out with a whimper.
I don't. I want to go out in flames.
And if I have to set something on flame that needs to be set on flame, and by the way, productively.
I'm not talking about anarchy.
I'm talking about setting on fire something that maybe needed to be set on fire.
But, yeah.
Dilbert is going to get edgier and edgier until they won't let me do it anymore.
So that will be my version of retiring.
And then you know what I'm going to do?
I guess I'm breaking the news here for the first time.
So this is a preliminary plan, but it's an actual plan.
I'm going to be cancelled by everybody in the regular client business, and then I'll move my content to a subscription service.
So, there is a good chance that, say, five years from now, that the only place you would ever see a Dilbert comic is on a subscription service.
But then, I can say anything I want.
And you haven't seen that yet.
You haven't seen that yet.
But I'm not going to do that unless I get cancelled and I'm going to try as hard as I can to fly as close to the sun as I can.
And by the way, I never do anything just to offend.
Some people think I might.
But I never do content that's meant for entertainment or maybe to provoke.
But I don't do it just to piss people off.
There's a reason for it.
Alright, that's all for now. And I'm going to go do something else, and so are you.
