Politics, Drug Decriminalization, Lethal Loneliness, State Immigration Laws, IBM Ad Proximity, Reuters Propaganda, Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL, TikToc Propaganda, President Biden, President Xi, Tony Blinken, Election Integrity Poll, Tom Fitton, Georgia Voting Machines, Stanford Internet Observatory, Rep. Thomas Massie, Speaker Mike Johnson, Gavin Newsom, Governor Level Hoax, Dana Carvey's Son, Fentanyl, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
- Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do, ra-pa-pa-pa-pa. - Good morning, everybody.
And welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's news without your shoes.
Pajamas acceptable.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that will make you tingle in places I can't even mention, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard shells or sty in a canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid, kind of like coffee, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
it's called simultaneous hip go.
You know with all the division in the world I think it's sad that we have a solution to it here the simultaneous hip that brings us all together.
You know, why can't the rest of the world simultaneously sip?
All right, here's some things we know about coffee.
There's a new study that says it inhibits COVID.
That's right.
You might have like a 10% less chance of getting COVID if you drink enough coffee.
So I asked the following question.
Is there anything coffee can't do?
It makes you smarter, feel better, less depressed, lets you exercise better.
And it might cut down your odds of getting COVID.
Now, let us again compare Scott to the entire medical community.
During the first month of the pandemic, I told you to go outside and make sure you got a lot of vitamin D, get exercise, lose weight, and drink coffee.
I did not tell you to get vaccinated.
I did not tell you to wear a mask.
So I think I'm the most right person in the world.
All right.
You might be disagreeing right now.
I guess the X platform now lets you search and apply for jobs.
So I guess X will be the everything platform.
But here's a question I ask.
Will we need to search for jobs in the future?
I'm not sure.
There was something about searching for a job that sounded like yesterday's news.
Has anybody had that feeling yet?
And I think it's not because of UPI and not because robots will take your job.
But shouldn't AI be finding people and just offering you jobs?
Why am I looking for a job?
That feels like old technology.
Shouldn't everybody with a job just tell AI, and then AI knows everybody, and then AI goes out and does some headhunting, sends you an email and says, hey, there's a company near you, looking for somebody like you.
And then I go, ah, I don't care.
Or I say, hey, tell me more about it.
Go grab my resume and send it to them.
Something like that.
But really, The idea of the traditional go and look for a job, I feel like that's going to be obsolete in five years.
Maybe sooner.
And over on Amazon, you can now buy a car.
They're going to sell Hyundais.
You can buy it directly on Amazon.
So the larger question is, do you think everybody who has a platform will necessarily need to offer every service eventually?
In other words, will you be buying your pharmaceuticals on X and also on Amazon and also on Facebook?
Will you do all of your job search on all platforms?
I feel like all platforms are going to do everything.
All the platforms will become a bank.
They'll all sell everything.
They'll all have the news.
Everything's going to be everything.
I don't know.
It seems like the obvious play, because once you have a platform and a software platform, the ways to grow are to do new things with the essay you got.
So I'd expect them all to do everything, including education.
I think that's coming.
The newspaper business continues to circle the drain, I guess, over the past two years.
More than two per week have gone out of business, newspapers.
That's just in the U.S.
There are now 204 counties in the U.S.
with no local news.
How will they survive?
How will they ever survive?
Well, they do have the Internet, so...
And so a lot of the counties only have one newspaper where they used to have multiple.
Ask me again how glad I am that I got out of the newspaper business.
Oh my God.
Best cancellation ever.
And apparently there was a downturn that became much more drastic earlier this year.
Around February of this year, newspapers really took a hit in subscriptions.
Was there anything happening in the news?
Around February of this year, it would have some kind of impact on newspaper subscriptions?
Oh yeah, that's when they cancelled Dilbert.
So at the same time Dilbert got cancelled, newspaper subscriptions just went in the toilet.
Now, do you think that's a coincidence?
Actually it's not.
It's not a coincidence.
Because I've known for decades, because people have been telling me for decades, that there are a lot of people who only bought the newspaper to read Dilbert.
So if that's 10% of your readers, you're going to notice that pretty quickly.
Now, I'm not going to claim the whole drop is from Dilbert stuff, but it probably didn't help.
Probably didn't help them at all.
All right, there's a new AI technology that takes it up to another level over at Nanyang Technological University.
This technical stuff, a lot of this I see on tweets from Owen Benjamin.
So thanks for your tweets, Owen.
And this one can take a photograph and an audio clip of a person and animate it.
From one photo and one audio clip, they can create a real moving person.
That's really taking it to the level.
A whole person, just from one clip and one photo.
Wow.
So, there's that.
I saw a Matt Walsh post yesterday, he was talking about Oregon decriminalized drugs, and then everything just went to hell.
So the decriminalizing of drugs appears not to have been a big success in Oregon, and maybe they're thinking of reversing it.
But Matt Walsh kind of took the approach that this shows that drug decriminalization doesn't work.
Do you think that got shown?
Do you think this showed that it doesn't work?
Or did it just show that the specific way they implement it definitely doesn't work?
Well, among the things that they did was they made it really, really easy to do drugs.
And you can do it in public.
I think if you're going to make doing drugs legal, you might want to not make it legal in public.
Because, you know, that's the part people are complaining about.
And So that was wrong.
And then they also decriminalized or made it legal, I forget what it was, decriminalized some of the hard drugs.
Now, I don't know, maybe there's a play where you decriminalize marijuana and some hallucinogens, but maybe you don't decriminalize the real tough stuff.
So maybe they didn't do it right.
So I'm very happy that Oregon tried it.
It looks like it didn't work.
And I think we could say that.
Now to be fair, other places had much worsened drug situation too.
And they didn't do any decriminalization.
But it might have been a little worse.
So at the very least it didn't fix anything.
So we know it didn't fix anything.
Anyway.
Let's keep trying.
Maybe there's some model that does work.
Well, the world, the WHO, who I only believe when I assess things I agree with anyway, has declared that loneliness is a pressing health threat, with risks as deadly as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.
Now, I don't know if that science is right, but would you agree that loneliness is lethal?
I feel like that's kind of obvious.
Like, if you've ever experienced crushing loneliness, you know what it does to your body.
Like, you can't miss it.
So, because I love my followers, on Thanksgiving Day, I will be livestreaming with you so that you're not lonely.
Because it turns out there's a tremendous number of my followers who literally don't see people during the day.
Like, any.
Actually, no human contact.
Now, I happen to be one of those people.
I do have, maybe once or twice a week, I have no human contact with, you know, face to face.
And just think about that.
You know, I'm in kind of a privileged situation.
I could have as much as I wanted, but two days a week, I don't talk to anybody in person, at all.
You know, I might, like, if I buy something at a cash register or something, but that's it.
So on Thanksgiving Day, on my time, three o'clock on California, so Eastern time it would be six o'clock, I'll get a live stream preparing some Thanksgiving dinner, and you can hang out with me and the other people who are hanging out.
Now I do think that we need to start building communities where you can, in the normal course of just living your life, you have lots of accidental contact with your neighbors.
So we should design communities that fix the nobody can find a friend problem.
Now forget about forget about having no friends at all.
I mean that's a big problem.
But what about the number of people you know.
Let's see in the comments.
How many of you have.
I'm going to go sexist on this one.
How many of you have a spouse.
Who complains about not having a best friend.
Usually a woman.
Could be a man.
But how many of you have a female spouse who says, why can't I have a best female friend?
I just don't have a best female friend.
Now look at the comments.
There are yeses and nos, but the number of yeses is alarming.
It's one of the most common things.
Someone smart said that while men think about ancient Rome a lot, That women think about that friend they used to have, their best friend that they don't see anymore.
Yeah, it's a big deal.
Anyway, we need to fix that.
Mexico decided to reject Mexicans.
So the state of Texas cleverly passed a state law that would allow them, they say, to Take the immigrants and send them back where they came from.
But Mexico says, you can't send immigrants back to us.
We do not accept them.
You must take care of them where they are in your state.
That's what Mexico says.
Now, can they stop you from returning people?
What happens if you take them to like a border crossing and just push them through?
Does Mexico stop?
Do they push him back?
Like pushing him across the border and there's somebody in Mexico.
No.
Are they pushing him back?
How do they stop it?
You know, we've got this.
They're going to have a problem with their unprotected border, aren't they?
So Mexico needs to build a wall to prevent Texas from repatriating their own citizens.
So that's weird.
But what's weirder is finding out today that the states could pass their own immigration law.
Do you think that would pass the constitutional bar?
Is it constitutional for a state to take over the federal government's job of managing immigration?
I don't know.
I feel like that would be a Supreme Court case.
Have you noticed how often you can judge a Supreme Court case accurately without being a lawyer?
Has anybody noticed that?
It seems like there's a bunch of stuff in the news where you don't have to be a lawyer at all.
For example, I guess the courts reversed the gag order on Trump.
Now, how many of you who are not lawyers knew that was unconstitutional?
Isn't it sort of like, you know, blindingly obvious that that was unconstitutional?
You didn't really need to be a lawyer, did you?
I feel like law school is largely wasted.
Most of these cases against Trump, I could absolutely argue them on the merits.
You know, I couldn't do the clever legal manipulations, but I could argue all of the cases on the merits.
I'm sure I could do that tomorrow and it would be fine.
I just wouldn't know the cool little legal tricks and loopholes.
Anyway, here's another one.
Let's say you were not a lawyer, but let's see if you could have predicted this legal outcome.
Let's see how smart my audience is, okay?
I'm going to tell you the news, then you tell me, did you predict it accurately without having any legal background?
All right?
Turns out there will be no charges against Joe Biden for having classified documents in his possession.
Now, who saw that coming?
Did anybody see that coming with your total lack of legal training?
Yes, we all saw it coming.
Every one of us knew exactly what the legal outcome would be.
Again, did you need to be a lawyer?
No.
It turns out that being a lawyer must be some kind of It must be some kind of a hoax or something.
Because why is it that every time they tell me some legal situation, I know exactly where it's going to go?
But then the news acts like there's a mystery to it.
I don't know.
This could go either way.
No, it couldn't.
Sometimes it's just like strikingly obvious, like that one.
No, Joe Biden is not going to be indicted for some documents.
Trump, maybe.
Yeah, Trump, maybe.
But not Joe Biden, no.
Well, IBM, who are a bunch of racists, I don't know if you know that, but IBM has been anti-white racist for decades, like seriously anti-white, you know, they would call it diversity.
But they got all bent out of shape.
As Reuters reports, IBM said it had immediately suspended all advertising on the social media platform X.
After a report found its ads were placed alongside pro-Nazi content.
Now apparently this was spotted by the quote media watchdogs Media Matters.
It said they found that corporate advertisements by Apple, IBM, Oracle, Comcast were being placed alongside anti-Semitic content.
So now are there Are there social media platforms that don't have objectionable speech in them?
I thought all social media platforms had things on both sides of basically every issue.
How in the world can any of these platforms make sure their advertisements didn't hit somebody's bad opinion and be close to it?
This is a ridiculous complaint.
Either the social media platforms allow this speech or they don't.
If it's allowed, You're going to be next to it sometimes.
But I've never seen anybody make a decision about buying a couch because of what it was next to.
Have you ever done that?
Have you ever seen an advertisement for a couch and go, oh, I do like that couch.
That's just what I was looking for.
But then you look around it to see if you agree with the opinions around it.
Oh, there's an opinion about abortion over there.
Oh, I'm not going to buy that couch.
It's within six inches of the thing I don't like.
Oh no, I'll never buy a couch now, because it's within the visual field of an opinion I don't like.
So IBM not only is racist and stupid, but they're practically anti-American at this point.
Anyway.
You know what would be an interesting thing that Reuters should include if they're going to report on IBM cancelling their advertisements on X?
You know, what would be the obvious context to add to that story?
Is there something that... Is the dog not barking?
Hello?
What's that I don't hear?
Oh!
Oh!
What I don't hear is Reuters giving us the context of whether IBM is still advertising on TikTok.
Have you heard of TikTok?
I hear it's a big thing.
And TikTok is notably getting a lot of heat for a lot of attention to Osama Bin Laden's opinions.
So I'd like to know, because this feels like the right context, is IBM continuing to advertise on the platform that's become a pro-Bin Laden platform in the last week?
Now, to their credit, TikTok says they're trying to get rid of that stuff, the Bin Laden stuff.
But it's been there.
It's been there.
So why would Reuters not mention that?
That's the most obvious thing to mention, isn't it?
How do you do this story without saying that IBM continues or doesn't, whichever it is, they either continue or they don't on TikTok, which is the anti-Semitic platform.
Well, it's because it's not real news.
It's because Reuters is not a real news organization.
They're part of the propaganda industrial complex.
So it's more about hurting Musk than it is anything about advertising, or anything about business models, or anything about IBM.
It's just to hurt Musk.
That's it.
Because he's the only protector of free speech in America.
If they can take him down, then they control the country effectively.
because I think Fox News has been neutered at this point.
Anyway, speaking of TikTok and removing those Bin Laden videos, Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL, I heard a recording of him talking to some of his supporters, I heard a recording of him talking to some of his supporters, I guess, and he was saying that the
Should be not viewed as a left problem or a right problem, because there are anti-Semites on both the left and the right, but he says it would be smarter to see it as a generational problem because older Americans are more likely to back Israel.
And the younger ones very quickly flipped to be, not completely flipped, but they became far more anti-Israel just in the last several weeks.
Yeah, there's a noticeable change in sentiment among the young.
So he says it's a young versus old problem, and people need to start recognizing that, which he's correct at.
Do you know what he left out?
What did he leave out?
Again, hello, dog not barking.
TikTok.
What is it that causes the young to turn and the old not to turn?
Well, the older looking at mainstream media and mainstream media is, you know, feeding them a diet of moss is completely at fault, which is my view, because I've only seen this since October 7th.
You know, the history over there, they can argue all day long.
It's just it's just not my business.
Right.
I'm just staying out of the whole history question.
But how do you not mention that TikTok must be, I mean almost certainly, is the prime driver of young sentiment at the moment.
Oh, it gets funnier though.
Did you know that up until 2020, just a little over three years ago, that the ADL website, and this is running as a hoax on the X platform, people don't know it's a hoax, But somebody's showing the ADL's definition of racism, which is not true.
So if you see it, that's not true.
But it was true up until 2020.
So what I said, I said, this can't be true.
This has got to be a hoax.
As soon as I saw it, I said, that can't be true.
So this is what, until 2020, the ADL had this as their definition.
Racism.
It says, the marginalization and or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.
So in other words, until 2020, the ADL's actual statement, you know, that's part of their mission, I guess, was anti-white.
Pretty directly.
I mean, yeah, that's my interpretation of it, but I think it's a fair one.
It was a racist organization until 2020, but overtly.
Now, do you know why they changed?
And by the way, to the credit of Jonathan Greenblatt, I believe he's the one who changed it.
So he recognized that that was not a good definition, and they changed it to something more about anybody discriminating about race.
So it changed it to the generic, which is what it should have been.
Do you know why Jonathan Greenblatt realized that the ADL's statement was not inclusive enough?
Do you know what was missing?
Let's see if you catch it.
I'll read their statement from 2020 and see what kind of discrimination was missing from it.
Now remember, the ADL was founded to help Jewish people who were being discriminated against.
So, originally it was to help Jewish people, and then as Greenblatt has explained in the past, they expanded their mission to get other allies in on the deal, so they would protect their other allies from discrimination, so they would protect not just Jewish people, but anybody who was a person of color or in that category.
They did that because they thought that'd be good for their mission and good for everybody else.
Like it'd be a good combination.
And do you see any, is there any racism that maybe is missed by the definition that it's white people perpetrating it against people of color?
Is there anything that maybe comes to top of mind that would not be included?
Okay, well, I'll tell you what is not included, and Jonathan Greenblatt also noticed this.
The Nazis discriminating against Jewish people in World War II.
The Holocaust would not be included in the ADL's definition of racism.
The Holocaust That's right.
The ADL, the organization designed to create Jewish Americans from discrimination, they morphed with wokeness until they no longer even recognized that the Holocaust was racism.
And somehow they didn't notice that until Greenblatt did.
And he said directly, this statement, our statement from 2020 would not have even covered My own relative's experience.
He said it directly.
It wouldn't have even covered my own relative's experience.
The whole point of it.
The whole point of it.
So, there you go.
Yeah, so the ADL has been for a long time a, in my opinion, just bad for America.
Overwoke, you know, destructive organization.
If you didn't know, there are a lot of Jewish Americans and a lot of Jews in Israel who do not support the ADL.
Well, I wonder why?
I wonder why?
Maybe it's because the ADL was helping all the allies who are now discriminating against Jewish people.
Maybe it's that.
All right.
So here's what we should do, since we know from the polling that the sympathy for Israel plunged in that 18 to 34 category.
That was a Rasmussen finding.
So we know that.
Here's what we should do.
Rasmussen and other polling companies, you should add a question for your demographics.
The question should be, are you a regular user of TikTok?
So that you can see if the TikTok people are the ones that are moving sentiment, while the mainstream media people are staying roughly the same on sentiment.
Had they been measuring that for a while now, we would have seen that TikTok, I think, this is an allegation but I don't know it's true, I think they would have found that TikTok was the source of the dip in, or the change in opinion.
There's nothing stopping you from doing that, right?
You just add that question.
Because they already asked the question, you know, what's your ethnicity, what's your, I think, age.
And they ask, yeah, age sometimes, depending on the question.
And they ask what party you belong to.
Why not also ask if you use TikTok?
Just throw that question in there.
Let's start tracking it.
Because in my opinion, it's the obvious thing that changed the sentiment so quickly.
All right.
Well, what would you get if Toobin, Blinkin and Biden walked into a bar and then Biden started falling asleep at the bar?
What would you call it if Toobin, Blinkin and Biden went to a bar together and Biden started falling asleep at the bar?
I would call them Wankin, Blinkin and Nod.
Wanken, Blinken, and Nod.
Wanken, Blinken, and Nod.
Now, if you didn't get that joke, that's okay.
It's a pretty obscure reference.
But if you did get it, well, were you impressed with that?
I've been working on that one for a month.
So, you got that for free.
Anyway, Biden, I guess some months ago, five months ago, Biden had called President Xi a dictator.
In public, and that caused a frosty several months with relations between our countries.
So then President Xi visits, and everybody makes nice, and they eat food, and they shake hands, and they smile a lot.
Looks like things are going to get better.
And as soon as he leaves, the press asks Biden if Xi is a dictator.
He says, oh yes, he's a dictator.
And the cameras were on Tony Blinken and his face.
Look at his face when he watches his boss just recreate the biggest problem they've had in public, well, foreign relations in five months.
Watching him just recreate the problem like it never happened in the first place was wonderful.
I mean, in terms of entertaining politics, Blinken's face when Biden called him a dictator in public was like, It was like somebody just grabbed him by the balls and started squeezing.
He was like, oh!
Anyway, that was funny.
All right.
And as others have noted, that doesn't really look competent.
I think it was David Sacks said, it's just an example of obvious incapability.
I mean, it's not even a political thing.
He's just incapable.
And then there's video of him looking like he's asleep or dead at an event.
Like, he's not even moving.
He just looks like that puppet that looks like him.
That ventriloquist.
What's the ventriloquist puppet?
His name is... Oh, you know the one.
You know the one.
Walter.
Walter the ventriloquist puppet.
All right.
The press says that an arrest is made in the death of a protester who fell and hit his head.
You know, the one that was murdered?
Yeah, he was murdered.
A guy hit him with a megaphone.
He fell backwards, and he did hit his head and die.
But the headline is, the arrest is made in the death of a protester.
Not a murder.
No, not alleged murder.
Not the assailant who killed him.
No.
It's just a protester who fell and hit his head.
It doesn't even matter how it happened, really.
Just the sort of two coincidental stories with practically no connecting tissue.
A man falls and gets killed.
Another man gets arrested, but there's no connection between them.
There's just a man falling.
And if a man falls on the sidewalk and nobody hears it?
All right, that's not funny.
That's not funny.
Shut up.
All right, next story.
Also Rasmussen.
On election integrity, 56% of likely voters believe cheating is likely to affect the outcome of the next presidential election.
56%.
The majority of Americans think the election systems are not, they don't have any credibility. 56%.
Now, I wonder what it was before Trump started persuading us.
I'd love to see the delta on that, how much it changed.
But, you know, why would people have those feelings?
Can you think of any reason that people would not trust the system?
Oh, how about our next story?
Tom Fitton has a long post, and he says the federal court in Northern District of Georgia, that's the Atlanta division, is going to allow plaintiffs to proceed to trial after they presented expert evidence which found seven what they call core vulnerabilities in the Dominion voting system.
Now this is not to say that there was anything wrong with the election.
This is simply experts looked at the system and they said, hypothetically, There are some things you could do to game the system.
But I'm sure they don't sound bad, right?
If you heard the list of things that they said, it wouldn't sound bad, would it?
Well, I'll read the list.
You tell me.
Does any of this sound dangerous or bad to you?
Or does it seem kind of trivial?
Again, from Tom Fenton's thread.
Number one, attackers can alter the QR codes on printed ballots to modify voters' selections.
They can alter the QR codes on printed ballots to modify voters' selections.
Well, that doesn't sound good, does it?
That doesn't sound good.
But I'm sure that's the only bad one.
Number two, anyone with brief physical access to the ballot marking device machines can install a malware onto the machines with just a just a brief physical access.
Okay, that sounds pretty terrible.
But that's just two of the seven.
I don't think the rest of them sound this bad.
Attackers can forge or manipulate the smart cards that the ballot marking device uses to authenticate technicians, poll workers, and voters, which could then be used by anyone with physical access to the machines to install malware into them.
Hmm.
Well, that sounds terrible.
But that's only three of them.
Attackers can execute arbitrary code with supervisor privileges and then exploit it to spread malware to all their machines across the country or state.
So one access in one place in Georgia, they claim, could allow you to rig all of the machines across the country or state.
Well, that one sounds bad, but the other one's probably not so bad.
Okay.
Attackers can alter the BMDs, that's the same machine, ballot marking device, audit logs.
Oh.
So something could change the audit logs.
Well, that's almost as if you audit it and you didn't know you weren't really auditing it.
It's almost suggesting that an audit is not a foolproof guarantee of an election.
But that can't be true, can it?
Somebody could change the audit.
But you know nobody is so smart that they can figure out how to put malware on the system.
They would change the vote and then also change the audit log so the vote and the audit log matched.
Like there wouldn't be any such thing as a hacker who is smart enough to change the audit log and the vote total when they have access to both of them.
Right?
Nobody would think of that.
Here's number six.
Attackers with brief access to a single one of these machines or a single poll worker card and PIN.
So that's all they would need.
Brief access to it or a single poll worker's card and PIN number.
Can obtain the countywide cryptographic keys which are used for authentication and to protect election results on scanner memory cards.
You're telling me that one person with one card and a pin can change the authentication on the scanner memory cards?
Or brief access to the machine and just stick in a little key?
Or number seven, a dishonest election worker with just brief access to the ICP scanner's memory card could determine how individual voters voted.
One worker with brief access.
If that one worker had, you know, a computer virus with them that did that kind of work.
At least we can feel safe.
Now remember, these are only the things that somebody said could have been done.
So they mean it from a technological perspective.
It doesn't mean anything like this was done.
Right?
I want to be clear.
There's no indication it was done, any of these seven things.
It's just the experts say these are vulnerabilities that maybe somebody could.
Because one thing you know for sure, if you have a large, complicated system, And the benefits from rigging it, if you could, the benefits would be almost incalculably large.
Maybe the largest benefits of anything except, you know, the stock market, I suppose.
So we know that the incentive to do it would be really off the chart.
I mean, the reason to do it would be stratospherically good, not only for financial benefit, but to keep Hitler out of office.
Am I right?
I mean, you've got two incentives to cheat, keeping Hitler out of office, they say, but also there could be a huge financial benefit to it.
And they've had, how long have these machines been in operation?
Years, right?
How many years have we had this situation?
And they just found the vulnerabilities?
Do you think they never existed before?
2004, somebody says?
Is that when the machines started going in?
So in all that time, The system that has the most incentive to steal it, the greatest incentive to be rigged, of all systems anywhere on Earth, from the beginning of time, has the greatest value, if you could rig it and get away with it.
But nobody did.
Nobody did.
So isn't that amazing?
That hackers are in literally everything, including probably my phone, and yet nobody got into this.
That's pretty amazing.
Do you know who could exploit vulnerabilities of this type?
Is there any organization that you could think of that would actually, it would be their job to exploit it?
If these machines were in other countries, used in other countries, do we ever, does America ever try to change or influence the elections in other countries?
I've heard they do.
Yeah, there's a group called the CIA, if you've ever heard of them.
I have a long history of influencing elections directly, trying to rig elections in other countries.
Now when they do it in other countries, that's totally illegal in America.
It's very illegal in those other countries, but in America it's legal.
But at least we can trust our intelligence agencies.
Because it's not like they recently were behind the Russia collusion hoax.
Oh, actually they were.
So ex-members of the intelligence agencies were actually the ones pushing the Russia collusion hoax.
But at least when Hunter's laptop was discovered, the intelligence people said, oh, that's real.
And they validated it.
Oh, OK, that didn't happen.
It was the opposite?
Yes, they put together a letter in which they swore that it must be, or it looked like, Russian disinformation.
Well, that's kind of sketchy.
So what we know is that the machines have a vulnerability, according to these experts.
I can't guarantee that, but they do exist.
We also know that our intelligence agencies in the United States are actually trained to do this kind of work, which would be find vulnerabilities in election systems in other countries.
And maybe some other countries use these machines.
Do you think these machines are deployed in other countries?
Because if they were deployed in other countries, would it not be the CIA's job to know exactly how they could access them and corrupt them if they needed to?
I'm not saying they would do it in every case.
There might be an election in France that we stay away from.
Probably not.
So let me just put the pieces together.
We know beyond any doubt That our intelligence agencies have backed the Democrats, even to the point of illegality.
Now, although there were no charges for pushing the Russia collusion hoax, I think we'd all agree it should have been illegal, given that they knew it was a hoax.
And also the laptop op that they ran on the public, They worded it so it sounded like, oh, it just looks like, it definitely looks all the hallmarks of Russia disinformation.
But they didn't say it directly.
They just, oh, it definitely looks like it.
So that was probably enough to keep it legal.
But I think we'd all agree, given that it came from intelligence people, it should have been illegal.
It should have been illegal to run an op on the American people.
But probably isn't.
Probably isn't.
So you've got a group that we know has a history of running ops on the American people.
We know that they certainly have the technological wherewithal to crack any system that has vulnerabilities, literally their mission.
We know that they've worked In a foreign way, in a very similar way to they worked in America.
They've pushed hoaxes, they've pushed disinformation, they've pushed propaganda, and they've worked against the American people quite directly.
But we are to believe that our own intelligence people would be unaware of these vulnerabilities in our election system.
Do you think they were unaware?
Do you think that our intelligence people Have not gone over the voting machines from top to bottom and every single time there's a software update?
Because they should.
That should be their job.
They should be looking at all of our systems to make sure they're secure in America.
To make sure there are no foreign people trying to get into our systems.
And they should also be, because it's their job, to figure out how to crack those same systems if they're used in another country.
I'm not saying they have or that they can.
I'm saying that's their job.
It's literally their job to know how to do this.
Now, so we are to believe That there are machines that, according to these experts, have these vulnerabilities.
We have an intelligence group whose job it is to exploit exactly this type of vulnerability, but typically overseas.
And we know that they've worked ops against the American people for the benefit of Democrats.
Now, these are the things we know.
So far, all of these are non-controversial.
These are things that CNN would report the same way I did.
There's no question about any of this.
Well, they would lie about the Russia collusion hoax, but we all know the truth here.
So, you tell me that a group Who has created a track record, a recent one, I'm not talking history, a very recent current, I'll call it current, it's so recent, a current record of doing an op against the American people, a clear suggestion that these machines might have vulnerabilities, but that would have to be determined in court.
That's not proven, it has to be proven in court.
So they have the ability, the motivation, and the track record.
They have the ability, the motivation, it's clear from recent experience.
Motivation, ability, and a clear recent track record of doing exactly sketchy things like this.
But the election was great.
It was fine.
Now let me say again as clearly as possible, I'm not aware of any cheating in the 2020 election that would have changed the election.
I'm not aware of anything.
And I don't think that the point of this legal challenge here, I don't think the point of it is to show the election was rigged.
I believe the point of it is to make sure that they're not rigged in the future.
That's a whole different question.
So we don't know anybody used any vulnerabilities.
But we'll certainly find out if these are true vulnerabilities.
Because remember, Dominion gets their time in court.
And remember also that Dominion's been successful.
You don't want to go against their lawyers, because they won.
They won against Fox News.
So don't assume that because one group of people made accusations about vulnerabilities, That once the other experts weigh in, don't assume that these vulnerabilities will stand.
Because it might be that you hear, oh no, we have a way of catching this right away.
The people who checked don't know that we checked for this.
It's going to be that sort of thing.
So keep an open mind.
Do you know about the Stanford Internet Observatory Group?
It's a US government funded group at Stanford.
Who allegedly should do this non-partisan sort of fact-checking on social media, but of course they demand censorship of Republican elected officials.
This is Michael Schellenberg's report, Schellenberger's reporting.
But they were not, they were not doing the same for Democrats.
So in other words, the government created a cutout for the Democrats that would then Go after the social media people, allegedly trying to both sides it, but in reality just trying to kill Republican speech.
That's a real thing.
Not only is it real, and well documented, but it still exists.
It's still there!
But this is the sort of thing where you think, in like a functional country, the moment you found out it existed, they would be embarrassed and have to disband.
Nope.
Nope.
Just going to keep doing it right in front of you with no apologies whatsoever.
Now, I guess it doesn't work on X, you know, because Musk is going to tell him to pound sand, but it exists.
It's like a real thing.
And Thomas Massey points out that He said, I would say this amounts to an illegal, unreported campaign contribution to the Democrats.
But it's actually much worse.
This group used taxpayer dollars to silence conservatives.
Just think about that.
It's not just that there's a group helping Democrats and they're not counting it as a campaign contribution, which obviously it is.
It's one group that's... But they're paid by the U.S.
government.
So Republicans are paying taxes to the government, some of which is given to this group, to make the people who paid those taxes shut up about their opinions.
It couldn't be worse.
I mean, it should be illegal, at least as a campaign contribution.
All right.
And so Representative Massey tried to stop this situation by killing its funding, but because we don't have a good Speaker of the House and we've got 19 Republicans but because we don't have a good Speaker of the House and we've got 19 Republicans who kept the Speaker bringing any bills to the floor, The Republicans did not have the cohesiveness.
Just keep this in mind.
The Republicans didn't have the cohesiveness and they didn't have the cohesiveness To stop the funding of stopping Republicans from talking.
Was there anything easier for Republicans to do than to stop funding the thing that is taking their own rights away?
And they couldn't get that done.
Just try to hold that in your head.
Like there's some things you understand why they can't get done.
It's like really hard and they're competing opinions and What was the competing opinion on this one?
Was there some Republican who said, you know what?
I really think we should allow them to censor one side but not the other, and the side they're going to censor is me.
I'm in favor of that.
How in the world do they go home not so embarrassed that they could actually show their faces to their families?
It's kind of amazing to me.
Well, Gavin Newsom is, as you know, he's got like a shadow campaign for president, meaning he's not running because Joe Biden is running and he supports Joe Biden, but it's nice to have an emergency backup spare, isn't it?
So, as you know, Newsom's, he's traveled to China and he's making a lot of headlines and he wants to debate DeSantis and all this stuff, so that he would be in the top of your mind for the replacement.
It's kind of obvious that's what the play is at this point.
But, as part of his preparation to be president someday, he's trying out some smaller hoaxes.
Sort of a governor-level hoax.
And if that goes well, then I assume he'll try some presidential-level hoaxes, because that's what got Biden elected.
Biden got elected on a hoax.
The Find People hoax.
It was his primary campaign.
But Gavin Newsom believes there's a city in Tennessee that has banned being gay in public.
So he wants you to believe that's a real thing that happened.
That in 2023, in the real world, he believes this happened.
That a city in Tennessee banned being gay in public.
Now, do I need to tell you why that didn't happen?
Or can I just stipulate, obviously that didn't happen.
Would you like to know what did happen that would make anybody think this happened?
Yes, the city in Tennessee banned public sex for everyone.
They banned public sex for everyone.
And that got turned into, you know, on social media, and Gavin probably believed it.
He believed that they had banned being gay.
Not having sex!
Just being gay in public.
And he posted this like it really happened.
Now like I say, this is a small hoax.
This is not a national-level hoax.
This is more of a governor-level hoax.
So he's doing pretty well.
It goes the way you think it does.
His Democrat supporters will see him say this, and they'll say, yes, our champion is fighting for our rights, again, against the evil Republicans and these people in Tennessee.
They will never know that this was a hoax.
They will never know it was a hoax.
So it worked.
Because he's not really trying to get any Republican support.
And the Republicans are screaming, hoax, hoax!
And they're showing the actual law to prove it's a hoax.
I mean, you could read the letter of the law.
It's obvious.
But you should have spotted this one without checking.
Do you feel me?
This one you should have known was a hoax before you looked into it.
Because it's too on the nose.
It's just too on the nose.
It wouldn't make sense to even see this in 2023.
Right?
If you ever saw this as a real story, I mean, I'd be pretty surprised.
Now, this is a good example of the Scott Alexander concept.
Now, Scott Alexander was a blogger who used that fake name, but then he got outed.
I'm not sure what he's doing now.
But he had tremendous blog posts.
He was very well-known among the people who followed that kind of stuff.
But one of the things he said is that the reason something becomes news is that it's not true.
Now, I'm over-summarizing his point, but I'll give you more.
Let me say that again.
The reason it's on the news is because it's not true.
Until you understand that, everything is confusing.
The reason it's on the news is because it's not true.
Here's why that's the case.
Do you know what true things are?
Boring.
Boring.
People went to work today.
Boring.
Inflation went up another 0.0.
Boring.
There's still a war in Ukraine.
Boring.
There's no news.
Most of the time the news is just more stuff happening.
Right?
There's just more stuff happening, like before.
So when you see something like a Tennessee town banned being gay in public, immediately your filters should have said, wait a minute, that actually stands out.
Right?
If it stands out as being like amazingly wrong, The reason it's in the news is because it's not true.
True things are just not that interesting.
It's completely fake things that are interesting.
Would it be interesting that President Trump got elected and did a pretty good job for his base and other people thought, you know, that's not bad either?
Would that be news?
No.
Nobody's going to click on that shit.
But what if they say the President of the United States is actually working with Putin?
Well, that's news.
Didn't happen.
It was news because it didn't happen.
Right?
Now, you have to be careful because it's not absolute.
The Hunter laptop story was actually one that's a little confusing here.
Like, if you take your brain back, when the Hunter laptop story happened, my first reaction was, really?
We've got all of the goods On a laptop that just happened to be left?
That's, like, way too convenient.
Well, it turns out it was true.
So, you know, none of these rules are universals.
You do get surprising things in the real world.
But your first instinct should be, hmm, I'm not so sure.
So whenever you hear a story that's a man bit a dog, right?
It's a normal story that a dog bites a man.
Unless it's President Biden's dog, then it's a big story.
But it's a normal story if a dog bites a man.
It would be unusual if a man bit a dog.
So if you ever see these man bites dog stories, just go, I'm going to wait on this one.
I'm going to wait a little while.
That will serve you well.
All right, the Gaza hospital situation where the alleged Hamas tunnels were beneath the hospital.
Israel did get control of the hospital, but they're still going.
It's really painfully slow because a lot of booby-trapped stuff.
Tunnels are booby-trapped.
But they have found tunnels.
So if you're wondering, where are those tunnels?
They found them.
So it was exactly what Israel was saying.
There are, in fact, Hamas headquarters and facilities, and our current understanding is it's exactly what it looked like.
That's all I know.
Have you noticed that the news about Israel just started shrinking?
It's like, you know, the first few weeks, it's like just everything was news.
It just started shrinking into, well, they seem to have a hospital now.
like it just gets smaller and smaller.
But it's a war zone, so the real news is being squeezed out.
All right.
Ukraine just indicted the people that Rudy Giuliani was talking to in Ukraine when Giuliani was trying to find out that Biden was up to no good in Ukraine and took bribes or something.
But the people who were feeding him this information, feeding Giuliani this information, have now been indicted for being Russian agents.
That seems kind of convenient, doesn't it?
Huh.
So just when the Biden crime family, so-called, is really getting the heat, just when they're getting the banking records, and they got a copy of the check, and it all lines up to show this pattern of behavior, just then, Zelensky, who's having trouble getting funding from the United States, it's almost like he was doing a favor for Biden.
It has that quality to it, doesn't it?
The timing of it and the nature of it.
It feels like he had to do that for Biden so that Biden would fight hard to get him some more funding, huh?
So it looks like a big ol' coincidence.
Yeah.
Do you believe that these three people were actually Russian agents?
Trying to fool Giuliani?
Could be.
Actually, that part I would think might be true.
But do you think nobody knew this two years ago?
Do you think Zelensky's just finding this out?
That these three had connections?
Probably not.
It does seem to me that the timing is such that maybe Zelensky was holding back a favor.
You know what I mean?
Like, maybe I've got a few favors I can hold back unless I'm getting what I want.
Anyway, it looks sketchy to me.
In the worst news of the day, Dana Carvey's son died of an overdose.
We don't know if fentanyl was involved, but you do assume.
Now, Dana Carvey's son was in his early 30s, and you know I have some experience with this.
Five years ago my stepson, I had no doubt, OD, died.
And Dana Carvey, comedian Dana Carvey.
Anyway, now I don't know the exact timing of this.
But I believe that Dana Carvey lives in the North Bay above San Francisco.
So there is some chance, and I don't know this to be true, there's some chance that President Xi was talking to Biden about cracking down on fentanyl while this tragedy was happening, you know, walking distance away.
That might have actually been happening.
So there's nothing to say about that, except it's the height of terrible.
You know, you can't get much more terrible than that.
So I guess that's the main thing to say about that.
The height of terrible.
So, you know, I guess we can say that we feel bad and we sympathize and we empathize.
Of course we do.
But what will help the next one?
The next OD is already happening.
There will be over a hundred of them today.
So today there'll be over a hundred of them.
Do you believe that China's going to do anything about fentanyl?
Apparently they agreed that they would, President Xi.
Now, what he negotiated was there's some lab over in China that was having restrictions from America and he negotiated to get that lab freed up because he needed the lab to test To do something to make sure that no fentanyl got to the United States.
Does any of that sound true?
Like that's the story.
But does any of that sound true?
It doesn't even sound a little bit true.
Do you know what it would take to stop the fentanyl flow?
They actually know the names of the people in charge of the companies making the stuff.
We can hand them the name of the actual Chinese citizen who's the criminal.
Do you think they needed a lab?
They don't need a lab.
They needed the name of the criminal.
They know where he lives.
They know what he makes.
Because America knows, right?
America has actually publicized the name of the fentanyl kingpins in China.
There's no mystery to what you need to do.
And somehow Biden negotiated away some kind of sanctions on a lab.
Like, did he really believe that had something to do with whether or not China can find this one, or family, I guess?
What, is the guy in hiding?
Do you think that China can't find a citizen?
Does anybody believe that China can't find a specific citizen that's specified?
No, of course they can.
Yeah.
So I don't believe anything that she says about stopping fentanyl, because he made exactly the same promise to Trump and did nothing.
Now, I do think he made it a death sentence to make fentanyl, but it didn't cover all the changes they can make to the precursors.
They just tweak it a little bit and the law doesn't cover it.
That's why it's not about them changing the laws, because that won't get there.
And it's not about having a lab that can test anything.
You don't need it.
You know who the perpetrator is.
Just kill him.
Just kill him.
You know, why would that be hard?
All right.
So, ladies and gentlemen, that completes the best live stream you're going to see today.
today.
And what?
All right.
Anything else I forgot?
Bank info to see how much they're paid.
Yeah.
I wouldn't suggest I don't interview the family workspace.
What?
Yeah.
Exxon is entering the lithium battery business.
Digging in Arkansas.
CWSA is Coffee with Scott Adams.
That's what this show is.
I got really tired of typing it and I thought, well, I'll leave some mysteries so you can figure out what it is.
So I left you some mystery and you fell for it.
I was going to say, you know, welcome all colonizers and those who love colonizers.
No, I think what the problem was with the ADL is that once the ADL started supporting people who had the colonizer-oppressor model, there was no way that wasn't going to come back on Israel.
You get that?
As soon as the ADL bought into the oppressor-oppressed-colonizer model, which they did prior to 2020, that guaranteed That Israel would come to the crosshairs as an accused colonizer.
So the facts don't matter.
So we're not arguing any facts.
We're just saying that that's what the accusation would be.
