Episode 2348 CWSA 01/09/24 My Prediction For The 2024 Election. You Won't Like It
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Apple Glasses, President Biden, Gas Prices, ESG Dirty Word, DEI University of Michigan, Fair Share Taxes, John Brennan, DOD Austin, Election Year Climate Change, Nikki Haley, Herbert Hoover, President Trump, Elon Musk, Mark Cuban DEI, Fake Elector Claims, United Boeing 737 Max 9, Missouri SOS, Peter Zeihan, 2024 Election Prediction, Israel Hamas War, Hezbollah Missiles, Vivek Ramaswamy Iowa, 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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure there's never been a better time in the history of the world.
But if you like this experience to go up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass.
Ah!
Delightful!
Chalice was dying in a canteen jug or flask a vessel of any kind Fill it with your favorite liquid or like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine the other day the thing that makes everything better.
It's called That's right.
The simultaneous sip.
Savor it.
Ah Delightful Well, let me talk about some of the technology news and then we'll get to my prediction for the first time I This will be my first prediction for the 2024 election.
You're not going to like it.
You're not going to like it at all, but you will experience it.
Well, Apple has introduced its glasses.
I think they're $3,500.
February 2nd, they'll come out.
And I guess it's virtual reality glasses.
There's lots of talk about how they'll incorporate it in AI.
Now, there is a lot of uncertainty happening around Apple at the moment, and I would ask you the following question.
I'd be interested in the comments, what you think.
Without knowing too much about this new product, the Apple goggle glasses thing, Do you think that Steve Jobs would have introduced this product without even seeing it?
Without even seeing it, do you think Steve Jobs would have introduced this product?
I don't know.
I feel like no.
I feel like no.
But how do you know, right?
So Apple has the following things going on.
They got a virtual reality.
They're going to that hard.
They're introducing AI.
Apparently their AI will be integrated into the function of the phone.
But their biggest risk, in my opinion, is the companies that are going to make a phone that is AI native.
I think what Apple is going to do, because it has to protect its existing base of business, it has to integrate AI into something that looks like the same phone that they've always produced.
And I don't know if that's the best way to go.
I'd rather have a phone that has a blank screen and I just say, uh, call Bob.
And it calls Bob.
I just want something I can talk to and it does what I want it to do.
That's the phone I want.
And I think that's who Apple's going to be competing with.
I think they're going to compete with a phone where you just start working and the AI figures out what it is you want it to do.
So for example, let's say you don't want to talk in public.
So you're not in a place you can talk to your phone.
So you want to send a message.
In the current model, you have to search around for your message app.
It's like, oh, am I using WhatsApp or am I texting or what am I doing?
But I think it would make more sense if you just had a blank screen and you just take out your phone and you start typing a message.
And then as you type, three buttons appear.
You want to send it by WhatsApp or regular text message or something else.
And then after you're done with the message, then you can pick which way to send it.
But the way you do it now is that you're thinking about the message you want to compose, but you have to first work through the interface to find the app and open it and stuff.
That's terrible mental cost.
You want to do work first, and then at the end, poke the app that's going to execute.
That's how you should do it.
If you start putting some numbers on the page, it should turn into a It should turn into a spreadsheet.
It should just automatically turn into a spreadsheet because you're doing numbers.
That sort of thing.
So I think Apple has gigantic potential risks, but also gigantic upside.
So I sold my Apple stock because I didn't want a company with gigantic upside and gigantic downside.
I already hold it.
I've indexed funds, so I've got Apple exposure anyway.
But I no longer want to have exposure in the company itself, specifically.
Because the reason I held the stock individually was because they were a monopoly.
And I liked putting my money in a monopoly.
Because nobody was going to knock them out of business.
But with VR and AI and all that, I would say they're no longer a monopoly.
So you don't know what you're getting.
It could be the best investment of all time.
Because it could double and triple because of all the new stuff.
Or something else.
Right, Samsung introduced a robot that looks like a little ball that rolls around on the floor.
And it's got a cool feature.
It has a projector.
So you can tell it to project on the wall.
Or it can project on the floor so it can give you a message like hello or something.
And it can do stuff like control your Your household appliances and feed the dog and stuff like that.
But it doesn't have any arms.
So it has no arms.
It just rolls around and it looks at things and it projects things and it can communicate with things.
But it looks pretty cool.
I wouldn't get one.
Especially because there's a Tesla robot coming.
And the Tesla robot, in addition to a human form factor, they're working on a Tesla dog robot.
And that doesn't mean they'll produce one, Apparently they're playing with a dog model.
How much would you want a Tesla dog robot?
Like, if I didn't have a human Tesla robot, I plan to have a robot soon.
I plan to be an early adopter of the robot technology.
I feel like I might start with a dog.
You know, the dog isn't going to be able to empty my dishwasher.
I want that too.
Probably can't iron my shirts.
As if I ironed shirts.
I said that like I've ironed a shirt anytime in the last 10 years.
Have I ironed a shirt in 10 years?
Yeah, I have when I travel.
I guess maybe within 10 years I've ironed a shirt, but in a hotel, not at home.
So yeah, I want my Tesla robot dog.
That would be so cool.
I can't even stand it.
Give me that now.
President Biden is a Post on social media that Americans in 30 states are now paying under $3 a gallon to fill up their tanks.
Quick survey.
So, three out of five of you, well, we don't know which states it is, but let's say if it were just by states, three out of five of you would say your gas prices are under $3.
Go.
Are your gas prices where you live under $3?
Go.
Yes, yes, yes.
No, no, no.
No, no, no.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
No, no, no, no.
Lots of yeses, lots of nos.
I'm pretty sure my gas price is still over $5.
In California, because the California bullshit they put on top of it.
Plus, we don't have any refineries locally, plus all that.
I am so jealous of your $3 gas.
If I had $3 gas, I would feel like everything was okay.
I think I can get over almost everything else with my gas.
$2.65, that's amazing.
Colorado, $2.70.
All right, well, so do we give Biden credit for this or what?
You tell me.
If your preferred president were president, would you give that president credit?
I don't know anything that Biden did.
He, you know, at one point he used the So what is it that Biden did exactly?
Is he claiming credit for not clamping down on drilling as much as he promised he would?
Is that the basis of his success?
That he didn't do the policies he promised?
It sounds like it.
He said directly, I'm going to shut down the fossil fuel industry.
Did I imagine that?
I mean, in the long run, not in the short run.
But is this too far?
Am I saying something that's crazy?
That the reason he's claiming success is that he did not institute the policies he promised, which would have put more pressure on gas prices, not less.
It feels like that.
I don't know.
I need a fact check on that, but it feels like he's doing less than he said he would do is why we had success.
Maybe he could just keep doing less.
Things would be great.
That would just be great.
All right.
It's $6.35 a gallon in Europe.
Is that euros?
$2.35 a gallon in Europe, is that euros?
All right.
Wall Street Journal is reporting that ESG is a dirty word now.
By the way, that's not my interpretation of their article.
That's actually the title.
The title of the article is that ESG is a dirty word.
Have we done our job well?
I think we have.
I think we've done our job.
Now, I don't think it's going away.
A lot of it is just they're changing the names of it.
Some of them are changing their framing of it to more of the environmental part.
They're going to focus on the E.
Not the G so much, the governance part.
But I think this is a good sign that businesses are embarrassed to be in the ESG business.
As you know, BlackRock was pushing it and then they backed off from it, at least the words.
So what do you make of the fact that it's embarrassing?
It's actually embarrassing to admit to your shareholders that you're involved in ESG.
That it's all downside.
And by the way, you know, I don't have the big problem that companies would try to be better corporate citizens, but the ESG stuff's crazy.
University of Michigan has DEI employees.
Take a guess, if you didn't see the story, how many DEI employees do you need to staff your College DEI department.
Just take a guess in the comments.
How many do you think would be a full complement?
If you guessed hundreds, you would be right.
They have 241 employees who do nothing but DEI.
241 people at one college.
One college.
do nothing but DEI.
241 people at one college.
One college.
Now, what does that say to you about the value of that college degree?
Like, Who would want a degree from that college?
They obviously are completely incompetent and out of control and poorly managed.
My God.
So if you want to put this in context, as Steve McGuire did in a post on X, they're spending $23 million a year for salaries.
Then you add the benefits, it's like $30 million a year for the staff.
For $30 million, They could cover in-state tuition and fees for about 1,800 undergraduate students.
About 1,800 students could go to school for free if they would get rid of their DEI department and use that money.
I love that DEI is just, and yes, you're just now disgraced concepts.
Probably not in the bluest of blue places, but in most of the ordinary world.
Well, Biden said in a post, for too long, our tax code has rewarded wealth, not work, increasing income and wealth inequality in America.
And he says, working Americans pay their taxes.
All right.
So.
What do you think about this fair share business?
You know, I said this before, one of the reasons that The word fair was invented so that idiots and children had some way to participate in conversations.
Because you know what is fair?
Nothing.
There's nothing fair.
Nothing in this world is fair.
It can't be.
I mean, it's just a logical impossibility.
And the reason is that fair is subjective.
Have you ever seen the situation where everybody was happy and they said, well, that looks fair to me?
No.
You've only seen situations where some people say, that looks fair to me, and other people say, that looks unfair to me.
And there's no objective standard to decide what is fair.
So fairness, whenever you see it employed, is pure propaganda.
There's no rational, logical basis to it whatsoever.
There's no standard to compare it to.
As soon as you hear the word fair, don't participate in the conversation.
Because you're not talking to a legitimate, honest broker of conversation.
You're talking to somebody who's trying to bamboozle you, basically.
So fairness is a word of bamboozlers and con artists.
Or children and idiots.
Right?
So if you're not a child and you're not an idiot, and you're using that word, it's because you're talking to children or idiots.
Because there is no smart person anywhere Who believes that fairness is some kind of a standard you can actually employ?
Nobody believes that.
All right.
Nobody's smart.
All right.
Remember I told you that you don't really know a story until you know the players and who they're married to and how they make their money and all that stuff.
Just what they say doesn't tell you much.
But if you know who they are, plus what they say, that might tell you something.
Here's an example.
You all know the story of General Austin, the Secretary of Defense.
And he disappeared into the hospital without getting the message out to his bosses.
There might have been a mix-up there.
But whatever the problem was, he was off the grid and maybe not even conscious.
He was in the hospital without people knowing he was missing at a time when the country is at great military peril.
So I think it was CNN, or maybe MSNBC, it doesn't matter.
But one of them had John Brennan on to talk about this.
Now what do you know when you hear that John Brennan was asked to be a guest and he talked about this problem?
What do you know?
Alright, John Brennan is who you invite on the news when you have the following situation that you want to accomplish.
What you want to accomplish is there's a news cycle that's working against you, and that means Democrats.
So the news is unfriendly to Democrats, and everybody believes they understand the story.
Oh, I understand this story, and it's bad for Democrats.
In that case, you need somebody to come in and introduce a new narrative that will give you at least some question about whether the obvious explanation is the true one.
For example, Hunter's laptop.
The obvious explanation was it's actually his laptop.
That's the obvious explanation.
So John Brennan comes on and says, oh, I don't know, a lot of Intel people talk to everybody and they think it looks like Russian disinformation.
So here he took a story that's bad for Democrats, and it was pretty obvious what the situation was.
It was Hunter's laptop.
But he introduced a new narrative that it might be Russian disinformation.
So now you've got this embarrassing story about the Secretary of Defense, which would suggest that Biden's White House is completely unmanaged.
Because if you're not managing military command during days like this, you're not really managing anything.
So there's this story that's bad for Democrats.
The Secretary of Defense was unavailable and nobody knew.
So they bring on John Brennan, and he introduces a new narrative.
And the new narrative is, Well, he just said it sort of as a toss-off.
He goes, well, we're not sure if his medical condition is the reason for his poor judgment and why he didn't inform people.
That's pretty good.
That's pretty good.
Because I couldn't think of a good reason for why we would be seeing this news and why he wouldn't tell people.
Or maybe he did, but he told somebody who had a cold.
He told somebody who had COVID or something and it didn't get through.
So whatever the story is, it still looks incompetent, no matter what the details are.
It looks like incompetence.
But you introduce this new narrative.
It's like, well, you knew he was in the hospital and he couldn't function.
So if he's in the hospital, he can't function.
And then he does something that sounds like somebody who couldn't function.
It all makes sense.
It's not so bad.
It'd be a bad situation.
You say, oh, it was it was medical.
So you give it a different, different vibe to it.
So my only point about this, I'm not really too interested in the General Austin story.
But the fact that they bring John Brennan on to introduce a new narrative, you understand that's pure propaganda, right?
That's not news.
That is pure propaganda.
All right.
And also, you can't get other people to say it who would have credibility.
So they needed somebody with a high level of credibility to introduce a new thought.
It was the perfect one.
All right, there's Axios is reporting.
Now again, put this in the context of an election year.
Does it surprise you to hear that as we launch the election year, The Axios is reporting, oh, the biggest surprise story you could ever have in an election year, that 2023 was the hottest year in 125,000 years.
Now, could you have predicted that the news would tell you, and Axios in particular, would tell you that it was the hottest year last year?
I could have predicted that without any science at all.
Because it's bad for Republicans and good for Democrats.
That's it.
That's all you have to know in order to measure the Earth.
Would you like to see me measure the temperature of the Earth again?
Watch.
It's an election year.
Warming of the Earth to new records would be terrible for Republicans, good for Democrats.
Concentrate.
Yes.
Oh, I see the temperatures now.
Yes.
Yes.
They're up half a degree.
That's how you measure the temperature in an election year.
Now, do I have to go through the details to convince you that we can't measure the temperature over 125,000 years?
Does anybody need even five seconds of why nobody in the fucking world can measure the temperature of the Earth to within a degree or two over 125 fucking thousand years?
Because, you know, I could give you the conversation about why you can't measure it today.
Do you think you can measure it today within a degree or so and then measure it over time?
It is absurd to imagine that that's a capability that humans have.
The Earth is a pretty big place.
And the problem is that even if you have lots of thermometers, things can happen to the thermometer.
But also, the Earth does not have a uniform kind of common temperature.
Rather, it has hot pockets that can stay hot for a long time, cool pockets, and sometimes those change around.
Sometimes your hot pocket becomes cooler and vice versa.
But if you don't have a thermometer, probably, you know, every square mile or so over the entire Earth, including the oceans, you're not really measuring anything.
You might be able to measure The measurements you have changing over time.
But there might be other reasons for that change.
Could be where they are, what happens since they were put in.
Could be that the heat sink is going somewhere it didn't used to go.
A lot of possibilities.
But no, you cannot measure the temperature of the Earth accurately.
Someday that will just seem funny.
You know, a hundred years from now, there will be history courses where they laugh.
Because they thought that they could measure the temperature of the earth with some thermometers and some satellite images or satellite measurements.
Nope.
Can't do it.
At least not that level.
And then other people pointed out that the ice levels are the highest they've ever been.
Do you believe that's true?
There's a claim that our ice levels are the highest they've ever been.
Do you think we can measure accurately How much ice there is.
So this might be on the side that you agree with.
So if you agree with the people who are not worried about climate, you might agree with the people who say that the amount of ice is increasing instead of decreasing.
Do you think we can measure the amount of ice?
Seriously.
Do you really think we can measure the amount of ice?
No!
And you know we can't, because you've been watching them try for years.
And you'll see a story that says, oh, we measured this ice, and it's down by two feet.
And you wait a week, and there'll be somebody else that says, oh, we measured the ice, and we made a big mistake.
Yes, it was decreasing here, but it was increasing over here, and we didn't catch that.
You've been watching this for years.
No, they cannot accurately measure any fucking ice, just like they can't accurately measure the fucking temperature.
Stop pretending these things can be measured to some degree where you can really see the change.
No.
Those are real things.
So don't believe the skeptics, but don't believe the science on this.
They can't measure this stuff.
All right.
A few years ago, I made a bet on a betting platform.
And the bet was, I think it was predicted or something, I bet I never told you this, by the way.
I bet that it would be reported to be the highest temperature that year of any year.
Now, the reason I bet that is not because I know anything about science.
I just figured every year they're going to say it's the hottest year.
To me, it seemed like a no-brainer.
I'll just put in some money of the fact that they're going to say again it's the hottest year.
But you know what I got wrong?
I made that bet on a non-election year, and it wasn't.
It wasn't the hottest year.
If I had had even the smallest bit of brain working, I would have bet, maybe a week or two ago or whatever, that 2023 would be recorded as the hottest year on record.
You think that would have been a smart bet?
Fuck yes!
The odds that they would have said that 2023 was not the hottest record, hottest on record, in an election year, was fucking zero.
There was zero fucking chance they were going to say it wasn't a record, no matter what the actual measurements are.
I'm so mad at myself.
This is like a bet that wasn't a bet.
The first time it was kind of a bet, but in an election year, it's not even a bet.
It's just basically it's dialed in.
I could have just like collected my money if I just waited.
I'm an idiot.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Next time.
I'll get it next time.
All right.
Can you become President of the United States if none of the citizens you've ever met, let's say as a voter, can you become President of the United States if the voters have never met anybody who supports you, who voted for you?
Well, we might find out, because there's a poll out of New Hampshire, interactive polls, I don't know how scientific it was, which shows Trump at 39% in the primary and Haley Nikki Haley at 32% and Christie at 12%.
Do you really think in the real world that Haley has 32% support in New Hampshire?
I still don't know anybody in person who supports Nikki Haley.
I do know a person or two online that I haven't seen in person, but they seem like real people.
So I think they exist.
But in your wildest imagination, do you really think Haley is at 32% in New Hampshire?
Does that sound possible?
Do you think it's women?
I don't know.
I don't know.
So I'm not believing any of those polls.
But could we have a president where you don't know anybody who voted for that person?
I think we're at that place we could.
I think, you know, I'm not predicting this will happen.
But I think we're at a place where you could actually have a president and you would never meet anybody in your whole life who voted for them.
That could actually happen.
We're at a point of brainwashing and gaslighting that could literally happen.
A president that you don't know anybody who ever voted for.
And they could serve out eight years.
That's actually something that can happen in our current environment.
It couldn't have always happened.
But at the moment, we're so primed for literally anything from UFOs to you name it.
Yeah, I could do that.
Trump is doing his usual provocations that get taken out of context.
So here he's being quoted as saying that he hopes the economy crashes in the next 12 months because, quote, I don't want to be Herbert Hoover.
Now, Herbert Hoover was president when the economy crashed.
So he was always famous as our The worst president for economics.
Although there's a dispute whether he was really that bad.
You know, some say not so bad.
But what Trump was saying was he would hate to be the president when the economy crashes.
So when he says he hopes the economy crashes in the next 12 months, it was so that he wouldn't be president when it happened.
Now, how seriously should you take that?
He's the potential next president and he said he hopes the economy crashes in the next 12 months because I don't want to be Herbert Hoover.
Seriously?
How seriously should you take that?
That's just Trump being Trump.
He's just saying he doesn't want to be in a situation where he has bad luck and he gets blamed for destroying the economy.
So if it's going to tank, he wants it to tank before he gets there.
So that he can be the one that recovers it.
Now, how seriously should you take that?
Come on.
That's like a big headline today.
Nobody should take that seriously.
Literally nobody should believe that in the actual world, Trump prefers that the economy tanks at all.
Like, who believes that he wants it to tank?
Nobody.
He doesn't want it to tank.
My interpretation is, if it's going to tank on its own, what's best for him is that it happens fast, so that he can be the one to fix it.
It's not exactly the worst thing in the world to say.
It's just a very Trump-like way to put it.
Once you get used to him, you can just hear this and go, OK, I know what you're saying.
What he's saying is he doesn't want to have bad luck.
That's all.
But he also thinks he can fix the economy if it tanks.
I have no problem with that at all.
It's the election year, so everything he says will be taken out of context.
How many of you are watching the ongoing social media battle between Elon Musk and Mark Cuban?
Because it just keeps getting better.
It's the best dollar value for entertainment that I've seen in the longest time.
So I'll give you a little update on that.
So Mark Cuban is pro-DEI, and he's got some complaints about Musk.
And Musk has some complaints about Cuban.
They made some accusations back and forth.
But Elon Musk posts a video of Mark Cuban in some event.
He's on stage and it's out of context, of course.
But Cuban is saying that he is he's prejudiced and bigoted.
And that, for example, if you were walking down the street at night and you saw a black teenager in a hoodie, He would cross the street to get away from the black teenager in the hoodie.
So Musk, Musk posts that and he goes, this explains Mark Cuban's ridiculous overcompensation regarding racism.
Same thing happened with Me Too.
Guys who got busted suddenly became fake ardent feminists.
Yeah.
Now remember, oh shoot.
Remember that-- sorry, I had to fix my screen.
It keeps going, turning off here.
So remember, they're after each other a little bit, so don't take much of it too seriously.
Later, Musk said, he posted, Mark Cuban is a racist.
He also posted that he's a liar, separately.
So he's called him a liar, an overcompensator, a racist.
And the racist comment was because Cuban said recently that a private school, if they wanted to have only one kind of person at the school, it's their choice because it's a private school, to which Musk says that's racist.
Which it is, right?
If you had a private school and you said, I'm only going to allow a specific race, it doesn't need to be government.
To be racist, does it?
Doesn't that count as racist?
But I think I would back Elon Musk on that.
So I don't know that their conversation is particularly important, but it sure is fun.
And it got more fun when somebody surfaced a Trump post from 2014.
I don't remember this news, but apparently back then Mark Cuban tried to buy a baseball team and Oh no, he tried to buy an NBA team and he was rejected.
And no, he was trying to buy a baseball team, not an NBA team.
And apparently Trump sent him a message that said, I'm truly sorry.
I'm mixing up two different stories.
One of them is that Trump called Cuban an asshole in 2014.
So Trump doesn't like Mark Cuban.
Do you remember when Mark Cuban was very pro or anti-Trump?
And you wondered what was up with that?
And it looked kind of personal?
Well, apparently it was really personal.
So a lot of what looked like politics was, you know, two billionaires who had had some past.
So once you see the history, you understand why he's so anti-Trump.
But also, it gets worse.
I guess Mark Cuban tried to do a TV show called The Benefactor and it didn't work out.
And Trump sent him a... Trump sent him a letter.
A typed and signed letter from Trump when Cuban's TV show failed.
This is what Trump said.
I'm truly sorry to hear that your show has been cancelled for lack of ratings.
When I called to congratulate you on The Benefactor, little did you or I realize how disastrous and embarrassing it would turn out to be for you.
And then Trump says, if you ever decide to do another show, please call me and I'll be happy to lend a helping hand.
And then here's the best part.
The best part is that he signs his letter sincerely, Donald Trump.
He signed that letter sincerely.
Sincerely.
Now apparently he's been hilarious for years, you know, before it came to my attention.
I didn't realize he was such a troll before he ran for president, but he's been battling people like crazy.
There's also a story about, Jesse Waters is talking about this and others, so this Fannie Willis, who's a DA for Fulton County, going after Trump for the Georgia stuff, apparently the prosecutor that she hired to put on the case is her lover.
She hired her lover To be the, what they say, overpaid and highly underqualified.
Hasn't done much of this work.
So he's underqualified, overpaid, and her lover.
And apparently this is known.
And then related to the story, and nobody's denying the accusations.
And then related to the story is a, separately, that the prosecutor, who was her lover I guess, visited with the White House before making their play.
So the thinking is that the White House may have been coordinating the local DA actions, which would be highly inappropriate and RICO-like, and it would look like a coordinated illegal behavior.
So who knows if anything will come of that, but it looks pretty super sketchy to me.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think there's any chance that the local DAs did not coordinate with the White House?
Or at least operatives from the White House?
I would say that's in the category of obvious.
Like, I wouldn't need a news story to know that the federal-type people are involved and talking to them and, you know, giving them encouragement.
Do you think somebody like Fannie Willis has already been promised some big role in future politics if she takes Trump down?
I would guess yes, whether it's stated obviously or implied.
I would think she's just doing it for career reasons.
Career development.
But she and her boyfriend seem to be making a lot of money.
All right, so here's an update on the case of the fake electors.
The so-called fake electors that Trump and his staff Allegedly tried to pull together so that they could take over the country with their fake electors instead of using the real ones.
So that's the story we've been told.
That they have these alternative electors.
It was illegal because that's not the way the process works.
So it turns out none of that was true.
That whole fucking story was fake.
Here's the real story that's just coming out.
Actually, I don't know how recently this came out.
But it turns out that these so-called fake electors, there's documentation describing what they were up to.
So in writing, contemporaneous with what was happening, in writing, there's documentation that shows they were not intending to be fake substitute electors.
They very clearly said The only point of this is to have some people lined up to be replacements if the legal challenges succeed so that you can maintain your legal right to continue your challenge.
So apparently the whole point of having the alternative electors in writing and in words were not to be fake electors.
It was to preserve their legal rights to continue the procedural challenges.
So the entire basis of the claim is known to be debunked on documents that very clearly say the intention of this is just to keep our rights open, not to take over the country.
Isn't that freaking amazing that that kind of news is just sort of bubbling up now?
I think it's been known for a while, but it wasn't known to me.
Now, they use a different word.
Yeah, there are different words like You know, provisional and whatever.
But they very clearly stated these are not trying to be fake electors.
These are like alternative, provisional, just keeping our options open kind of thing.
It is a lie, says somebody.
Well, it's in writing.
All right.
You all heard about that door that flew off a plane.
And I guess United Airlines has found at least five of those kinds of doors with loose bolts.
Those are on Boeing 737 Max planes.
And I heard the story last night about, you know how the door blew off, but then the seat that was closest to the door, just by big coincidence, was empty?
Like, that's the biggest coincidence in the world, that that one seat was empty.
That person missed the flight.
Can you imagine that?
Imagine if you had been on that flight and the door next to you just flew off, and you're in the elements.
You're basically flying outdoors at 10,000 feet.
The level of fear that that would give me would be just outrageous.
I would never fly again, for sure.
But of course, all the buzz on social media is whether this is because of diversity hiring.
Let me ask you.
Do you think that this specific problem with these plug doors is because of diversity hiring?
All right.
Well, here's... All right.
Anything's possible.
But I think it's completely unfair to take any specific case and say that this is because of diversity hiring.
I think if you had to bet, I would bet against it.
I would bet against it.
If I had to bet, but maybe.
Here's what's a more fair way to talk about this topic.
I'm completely convinced that diversity hiring in a general sense over time, on average, lowers the competency of the workforce.
Now that's based on, not based on anybody's ethnicity, not based on their gender or any of that.
It's based on just math.
Because there's a small pool of people that fit the diversity criteria.
There's not enough of them so that you could hire people of equal quality.
So you're going to have to go further and further down the quality level in order to get somebody.
Because there just aren't enough.
So it has nothing to do with your ethnicity or your genes.
It's just math.
We should see, all things being equal, we should see a decline in competency.
But I think it's terribly unfair To pick one, like one business failure and say, oh, that one, that one looks like it's diversity.
So don't get over your, don't get too far over your skis.
You know, you can easily find out that this had nothing to do with anything, you know, maybe just bad luck.
But your general fear that we could be, you know, dying or in deep trouble because of our lack of competence, that's real.
There's absolutely a very noticeable decline in capability of workers.
I've never seen less competent employees everywhere.
Just everywhere.
It's just massive incompetence everywhere.
I think we all see that.
There's a new chip you can put in a monkey that will change its behavior.
You can turn a little macaque monkey You can make it lower its risk or increase its risk.
And so you could make a monkey have a gambling addiction by tweaking the chip one way and you can tweak it the other way and you can remove the addiction.
Now they're already saying of course this may have application for people.
But I would be more worried that we're weaponizing monkeys because I don't want a monkey with a chip in his head.
I mean that's We're talking trouble.
Because if the monkeys start coordinating and... I don't know.
I just don't like the idea of chips in a monkey's brain.
It just feels like that could go wrong.
Well, the Missouri Secretary of State has a clever thing to say.
So, the Missouri Secretary of State is opposed to attempts by Colorado and Maine to remove Trump from the ballot.
Obviously Missouri is a Republican kind of a state.
So if that happens, if Colorado and Maine take Trump off the ballot, then Missouri says they'll remove Biden from the Missouri ballot for giving aid to the invasion of our southern border.
To which I say, how in the world is that legal?
And then the second thing I say, oh I actually don't care.
I don't care if it's legal.
I'm glad they would do it.
Because obviously taking him off the Colorado and Maine ballots might be legal.
I doubt it.
It might be.
But it's so sketchy that if a Republican state did something that was just flat out illegal, I would only care if they got away with it.
Generally, I'm pretty much in favor of law and order.
But, you know, if you're trying to right a wrong, yes, two wrongs would make Well, two wrongs wouldn't make it right, but one of the wrongs might compensate for the other wrong.
Wouldn't make it right, but it might get you to a better place.
So I'm fully, fully supportive of threatening to take Biden off the ballot.
And I think the invasion of the Southern border is perfectly legitimate because that would, that would suggest treasonous behavior.
And if treasonous behavior, Let's talk about 2024.
say, insurrection in particular, is the reason for taking Trump off the ballot.
And it doesn't have to be proven in the court.
So they don't require a court to say it's treason.
Just the judge can say, yeah, it looks treasonous, you know, in my opinion, without evidence.
So I'm going to say it is.
Sure, if that's the standard, then Missouri can do it too.
All right, let's talk about 2024.
I'm going to give you my prediction for the first time of the 2024 election outcome.
And I warn you, you're not going to like it.
You're not going to like it.
But let's look at Peter Zan's prediction.
I just watched that a moment ago.
And he says Trump can't win.
And the reason is that Republicans can only win if they're really unified.
And he's driven too many wedges in the Republicans.
So, you know, unless they're super unified, they can't win because they have fewer voters than Democrats.
I feel like that's a complete lack of understanding of Republicans.
Doesn't this feel like something that was said in 2016?
Trump is too divisive, the Republicans won't, he'll never get the religious conservatives.
And then once it became a contest between Hillary and Trump, suddenly all the Republicans said, oh crap, and they lined up and they voted for Trump.
Why wouldn't that happen again?
I feel like it's just going to happen again.
Trump will be divisive.
The primaries will, you know, suss out all that divisiveness among Republicans.
But once they have their candidate, whether it's Trump or anybody else, they're all going to line up.
And I think the independents are not really independents.
You know, they're people who always go one way.
You know, they just call themselves independent.
So I don't agree with Peter Zeehan's take on this at all.
I do agree that Trump has divided the Republican Party, but that's only going to last until they get to the front door.
As soon as they're walking through the election polling place, they're just Republicans.
That's my take.
Now, am I wrong?
Am I reading the room wrong?
Is Peter Zahn reading it right?
That the Republicans will sort of opt out or not vote because they're not pro-Trump?
Enough of them.
Yeah.
If he chose Haley as a VP, that might be a problem.
But I'm going to disagree with Peter Zan.
I think the Republicans will form up just the way they always do.
I don't think it'll be any different this time.
Rasmussen says that two-thirds of Democrats approve of keeping Trump off the ballot.
Two-thirds of Republicans approve of keeping Trump off the ballot.
And I'm pretty sure that most of them understand they're not doing it legally.
In other words, it's pretty obvious that the Supreme Court will reverse it.
So you can't really say that they're saying they agree with the law, because they probably know that it's not going to pass legal muster eventually.
But still, two-thirds of Democrats are in favor of it.
Now, you know what's scary about this?
If you reverse the parties, the exact topic You just changed Biden with Trump?
I'll bet two-thirds of Republicans would be in favor of keeping Biden off the ballot for similarly stupid reasons.
It's just people like to win.
I think people are just saying, well, what's it take to win?
All right, if that gets it done, it's so important, we'll do it.
But keep this in mind, how many Democrats are opposed to Trump even having a fair chance of running?
And where does that come from?
That doesn't come just from wanting their candidate to win.
That comes from being propagandized and brainwashed to thinking that Trump is literally a dictator.
And that, yeah, that he's Hillary.
And that, you know, that there's an existential risk.
That's how you get two-thirds of the people say he can't be on the ballot, even if he is legally allowed.
Let me ask you this, though.
Among Republicans...
Among Republicans, what percent of Republicans think it's perfectly fine if he's taken off the ballot?
That's right.
About a quarter.
73% disapprove of taking him off.
So 100 minus 73, you got your number.
Yep, it's always about a quarter of the people who are idiots.
And now I give you my prediction for 2024, the presidential election.
This will be the first time I've made this prediction.
My prediction is that when the votes are counted, we will not have a president.
Or we'll have two.
But we will not have a result.
And I don't mean that the result will be delayed.
I mean that the result will be thrown out.
And that the Supreme Court will order a do-over.
Whether it's the Supreme Court or we just decide to do it, but my prediction is this, that if you simply counted the votes, I think Trump would win.
But if you look at the number of people who would be willing to take him off the ballot, whether that's legal to do or not, if you look at the framing of him as, you know, Hitler, etc., you've created a situation where the Democrats have to rig the election.
They don't have a choice.
I would.
If I were a Democrat and I'd been brainwashed to think I could stop Hitler, I would rig the election.
In a heartbeat.
For you.
I'd do it for you.
I wouldn't even do it for myself.
I would literally risk my life, literally, I would risk my life to keep Hitler out of office.
And if I thought I could cheat, I had some chance of getting away with it, totally.
So there is a situation that guarantees Democrats have the incentive to cheat.
Now, do they have the ways?
Do they have a mechanism?
Is there any practical way Democrats could cheat?
Well, yes.
Yes, there is.
Now, is there a way to cheat massively and get away with it?
No.
That's the problem.
So the two things that would cause us to have an election with no president elected Would be these two things that are both guaranteed.
With current information, they're guaranteed.
Anything could change.
We're guaranteed that Trump is a better candidate than Biden.
And that if it were, you know, sprayed at those two, we don't know yet, because people are, a lot of smart people say, including me, that Biden might not make it to the end zone.
But, suppose he does.
Or, there's another candidate who doesn't poll any better.
And let's say that the polling clearly says that Trump is going to win.
And then he goes ahead and doesn't win.
If you saw that the polling said he was clearly going to win, but the results were ridiculous, and obviously rigged, I think that's where we're headed.
I think rigging is guaranteed because of the brainwashing and the priming up to this point.
It's guaranteed.
You can't not have rigging.
Under our current situation.
Does everybody agree with that?
There is no reasonable way you could have a fair election when one side that's running the election believes it's an existential threat to not just their own careers or lives or livelihood, but to the planet.
Remember, they believe that the planet will be destroyed.
The planet!
Like climate change and nuclear war, whatever, if Trump is elected.
They believe he will round people up and put them in prison camps.
Now that's just citizens.
That's just what the citizens have been brainwashed into thinking.
Imagine what you would think if you were a leading Democrat and you knew that either you had done some sketchy things that the Republicans might catch you for and jail you for, or you really did some sketchy things, And they're going to catch you.
So either they're going to accuse you of sketchy things, which is a big problem, or you did sketchy things and they're going to catch you, which is an even bigger problem.
So if you're a leader, given that all the things they're doing against Trump, and Trump is saying directly, you elect me and I'm going to get vengeance, I'm going to get revenge.
He's clearly stated, whether he does or not, I'm not sure he would do it, but he's clearly stated he's going to go to try to jail members of the Democratic Party.
Why?
Because they're trying to jail him.
So I think he's saying very clearly, if you're going to try to jail me, and you don't get me, I'm going to jail you if I can.
Now under those situations, do you think the leading Democrats will cause a rigged vote?
Of course.
I would.
You put me in that situation where I think the incoming president might try to put me in jail.
I would rig that fucking vote every fucking day.
I'd be rigging it up and down.
And I would have no hesitation whatsoever.
So here's the most likely thing, is that Trump would beat whoever he's running against, but the election will go the other way, and it will be so obviously rigged, like it'll be so anawak with what we expect, that the Supreme Court is going to say, you've got to do this again.
You just have to do it again.
There's no way this can stand.
Now, others have pointed out that, well, you know, in 2020, they didn't redo the election.
They just decided who won.
Not good enough this time.
Because if it really was just which votes do you count, you know, that's like a small question.
But if it's a, we think this entire thing was rigged, and by the way, we have proof.
If you have proof it was rigged.
I don't think the Supreme Court just gives it to the other person.
I think they're going to say, the only way to hold the country together is you just got to do this again.
And you got to look, you got to watch it a little more carefully and just do it again.
So my prediction is we will not pick a president in 2024 because we have designed a system that guarantees we won't.
Remember, design is destiny.
We have now designed our current system to guarantee That it will be rigged and guarantee that we'll notice it and guarantee that we have to throw away the election.
I think it's guaranteed.
The Supreme Court does not settle if no electoral vote majority Right, so yeah, process-wise, if there's no electoral Majority then he goes to the house, etc.
Well, I'm talking about in the situation where rigging is Obvious and it's shown in those situations.
I can't believe it goes to the house.
I think the Supreme Court would Insert itself and we'd probably want that to happen because I don't think you'd want a political I don't think you want a political solution to rigging.
I Think you need a legal remedy to rigging Because that's a crime.
If it were a political problem, then yes.
Take it to the house.
So that's my prediction.
My prediction is no result.
And do you think anybody else will make that prediction?
Do you think anybody else will make a result that on the coin flip it's going to land on the edge?
Because that's what I just did.
I just predicted that the coin flip is going to land on the edge and stay there.
Now, if I get this right, would you acknowledge that it's the most unlikely prediction of all time?
Because it's never happened.
It's never happened.
So for a coin flip to land on the edge is like a real, kind of a gutsy, or crazy, might be just crazy, goal.
All right, let me tell you what's going to happen in Gaza and the West Bank.
So the U.S.
wants a two-state solution.
The two states in this telling would be a combined Gaza and West Bank.
So the United States doesn't want Gaza to be its own country anymore.
I'm sure Israel doesn't either.
So the thought is that you combine the Palestinians into one entity.
And then the U.S.
is pushing That the Palestinians, you know, ideally somebody that can get along with Israel, run their own show, and that, you know, you move toward a solid two-state solution.
Now, that of course is crazy.
That could never happen.
So here's what could happen.
And by the way, I do agree with Lincoln and Biden talking in those terms.
Because they're talking in a term that the Palestinians might want to hear, as in, Oh yeah, we do want to have our own place and run things.
We'd like to take over Israel too, but at least you're not being crazy, saying that we would have a state, we would be in charge.
So politically, it's the right thing to say.
I would say the same thing.
But realistically, it can't happen, because Israel's going to need control.
Here's how you solve it.
I don't know if I've told you I have a long background in negotiating contracts and stuff.
And it's also something you learn in business school, negotiating.
So here's a little negotiating trick for you.
If you can't decide how to make something work today, you change the time frame.
Change the time frame.
That's one of the big variables that you can make people agree.
Because there's no way you'll get people to agree on day one.
There is no solution.
For the first year after the war is, let's say, done.
There is no way to agree.
So you either have permanent war or you agree to agree later.
So here's what I think is the only way they can go.
Make a 20-year plan for the fate of Gaza and the West Bank collectively.
So I do agree that it needs to be treated as one entity, not Gaza as one entity and the West Bank as a separate one.
I feel like that's maybe We'll be easy to make that happen.
I think they have to say on year one, Israel will have complete control over the West Bank and Gaza for police security and schools.
Now, whatever's happening in the West Bank now, you know, make some adjustments to that because if something is working in the West Bank, they probably keep it.
In other words, if the Palestinian police are doing a good job already, Maybe that's a stable situation.
You could extend to Gaza.
But, generally speaking, Israel would have the veto over anything security related.
Now, I think there's no way around that.
For the first year, Israel is going to have to have absolute security control as much as they can over the area.
I don't think that they would settle for anything less.
But, if they said our long-term goal is to fix the education system so we're not training a bunch of young people to be terrorists and to eventually work together productively until you're partners and then you can really let the Palestinian area be free or govern itself.
So you wait your 20 years with goals along the way that if there are no terrorist attacks or maybe they're limited Then you can say that the experiment succeeded, and in 20 years you've reprogrammed the kids to be peaceful and live together, and you've reduced the number of terror attacks to small or nothing, and then you say, all right, let's rethink this.
20 years has gone by.
I think you guys can run your own country.
We'll save some money, because we don't need to be your security.
We'll just save some money, and let's live in peace and be friends.
I suppose that could happen, but here's what more likely would happen.
At the end of 20 years, it would look exactly the same.
And then the Israelis say, well, I guess no change.
I guess you can't run your own place because nothing changed.
Kids are still being brainwashed, despite our best efforts.
We're still getting terror attacks every day, despite having full security control.
So it'd be worse if we didn't.
So we got to keep it.
So you've got to tell the Palestinians that you have a plan for their independence.
Not a plan to own Israel, but a plan for the West Bank and Gaza.
You have to tell them there's a plan, and you have to let them try to achieve it.
As in, if you can tamp down your terrorism, we will give you all these concessions, etc.
So, the best case scenario is for Israel to give the Palestinians everything they asked for, but not for 20 years.
And then watch them fail for 20 years, and then do whatever you want at that point, because you would have full security control.
So the Israelis can make a fake deal, say, yeah, if we can live together for 20 years and improve that whole time, then we're better off if you run your own place.
We don't want to be there anyway.
And that's a story that I think you could sell.
Because they could always sell, well, we could stop doing some terrorism.
I think we could work that out in 20 years.
So 20 years is long enough that nobody thinks they'll be in the same job.
So nobody thinks that they'll be responsible for the outcomes.
So they can agree to things, because they won't have to pay the price if it doesn't work.
So I think you're going to have to give the Palestinians something that's real, in terms of if they did meet these challenges, they could have their own government and their own state.
They'd still be unhappy that they don't conquer Israel, but you can work it out.
So I think that's the only way it can go.
No matter what we talk about until then, it's going to have to be a multi-year plan.
It's going to have to start with Israel having full control of everything they can control.
And there has to be some kind of metric or goal or sub-goal to change that situation over time.
Or else everybody will be permanently unhappy.
So there is no good solution.
But the fake solution is probably the only one they can do.
So I would go for a fake piece with a 20-year plan.
Meanwhile, Israel is picking off Hezbollah leaders.
They've got a couple of them in Lebanon.
And you might say to yourself, but Scott, does this not mean that Israel is going to open another front and Hezbollah is going to be storming over the border and attacking Israel?
And the answer is, apparently not.
So here's the main thing you need to know about Hezbollah.
They have tens of thousands of missiles, but they don't have an offensive army besides the missiles.
In other words, they're not really even organized as like a proper military that could invade a country.
So Hezbollah is probably not going to rush across the border and start attacking.
It would be a bad idea because if they did, then Israel would turn all of their guns on Hezbollah when they're done with Gaza.
They would wipe them out because they would have to.
They would have enough support to do it.
So Hezbollah could end its existence if they attacked.
But on the other hand, they have to keep doing little missile attacks to look like they're still in business, right?
Because their own supporters need them to do something.
So Israel has apparently cleverly deduced that if they Keep their killings to just their leaders, and Hezbollah keeps their terrorism to just missiles, that that's a stable situation.
It's terrible, but it's stable.
And I think both Hezbollah and Israel would be okay with, you know, Hezbollah would be okay if they could send some missiles now and then, and Israel would be okay if they could kill some leaders now and then.
But neither of them have any interest in a ground war.
So I think ground war is kind of unlikely.
Partly because Hezbollah doesn't have that capability.
All right, Vivek had warned that he might surprise in Iowa, in the caucuses, and we were wondering why does he think that?
Because the polling does not show that.
But there are a couple things going on that look good.
One is he's done 239 events Which is more than the other three combined.
So if you take Trump, DeSantis, and Haley, all of their events combined in Iowa are 174, but Vivek by himself has done 239.
Now he's also focusing on colleges and young people, including free beer.
He's got like a free beer thing where if the college kids come and listen to him, he'll pay for their beer tab.
So that's fun.
So he does seem to have a strong following among the young, who are less likely to get out in caucus, but maybe this time you can get him to do it.
I think the worse the weather is, the less the young people are going to come out.
But, so can Vivek surprise?
Can he surprise by doing more events?
And by, apparently most of his supporters are male.
No surprise there.
Most of his supporters are young and male, at least at the colleges.
They're mostly male.
No surprise.
But, as I've said many times, if America is to be saved, who's gonna do it?
You know who, right?
It's gonna be the same people who do it every time.
If America is to be saved, it'll be young men.
Young men We'll say, fuck this, and they'll just start overturning all the tables.
You can always depend on young men to break anything that needs to get broken.
If you want to fix something or you want to build something, you know, not every young man is good at that.
You know, some Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are, but generally your average young man is better breaking.
But if you need, if you've got a system that's not working and you need it broken, All the young people.
Get your Hamiltons and your Jeffersons on the younger side.
So I do think that maybe Vivek may have a secret hidden card here, which is a lot of young men, if he can get them mobilized.
The mobilizing them is the hard part, but they seem to like him.
Whether they show up in caucus is a separate question.
But we'll see.
So, that, ladies and gentlemen, is my excellent live stream for today.
I don't think anybody will match my presidential prediction, but there it is.
And I'm seeing indications that Trump is going to flat out win the Hispanic vote.
Do you think so?
Do you believe the polling?
This says that Trump would not just do better than normal, but would flat out win the Hispanic vote?
I'm going to say I don't believe that.
I don't believe that.
But I think he'll do better than people expect.
And what about the black vote?
The polls are showing that he would still lose the black vote, but he would close the gap more than any Republican ever closed the gap.
That part I believe.
I do believe he's going to have the best black support of any Republican.
Yeah, of black men.
Right.
I think black women will be solidly Biden.
Oh, okay.
I'm good.
Do you think that Trump will win more than half of black men?
I don't know about that.
I'm not sure I would make that bet, but he'll do better than people expect.
All right, yeah, I believe, well, men in general don't like weak men.
Women in general usually don't like weak men unless they're afraid of the strong ones.
I think Trump is scary by his persona.
All right, oh yeah, so this is funny.
So cartoonist Ben Garrison, who's my nemesis, he started with his cartoons, he started a bunch of fake news about me and vaccines.
But he didn't know it.
I don't think he knew it.
But he used the Dementia Hitler meme that I created and made a cartoon around it.
And I think then people immediately said, hey, you're using Scott Adams's meme in your cartoon, which is funny.
All right.
Fannie Willis is the poor woman's cobble hairs.
Yeah, Greg Gutfeld mentioned Dementia Hitler yesterday on the show.
So, it's not trending, but I think we can get it trending again.
Alright, thanks for joining everybody on YouTube and Rumble and X-Platform.
