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, WEF, Iowa Caucus, President Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Governor DeSantis, Joy Reid's Trump Wig, Rachael Maddow, MSNBC Propaganda, President Biden, MAGA Extremists, Hunter's Art Buyers, Democrat-Driven Lawfare, Disinformation Standards, Fani Willis Allegations, Bill Ackman, Dean Phillips, Vanguard's DEI, Claudine Gay, 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.
I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
And today we've got the Iowa results and all kinds of stuff.
You're gonna love it.
You're gonna love it.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that only Iowa could understand, all you need for that is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tankard, a chalice, a styne, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go, go.
So good, so good.
While you still have your beverage, would you join me in a toast to Vivek Ramaswamy for, in my opinion, the best campaign anybody ever run.
Honestly, the best campaign I've ever seen.
He was flawless.
He was flawless in battle, and he was flawless in defeat.
And he appears to be, so far, flawless and he's after defeat.
Although, is it a defeat?
Is it a defeat?
Or is it a step up for 2028?
Anyway, thanks for the great work, the contribution to the thought, just showing us how it can be done.
Just showing the right way to do everything, really.
So to you, Vivek, sincerely appreciate it.
But you know, there was another winner last night.
Thank you.
We're going to talk about it.
But first, while you're all pouring in here to watch this exciting live stream, and of course we're mostly going to be talking about Iowa and what's going on there, but I thought I'd give you a little palate cleanser.
How would you like to find a way to destroy the World Economic Forum and the Davos meeting?
You think I can do it?
You ready?
All right, here's a little news story.
It's all you need to know to destroy the World Economic Forum.
This is reported on X by Mario Noffel, who says that this year's WEF meeting at Davos appears to be heading in the usual direction of a drug-fueled bunga-bunga sex party.
Local Escort Service website officially announced all local service providers are completely booked during the WEF week, and sometimes in both holes.
They didn't say that, but it feels like they should have.
The WEF's 2024 theme is, quote, rebuilding trust.
All right.
How would you like to end the WEF?
Here's how you do it.
So, a lot of you guys have spouses?
Have your spouses ever heard a description of your business meeting?
If your spouse is going to an international business meeting, which can be accurately described As a, quote, drug-fueled bunga bunga sex party, maybe you're not going next year, Jamie Dimon.
Maybe you're not going next year.
I'm not wrong.
That's all it would take to end the WEF.
All you have to do is tell their spouses what's going on.
Because even if the, you know, their particular spouse, they're pretty sure they're not involved.
Do you still want to have to explain why your husband's over there?
So, where's your husband?
He's on a trip.
Really?
A trip?
That sounds interesting.
Where's he going?
He's just overseas a little bit.
What did you say?
What's the name of the place he's going to?
What?
I can't hear you.
Davos.
Davos?
Where have I heard that before?
Isn't that where the World Economic Forum goes to have their drug-fueled bonga bonga parties?
Yes.
But your husband's not involved in any of that, right?
I don't think so.
So if you want to take care of that, there's your path.
Well, as you know, Trump had a solid victory in the Iowa caucuses.
And broke some records.
He got 51% rounding off.
It's the highest in the history of the Iowa Republican Caucus, excluding the non-competitive years.
Non-competitive years when he's not running against anybody in his own party.
Trump got 51%.
He won every county in Iowa.
So, that's not bad.
How'd you do?
It was alright.
I won every county in Iowa.
Every county.
Now, do you think this scared the people on MSNBC and CNN?
A little bit.
We'll talk about that.
Yeah.
So let's see what else happened.
So DeSantis got 21 percent.
I'm rounding off everything.
DeSantis, 21 percent.
Haley, 19.
And Vivek, 8.
So Vivek has conceded and he He says he did not achieve his stated goal of surprising on the upside.
In fact, it was as if he had not even campaigned, honestly.
So the bad news is that doing an amazing campaign doesn't make any difference in Iowa.
I mean, no difference at all.
Apparently they'd made up their minds.
So yeah, it doesn't matter the quality of your campaign.
As MSNBC has pointed out, and I will point out as well, It's kind of interesting that the IOWA results were in the exact order of whiteness.
Now, I'm not going to say that's why the Iowans picked who they did, because there are lots of variables here, but it did come out in the exact order of how white they are, if you know what I mean.
So, I'm not sure that race is any part of this.
You know, if we're going to be honest, There was probably a racial dimension.
And I think a lot of people believed, this is what I heard, a lot of people believed that Vivek was Muslim.
Now, I never even heard that.
But, you know, the people get confused with Hindu and Muslim and, you know, not everybody's fully versed in the world of religions.
So I think that worried them.
I think they were worried that, you know, maybe he wasn't as Christian as they are.
And I think that might have been a small part of the equation, unfortunately.
But I think even more, a bigger part of the equation is they just love Trump.
Can we agree on that?
I don't think it was a rejection of DeSantis.
It was not a rejection of Haley, and it was not a rejection of Vivek.
It's just they really, really, really like Trump.
They really like him a lot.
And they want their revenge.
And they want their safety, and they want their fighter who's going to put it all on the line.
So I do not begrudge them their choice whatsoever.
I think the fine people of Iowa chose well.
Good job, Iowa.
Good job, Iowa.
They have, however, found a way to throw a match on the biggest pile of gasoline we've ever seen in our lifetimes.
So things are going to get real interesting.
But I'm here for it.
Well, so Vivek says he's suspending his campaign.
Is that the same thing as ending a campaign?
Is suspending a campaign just simply what people always say?
You know, just in case?
There might be some legal technicalities to why you say it that way.
But I don't think we can ignore that the election is a long way away and Trump has a whole bunch of risks.
So I do think that the reason that DeSantis and Nikki Haley are still in the race is because they'd like to just hang around a little bit longer to be the backup emergency spare.
Now, Vivek, by immediately ending his campaign, by the way, was that the perfect time to end it?
Can you agree with me that the way Vivek played it was perfect?
It was perfect.
It was the exact situation.
It was the exact time to do it.
Waiting would have been a bad look.
Very bad look.
Do it right away.
Do it decisively.
Do it clearly and cleanly.
Say what you're going to do, which you did.
He's going to help Trump.
And perfect.
I could not be happier sharing a country with Vivek.
With that kind of performance.
But here's the thing that I don't think anybody has quite figured out yet.
Do you think the Democrats have figured out that they just weaponized Vivek?
Vivek talking on behalf of Vivek is pretty powerful stuff.
Do you know what they just did?
They just combined the two strongest forces possibly in the history of the Republican Party.
The strongest force of nature with the smartest politician we've ever seen.
And they're on the same side.
Completely.
Did they see that coming?
I don't think people see this coming.
I think the thing that Vivek can add is he'll go on the show that won't invite Trump.
You see the danger here?
Because the CNNs and the MSNBCs are going to be hungry for content, but they can't really invite Trump.
And they don't like to bring his lying pundits on, because they don't like lying pundits, according to them, what they determine to be a lie.
But you know what Vivek doesn't do?
He doesn't lie.
Vivek has found a way to tell the Republican narrative Without the need for any lies, because there was never a need for any lies.
It was never necessary.
He was just the one smart enough to figure out it wasn't necessary to lie.
You could do the whole story without any lies.
The hyperbole certainly helps when you're persuading, but you don't need it.
It wasn't essential.
He showed you that.
So this allows a way for the Trump-type message, which I would argue, I'm going to agree with Trump.
It's not his message.
He's basically trying to capture, you know, the American core feeling and, you know, and try to expand it, I guess.
But you put Vivek on MSNBC, that's going to be fun stuff.
And I don't think they can not invite him because they can't say he's lying.
Am I right?
Have you ever heard them say that?
Has NBC or CNN ever accused him of lying?
They have not.
And now they've established that the reason for not letting Trump on, we'll talk about that in a minute, is that they don't want to show his lies.
What are you going to say about the vague?
Yeah, they got a lot of airtime to fill.
I think Vivek's going to be busy.
In my view, the only cure for Trump is Vivek.
He's the only cure for TDS.
Because he can give it to you the way that won't make you flip out when you hear it.
This really changes everything.
This changes everything.
And I don't know that the Democrats see what's coming yet.
Because I don't think anybody in the Democrat Party Has really followed Vivek.
I mean, a lot of Republicans didn't, which is part of the problem.
They have no idea what's coming.
And this is going to be fun.
All right.
And how did Trump take it when Vivek gracefully conceded?
He immediately truth back.
Thank you, Vivek.
A great honor.
Did anybody have any concern that they wouldn't be good friends when this was over?
I mean, at least in terms of being on the same side.
No.
You know why?
Because that's where they are.
Trump is a fighter, and then when you join his side, you're done fighting.
That's it.
There's no grudge.
Now you're done fighting.
Now we move on.
And they're both that person.
Now they're done fighting.
So, good for them.
That's how to show it.
Adam Townsend, who is backing Vivek, Had this comment today.
He said, if you didn't learn something about yourself from watching Vivek these past few weeks, I don't know what to tell you.
Yeah.
And then he says, something I learned, that there's a whole new level to engaging people with strongly differing viewpoints.
Vivek showed you that it is actually possible to talk to people with wildly different viewpoints.
And as small as that sounds, it's everything.
It's everything.
It's the part that was missing.
And it's because the news has made it almost impossible to just tell the truth and get away with it.
But he showed you how to do it.
It's just, this is just really, the vacuum of losing is one of the best things that's happened to America.
It's kind of a weird irony.
All right, let's talk about Nikki Haley.
So she, she came in third place and a little bit after DeSantis.
And then, so her summary is, tonight Iowa made the Republican primary a two-person race.
Hold on.
So this is Trump, DeSantis.
She's got the Nikki Haley.
So, I don't know.
You know what, who could help her with the math?
LeVake.
Yeah, but hey, he's pretty good at math.
He could help with that.
Yeah, no, you came in third.
You came in third.
All right, but kidding aside, joking aside, her point, if I understand it correctly, let's see if I understand, her point would be that DeSantis is too much of a Trump-lite So DeSantis and Trump, you can almost think of as like one person.
So she's the alternative and now she's, you know, strong second.
Which is not a bad point.
I mean, maybe she can set it better.
But I see Mike Cernovich, who had been backing DeSantis early, but then switched to Vivek, who's wondering why DeSantis has not announced.
But in DeSantis' favor, I don't know that you can finish second and drop out, can you?
In a four-person race?
Because, you know, where do Vivek's votes go?
I guess you wait till you find out, right?
I mean, if he picked up something from Vivek, maybe he gets a little closer to New Hampshire.
Maybe Nikki Haley is going to take New Hampshire, and then that makes DeSantis seem a little less relevant.
But I agree with Mike Cernovich that why DeSantis hangs on needs to be explained.
Because it looks suspicious.
Now there could be a legitimate reason.
That he's just staying around to make sure that there's a backup plan.
He thinks he's the backup plan.
America would be better off if there is a backup plan.
Because I think we can all just say it directly.
There has to be a backup plan.
Right?
We can just say that out loud now, right?
There has to be a backup plan.
Because the Democrats have made it very clear that the level of threat they're putting on candidate Trump is something we've never seen before.
This will be like other things.
So, yeah.
And having Vivek inside the Trump tent, who I call the Sword of Truth, I'm hoping that catches on.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the Sword of Truth.
I don't think the Democrats want to have a strong DeSantis, a strong Vivek, just waiting around for the word, in case it comes.
The Scimitar of Truth.
Damn you, that's better.
Sorry, we're redoing it.
It's now the Scimitar of Truth.
Is scimitar more of an Arabian word?
Yeah, scimitar.
Maybe we go back to sword.
We'll Americanize it.
Yeah, we'd better go back to sword.
Sword of truth.
Although, to be fair, scimitar is an excellent word.
It just doesn't fit here.
All right.
Anyway, Nikki Haley saying that her third place finish makes it a two-person race probably works for young people because they can't do math either, so she's got that working for her.
Glenn Greenwald says this, the massive and historic size of Trump's victory should lead to some self-reflection about what caused the complete collapse of faith and the legitimacy of U.S.
institutions of authority and justice, whereby voters so easily disregard Four felony cases as irrelevant, if not an asset.
Well, Glenn, so I almost always agree with Glenn Greenwald's stakes, but not this time.
Glenn, there isn't going to be any self-reflection.
Where have you been?
Now, I know it's more of a hopeful thing.
He's not predicting there will be self-reflection, which would be crazy.
It was more of a, gosh, I hope we get some.
But we're not going to get any self-reflection, because the problem was never that the data or the arguments were wrong.
It was never that.
This is a medical problem.
You can't fix a medical problem by self-reflection.
Oh, I've got some cancer, but a little self-reflection ought to take care of it.
No, it's the wrong tool.
Self-reflection will not help you with TDS.
This is full-blown mass hysteria.
Mass hysteria is a mental health problem.
Like, really, no hyperbole.
It's a mental health emergency, I would say.
And you can't fix it with better data.
Better data doesn't help anybody's health.
You'd have to literally deprogram.
And the funny thing is that the people who are most worried don't realize that they are the problem.
They're actually the ones creating the mental health problem, but they don't know it.
They think that they're victims of something and not the perpetrators.
So if you can't tell the difference between the victim and the perpetrator, It's very unlikely that you're going to be working on some kind of a solution.
Now, how crazy are things?
Well, let me tell you how crazy.
Things are so crazy in the full-out mass hysteria that Joy Reid, MSNBC's one of the biggest anti-Trumpers, is literally wearing a Trump wig To say that Trump is a bad person.
Right?
She's literally dressing like him.
Now, I was thinking, I would like to get one of these Trump wigs.
So that every time Trump wins another primary, you can wear it the next day.
Like the next morning, I'll just be wearing my Trump wig to talk about, you know, New Hampshire.
I'm not wrong.
You tell me that's a coincidence.
You tell me that that's a coincidence.
That is not a coincidence.
Now, did she plan it?
No.
Did whoever did her hair, were they thinking, I'm going to make you look like Trump?
No, no.
It's not a coincidence, right?
This is a picture of the sort of the mass hysteria going physical.
This is somebody who's so, Trump is so in her head, That he's on her head.
God, I like that so much, I'm going to say it twice.
Pretend you didn't see it the first time.
Get ready.
Trump is so far in her head that he's on her head.
Wasn't that better?
The second time.
Much better the second time.
All right, well, that's happening.
So Glenn, you're a superstar, Glenn Greenwald, but no, I wouldn't be waiting for the self-reflection to handle it.
All right, well, CNN and MSNBC, if you didn't watch the coverage from either of those networks, you missed the best show.
You missed the best show.
Because watching the TDS coverage of Trump destroying the field in Iowa, It was really fun.
Because I do watch it like it's a mental health show.
Like it's just people just acting out and suffering.
I don't really see it as news or anything even in that sort of general category.
It's pure entertainment watching people suffering who kind of deserve it.
Because, God, do they deserve it.
All right.
So what happened was MSNBC last night, when Trump got on to do his victory speech, they decided to not show it.
And Rachel Maddow said that she explained why NBC and other mainstream networks are not going to show it.
Because they say the caucus goers believe the lies, but they don't want to be basically playing his lies.
That's right.
The news is going to decide that there was this one candidate who lies.
Let me check the record.
Let's see, the political record of every candidate in the history of the United States.
Let's see, AI, what can you tell me?
I'm doing my research, doing my research.
Well, there's an awkward problem here.
It turns out that 100% of all candidates lied except for Vivek, who's out of the race.
So how do we handle that?
So I guess MSNBC has gone to the ultimate level of censoring.
They're going to tell you who's lying and then not let you see them.
And they call that the news.
How does MSNBC survive the political season?
Because they've gone so far into the ridiculous.
I mean, they're just a farce at this point.
It's just ridiculous.
I feel like in the past they did a good job of pretending they were like news when they clearly weren't.
But now they stop pretending.
They're just going to give up on all the pretending.
And they're just going to say, we can't talk to you about the other side.
Because we don't want you to know what they're thinking.
And again, this is the problem that Vivek might slice through, because he can break through that.
All right, Jake Tapper said that they would talk over Trump because, as he said, you can hear him repeating his anti-immigrant rhetoric.
His anti-immigrant rhetoric?
Anti-immigrant?
Hmm.
I wonder where else we say things are, you know, like anti.
When do you say you're pro-something and when do you say you're anti-something?
Because I thought Trump was pro-law and order, pro-American legal citizens.
I didn't realize he was anti-something.
Oh, he's against something.
That's a funny way to say it.
So he's really, really for Americans.
And the way you'd say that is he's anti-immigrant.
I don't believe that he's ever called himself anti-immigrant.
I believe he's anti-crime.
I believe he's anti-unenforced borders.
I believe he's anti-chaos at the border with enormous terrorism risks.
And Jake Tapper, who is anything but a real news person, says that's anti-immigrant.
Well, I also don't like the way he talks about immigrants.
So I would agree with him that his choice of words, not optimal.
And that's something Vivek can get right.
But no, he's not anti-immigrant.
To say he's anti-immigrant is just crazy shit.
All right.
Of course, there'll be lots of discussions about whether 2020 was a stolen election.
That will never go away.
But Laura Loomer is reporting that CNN said that ahead of the Iowa Caucus there was a poll.
Do you think Biden legitimately won in 2020?
And CNN was forced to report on CNN's own network that when polled, Iowans said by a majority of 68% No.
68% have been watching their fucking bullshit coverage for five years and just said, nope.
Nope.
68%.
That's just in Iowa.
And that's probably just the Republicans because it's the Iowa caucus.
So, I mean, that's high for anything, but not as high if you consider that it's Republicans going to a caucus.
All right, but here's my recommendation.
I believe it is not the high ground, and you need the high ground, it is not the high ground to say the 2020 election was stolen.
That's not the high ground.
Here's the high ground.
We have a system that is designed so you can't tell.
That's the high ground.
If you want to sound crazy, say you know it was fixed, and you can't prove it.
Well, then you look like crazy.
Doesn't mean you're wrong.
Doesn't mean you're wrong, but you would look crazy if you claim with certainty that it was rigged, and then somebody says, all right, show your evidence.
And you go, ah, ah, but some things are brewing.
So it doesn't really work.
As an argument.
Except on your own side, basically.
Here's the argument that can work.
It's designed, designed by intention, so you can't tell if it was rigged or not.
Now that's the argument you want to get the other side into.
That it's designed so you can't tell who won.
You want some evidence of that?
Now you're saying to me, but Scott, you're getting yourself right back into another situation where you don't have any evidence for your claim.
Don't I?
Don't I?
Well, let's see if there's any recent news.
Yes, was it Virginia just found that there were thousands and thousands of votes that were not counted?
Now it turns out that if they had been counted, it would have been good for Trump.
No, it would have been good for Biden.
Trump actually got over counted.
There were actually, in Virginia, there were like 4,000 too many votes for Trump.
Now, it's 2024, and we just learned that the count in Virginia was off by thousands of votes.
So the very least we can say for sure is that you can't tell if your result is accurate within thousands of votes for five years.
That's a fact, right?
They could not tell, in Virginia, if they had an accurate count for five years.
And then when they found out, they found out they didn't.
Now, 8,000 votes wasn't much.
You know, the margin was like 450,000 votes.
But the point is about the system.
The point is not any specific outcome.
The point is, if you believe that anybody could look at our election and know it was safe, that's not a thing.
There's nothing built into the system that is a safeguard to tell you that you'd even counted all the votes.
Just think about this.
There's nothing about the system that tells you when you're done counting that you have counted all the votes.
Just think about that problem.
The most basic thing.
Did you count all the votes?
We don't have a mechanism to know that.
Yeah, or did you undercount the votes or did you count them wrong?
We have no mechanism to know any of that.
So to imagine that the real question is that a certain election was rigged, you're in the weeds.
You're in the weeds and there's no place to go except talking to your own side.
Which is good, but it's not going to convince the others.
If you want to convince the other team, you say, you realize that we're still finding votes five years later.
Which proves they didn't know that they were lost when the election was certified.
Which proves we don't have a system that can even tell you if we got all the votes and counted them.
That's pretty basic.
Pretty basic.
Do you think that the people who do all paper ballots don't have a way to know that all the pieces of paper that were put in the box were counted?
Yeah, they do.
There's somebody who watches it, you put it in the box, and then there's a bunch of people who watch you count it more than once.
Yes, in other places, they absolutely know that every person who came in with a piece of paper that was a vote was actually counted.
But we can't.
We don't have that system.
All right.
And of course, Joe Biden came out with his divisive MAGA extremist statement.
So Biden said, looks like Donald Trump just won Iowa.
He's a clear front runner, blah, blah.
But here's the thing.
This election was always going to be you and me versus the extreme MAGA Republicans.
Can you tell us who the extreme MAGA Republicans are?
Joe Biden?
I think the news needs to ask him for names.
Because if you can't name them, You're talking about the voters.
Are you not?
If he's talking about Stephen Miller being too close to Trump, say it.
Say his name.
And then we will decide if that's a reasonable statement.
Do we think this person or that person is too extreme?
Well, honestly, I thought Stephen Miller was a little bit extreme in 2016.
He's not extreme now.
He's definitely not extreme now, because his immigration policies are the exact ones we need, which are to completely reverse all the way back to where it was when Trump was first in office.
So, can you name the extremists?
And then if you can name the extremists, can you name the extreme policy?
Was the extreme policy the one that treated our borders like every other country that is our ally?
Well, I guess they're not doing so well in Europe.
But you know the point.
Is the extremist just securing your border?
Is that it?
Is it that the Supreme Court moved the abortion question closer to the people and to the states?
Is that the extremism?
Letting the people have more say locally?
What exactly was the extremism?
Is it they don't like his tax policies?
Is that extreme?
Yeah, somebody needs to nail down the people saying that they're MAGA extremists and say, can you be more specific?
Either give us their names, or if what you're saying is it's like all the people in the movement, just say it.
Say what you mean.
Tell us the truth for once.
All right.
In my view, that might be one of the worst messages I've ever heard in the history of the Republic.
Because there are not many examples where the leader of your country stands in front of you and says the problem with our country is this group of you.
You know who does that?
China and the Uyghurs.
Right.
So basically Joe Biden is trying to treat the MAGA people like the Uyghurs.
And that's okay?
Yeah.
Yeah, I don't want to use the H word because it's too overused.
So I'll go with China and the Uyghurs just for now.
Yeah, basically wants to treat them like some kind of despicable minority.
Well, one thing that is clear, let me give you the theme for the coming months.
Democrats will continue to look at people and Republicans will continue to look at policy.
And every time you see it, remind yourself that it's happening.
Because only one of them is legitimate.
If you're talking about policy, you're in the right conversation.
Even if your policy is wrong.
But, if you're saying the real problem is extreme MAGA Republicans, what did you say about the policy?
It's about the people.
You're basically saying, hate these people.
I've never seen anybody promote hate of the population when you're trying to be the leader of it, except Hitler, of course.
And of course, China with the Uyghurs.
So I think we should just call Joe Biden a racist every time he says something about MAGA extremists and anything about DEI and anything about ESG and CRT and all those other racist things.
I think Biden just has to be called a racist.
Because to imagine it's anything else is just crazy.
I mean, you might be a brainwashed, blackmailed racist, but it's still the same effect.
All right.
Here's a little Hunter Biden update, just for fun.
Remember where Hunter was going to have an art gallery?
But don't worry that he's laundering any money or selling favors, because he won't even know who bought the art.
And there'll be like a wall between the art gallery and any politics.
Well, none of that was true.
The art gallery guy says that Hunter would routinely ask him the names of the buyers and you tell him.
And that Hunter is the only person who made art who asked for the names of the buyers.
The regular artists that this gallery handles sell the artist's work, but they don't tell them the name of the buyer.
Because that would be sort of a privacy issue.
Now, is there anything to worry about about the buyers?
Oh, yeah.
The buyers are exactly who you thought they would be.
They are in fact big Democrat donors and people who want Democrat favors and got them.
It's exactly what it looked like.
And it gets better.
The art gallery guy has talked to President Biden.
Not Hunter, President Biden, twice.
Once in the White House at some event, he chatted with the President.
And once President Biden called the art gallery guy personally to say some congratulations or something that his daughter did.
So, no, Joe Biden did not say to the art gallery guy, hey, good work helping my son launder money.
But when the President of the United States Calls you at work?
That has an impact.
That has an effect.
So it's exactly what you thought it was.
The art gallery was exactly what it was.
The only question I have is whether Hunter is actually making the paintings.
Now I have conflicting evidence of that.
One is I've never seen him paint except the one where it was like blowing something through a straw, where normally he's snorting it through a straw.
And so anybody could blow through a straw.
So that wasn't really an example of art.
I want to see him actually make one of those paintings that are impressive, because the artwork is actually very good.
I want to see him make one of those.
But I have heard Through indirect means that he actually does stand in front of an easel and does actually paint.
So maybe I'm wrong, which would be fun.
I would love to know that Hunter Biden was a world class artist.
I would love to know that.
That would be just fun.
I'd be completely supportive of his artistic endeavors, although the money laundering is still obviously an issue.
But I don't know if he makes these paintings or not.
I'm just kind of curious.
One way or the other.
All right.
CBS News says, according to our entrance poll, most Iowa GOP caucus goers.
I love that word.
You don't see it much.
You don't get to use that the rest of the year.
I'm going to say caucus goer as often as possible today.
Hey, all you caucus goers.
Or you caucus growers.
All right.
But anyway, according to CBS News, the 6 in 10 people who are Iowa caucus goers, the GOP types, 6 in 10 said they would vote for Trump even if he's convicted of a crime.
What do the anti-Trump people say when they find out that 6 out of 10 Republicans will vote for him even if he's convicted of a crime?
It's a cult.
It's a personality cult.
They must not read the news.
They don't know the facts.
Is there any hypothesis that CBS News and the others are leaving out?
Could there be any other explanation Why?
Why?
Why would so many Republicans be willing to ignore an actual felony conviction?
I can't think of anything.
Can you think of anything?
Oh wait, I've got something.
I just thought of it.
And I posted this back to CBS.
I said that Maybe it's because most Iowa GOP caucus goers know the Democrat-driven lawfare against Trump is bullshit, and so they plan to shove that bullshit down the fucking throats of the media liars and watch them choke and die on it.
Maybe.
Maybe?
Possible?
Am I anywhere near the zip code?
Am I getting close?
No.
Yes, no, that's what it is.
In case you're confused, CBS, let me say it again.
Maybe, like every one of the other Republicans, they think the lawfare is bullshit, they think it's media-driven, and they want to shove it down your fucking throats and watch you choke on it.
That's what I want.
That's what I want.
I want to watch Trump shove it down their fucking throats and watch them choke on it.
No real violence.
In case you're confused.
No, no real violence.
We're talking in the figurative sense.
Shove the bullshit down your throats.
So, that's the game I'm in.
That's the game I'll be playing.
The shove it down your throats game.
Let's see.
How many ways do you think the pro-Democrat news will find to describe dementia Without calling it dementia.
Well, here's the latest entry from Axios, who is, as you know, not really a legitimate news source, more like a Democrat organ at this point.
They report in a post, lots of high-level Democrats are warning that President Biden and his re-election team are too complacent and unimaginative about the threat of losing to Donald Trump.
They're complacent and they're unimaginative.
What would be another word for that?
Let's say you're really old.
You're the president.
You're very, very old.
Your brain's not working like it used to.
And indeed, you can see little differences.
And maybe you're not as vigorous and active.
Maybe you're a little more complacent.
And what if your brain isn't so good anymore that it could think of new and original ways to do things?
What would that be called?
Unimaginative.
What kind of a brain would be complacent and unimaginative?
Well, I can't think of a thing.
Dementia healer.
We've got a new standard for disinformation, or we should.
The WEF was talking about the big old risk of disinformation, and the news is telling us about the risk of disinformation, and lots of important people are telling us about the risk of disinformation.
I have a standard which I would like to promote.
A standard for what is disinformation and what is not.
You ready?
You'll like it.
Because if we just say, hey, I think this is true, What does the other side say?
No, it's not.
And then the other side says, but this is true.
And then what does the other side say?
No, it's not.
So that's our current system.
How's that working out for everybody?
No, it's not.
It's not working out at all.
So, I propose the following standard.
Misinformation and disinformation.
I'll put them together.
The mis-disinformation.
Is defined as any point of view which will not tolerate somebody sitting next to you debating it politely.
Let that sink in.
Misinformation is any information that is presented without the counterpoint.
And I mean a legitimate counterpoint.
A polite person who's not talking over you, who's simply sitting there and presenting the other side, And of course you would have the chance to speak back.
It's always disinformation if you're seeing one side.
So when the WEF officials, I just saw a video, were up there complaining about disinformation, they were disinformation.
Because there should have been somebody sitting right next to him saying, it's not disinformation, it's a different opinion.
You just think it's wrong.
Now, if that person had been sitting there showing the counterpoint, I would say, well, there's some information for me.
There's a person who has this point of view.
There's another person who has another point of view.
I can compare them.
That's called information.
What's it called if only one of them is on the stage?
Fucking bullshit disinformation.
Every time.
It might be true sometimes, but that would be like a weird situation.
No.
One person talking, Without the benefit of a counterpoint, is disinformation.
By definition, right?
Because everybody's lying in politics.
Except for Vivek.
If it's not Vivek, or, you know, Thomas Massey, you know, maybe you could add, you know, Paul Rand Paul and a few others.
But basically, if it's somebody in the news or a pundit or somebody running for office, usually, usually it's not true.
In some way.
So, I would use the same standard whether it's a Republican or a Democrat.
If it's one person talking, of course it's disinformation.
Now, if it's one person giving a campaign speech, we all kind of put that in context, don't we?
Aren't we all grown up enough to know one politician giving a speech is not supposed to look like complete truth?
I think we all know that, right?
You have to hear the other side.
But when somebody is, let's say, in a news capacity, let's say you're Joy Reid, and you're just giving one side of things, that's disinformation by its nature.
You don't even need to know the details of what she said.
If she's giving one point of view, and there exists a counterpoint or a context that's missing, that's all you need to know.
It's disinformation if there's only one person talking.
What do you think?
That should be your standard.
This whole thing about one person talking might be true and might be false, that's absurd.
In politics, one person talking is just bullshit.
Every time.
Now, like I said, you could point out some weird exceptions, but there's a reason that Vivek came in fourth.
If he'd lied better, he probably would have done a lot better.
Imagine if Vivek had lied.
He probably could have done a lot better.
But he just wasn't willing to go there.
All right.
NPR.
NPR was, according to FisherKing64, NPR is talking today about the path forward for Nikki Haley.
NPR is still talking about Nikki getting in there.
The path forward is that something terrible happens to Trump.
Yeah.
Can we stop talking about the path forward?
Because I'm pretty sure it's a path backwards, if you know what I mean.
She might have a path backwards into the presidency, but it's only if something terrible happens to the leading candidate.
So, no NPR.
We don't treat you as a legitimate news source.
Speaking of illegitimate things, are you following the story of one of Trump's district attorneys, Fannie?
You know Fannie?
F-A-N-N-N-I.
Fannie... What's her last name?
I forgot to write it down.
Willis.
Bonnie Willis.
So it turns out she was having an affair with the prosecutor who was handling the Trump prosecution.
Now, by itself, eh, that didn't bother me too much, honestly.
I didn't really want to make a thing about that.
Because people have affairs.
People who go to work in an office, sometimes they hook up.
And I thought, well, that doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with this process.
However, yeah, which one of them was married?
Was it the guy who was married or was he was?
Yeah, he got divorced just recently.
But yeah, allegedly, right?
Allegedly, allegedly had an affair.
So, but here's the part that'll get under your skin, I think.
It turns out that the boyfriend she gave the job to is nowhere near qualified for the job.
He had never been involved in anything like this at this scale.
And for some reason that we don't understand, it was necessary for him to spend like two days at the White House talking to Democrats and billing for it.
So it doesn't look like he's legitimate.
It looks like she was giving her boyfriend some free money, which makes her look like she is corrupt.
Now, separate from the question of whether she's corrupt when it comes to charging Trump, she's clearly corrupt.
She's doing this thing with her boyfriend and sending him money.
Now, you could say to yourself, but Scott, we don't know that there's any corruption.
We just know it's a boyfriend.
He's not quite capable and she's sending him a lot of money through allowing him this possibility, this opportunity.
That we don't know, we don't know-know, but in these situations the appearance of impropriety is the same as the impropriety.
Would you agree?
That for all practical purposes, the appearance of impropriety is a you-gotta-recuse-yourself situation.
Yeah, here.
They went on vacations together.
So everything about it is corrupt and sounding and sketchy.
I don't know that any of it was illegal.
I don't know that anybody's alleging that.
But yeah, there's a lack of transparency here.
There's something very much to be concerned about, and it's as sketchy as hell.
And what is her response to being caught red-handed in this sketchy situation?
Well, it's probably racism, she says.
Probably racism.
Surprise!
And according to Rasmussen, 50% of those they polled believe the allegations against Fani, the district attorney. 50% of those they polled believe the allegations against Fani, They believe the allegations, basically.
And they think that she had an improper relationship.
Again, that's not illegal.
But ethically, it's the bottom of the barrel.
So the most unethical DA got busted for that, anyway.
All right, let's talk about Bill Ackman.
As you know, Bill Ackman was successful in getting the president of Harvard to step down.
And he's anti-DEI now.
So he's always voted Democrat, but he was very anti-DEI when he found out what that was all about in Harvard.
So now he's educated about that, and he says that if you haven't figured it out already, it is now abundantly clear that Trump is going to crush Biden in the election.
Now, that does seem abundantly clear if Trump makes it all the way to election day.
I don't think it's abundantly clear that he's going to make it to election day.
We can just say that out loud now, because I do think the bad guys are that bad.
I don't know that it'll happen.
I'm not predicting it'll happen.
But they are that bad.
We do live in that world.
We need to grow up a little bit.
But Bill Ackman decides he's going to back the challenger, or I guess the main challenger, you could say, to Biden, which is Dean Phillips.
However, it is an awkward discovery that Dean Phillips has on his website a pro-DEI statement.
So the anti-DEI guy has decided to back the pro-DEI guy for president.
Now people, of course, pointed that out.
Hey, Bill Ackman, we like what you did there in Harvard, but do you know you're backing a pro-DEI candidate?
What does Bill Ackman say?
Who is no quitter, by the way.
He's not a quitter.
He says that Phillips didn't understand DEI.
And that he expects that statement will be changed soon, because they're educating him about what DEI really is.
So no problem.
Yeah, once he corrects that little imperfection, then he'll have a good package to take forward.
Right?
Because that's kind of a small thing, isn't it?
A little small thing?
No, Bill Ackman, it's not a small fucking thing that he was a racist this week.
He's a racist this week!
I'm not going to vote for him next fucking week, because he edited his webpage.
No, Bill, you've got to give up on this one.
And by the way, I love Bill Ackman.
I'm a huge fan.
I'm sure it's not reciprocal.
So I'm not depending on him liking me for me to like what he's done.
I like what he's done.
Period.
He's a patriot.
He's a plus in terms of the stuff he's done here.
I don't know what else he's done in his life.
But everything I saw him do, I liked a lot.
But this is my friendly advice.
You can't back a guy who had a DEI statement on his... He's just a racist.
Or he's a racist enabler.
Or worse, he didn't understand the biggest issue in the country and he's running for president.
This is the biggest issue.
This is the biggest issue.
Yeah.
Because this issue permeates all the other issues.
It's why you're afraid to fly.
It's why the cities are full of immigrants.
It's why property crime is high.
It's why our budget is breaking.
It's DEI.
And Dean Phillips didn't know that the core problem in the United States was a problem?
No, that's not a small problem to correct.
That is game over.
You're fucking done.
If you ever have that on your website, you're done.
So, I don't know.
I do love that Bill Ackman's a fighter, so he'll probably stay with it.
But my advice is to just cut your losses.
I don't know what he needs to do instead, because, I mean, he's not going to back a Republican, it looks like.
But you just can't back The guy who had a DEI statement.
You just can't do that.
There's no place to work with that.
That was a hell of a bad start.
And now, if Bill Ackman would like to stick with Dean Phillips, I have some further questions for him to ask.
Hey, Dean Phillips, tell us your view on climate change.
Right?
What do you think Bill Ackman's going to say?
When he hears this guy's view on climate change.
I don't know what it is, but he's a Democrat.
Do you think Bill Ackman believes the climate change alarmist and wants to get rid of fossil fuels as quickly as possible?
There's no way that Ackman's going to hear the actual arguments, pro and con, and back the Democrat side.
Because we've seen him in action.
He's too smart for that.
Now keep in mind that Ackman also didn't realize that DEI was a toxic time bomb.
So as smart as he is, which is super smart, that was a little blind spot.
Does he believe that was his one blind spot?
Because I don't think so.
I think he needs to know that climate change is another blind spot, even if it's a real problem, separate from the conversation of what's real and what's not.
The way it's presented, And the solutions that are presented, get rid of fossil fuel right away, these are not serious people.
And I can't believe that a smart person, once hearing all arguments, would still back somebody who was on that side of it.
It's hard to believe.
All right.
How about if he asked Dean Phillips what he thinks about all the problem with the white supremacists?
Ask Dean Phillips if he thinks there's a mega extremist problem, and give us their names, just like Biden.
See, I think Bill Ackman needs to, if he's going to be this influential, and he seems to be very influential, I feel like he owes it to the rest of us to dig in a little bit deeper.
Just dig in a little, like he did with DEI.
So, you know, I give Ackman a full pass for correction, right?
My standard for judging people, I say this all the time, is not that you got one wrong.
That's not the problem.
Getting one wrong is just normal.
We all get stuff wrong.
But how do you deal with it?
How do you deal with being wrong?
How did Vivek deal with not getting his prediction right in Iowa?
Honestly, quickly, clearly, and with humility.
That's how you do it.
All right.
So yeah, Dean Phillips has a lot to explain.
Vanguard, the company, the big company that has lots of index funds, just an enormous financial entity, we hear today from the End Wokeness account on X, that first of all, they control $7 trillion in assets.
$7 trillion they control in assets.
And their new class of interns has almost no white people in it.
And the employees are given courses on white fragility and engaging white males to advance DEI.
And they're also big backers of ESG.
So for many decades, I have very full-throatedly endorsed Vanguard funds.
Because what the funds are is they're unmanaged funds.
An index fund is just like a basket of stocks.
And a basket of stocks is a real good way to invest.
And they have reasonably low fees.
So the things you want are an honest company.
That can tell you don't invest in individual stocks, buy this basket of stocks because diversification is good.
That's very good.
That's why I like Vanguard.
The people who had invested in Vanguard funds from the beginning of the fund would be really happy because their index funds did great.
That's the whole point.
So Vanguard is a very credible, successful financial institution, which I have very happily recommended to lots of people.
For, I don't know, 30 years?
I've probably been recommending them at the top of my list for 30 years.
Today, I disrecommend them as a racist organization.
And I don't believe that they should get any of your money.
And if you have any money in there, and it doesn't cost you too much, I would yank it out immediately.
Because I don't think you can support this.
Or you should.
It leads to a bad place.
You don't want to be supportive of racist companies, no matter which direction the racism goes.
So this is just pure racism, and I get that they're trying to correct years of having too many white people and white men in positions.
I get that.
I know what they're trying to fix, but don't do it this way.
We can't do business with you if this is who you are.
So I absolutely disrecommend Vanguard Funds or anybody who cares about racism.
Well, it turns out that Claudine Gay, who was the president of Harvard that stepped down, there are many movie offers, multi-million dollar movie offers made about the situation.
Christopher Rufo, who was one of the primary people besides Bill Ackman trying to get her to step down, he asked who would play him in the movie.
So Christopher Rufo is asking who would play him in the movie.
And an account called John Stokes made a suggestion.
He says, my money's on Idris Elba.
I've been laughing about that all morning.
All right, if you didn't know, Idris Elba is a very good black actor who's going to be, I think that they've agreed to play James Bond.
Has that deal been made or is that just something they're talking about?
I don't know the details, but that was the discussion.
Now, let me say again, Idris Elba is great.
And he could play a great James Bond.
I would definitely watch that movie.
So I don't have any problem with that.
That's not the hill I'm going to die on.
I think a good actor can play whatever they want.
So the fact that he's a great actor should be the key thing to understand for that.
But that's pretty funny.
Get Idris Elba to play Christopher Rufo.
Well, this is a less good story.
This also comes from End Wokeness, one of my new favorite accounts.
Fentanyl seizures at the border.
I'll give you a little history.
In 2020, they found almost five pounds of fentanyl at the border.
That's just what they found.
Now, five pounds of fentanyl, do you know how much that is?
It's like a little trace can kill you.
Five pounds, that could kill a lot of people.
That was in 2020.
In 2021, well, it's a little more than five pounds.
In 2021, it was 11,200 pounds.
Up from five.
was 11,200 pounds, up from five.
Five would kill a city.
But at least it slowed down.
So in 2022, oh, it didn't slow down.
It was 14,700 pounds of fentanyl.
Again, that's only the parts they caught.
That doesn't count what got through, just what they caught.
But thank God Joe Biden's talked to China and Mexico so they could get that number down.
And I'm happy to report that for the year 2023, the number is Oh shit.
27,000 pounds.
It takes two and a half pounds of fentanyl to kill half a million people.
Uh, carry the three x times four.
That's enough to kill every single fucking person in the United States.
Good job, Joe.
Good job.
There's now enough fentanyl to kill every human being in the United States.
You know, you know where we should start getting serious?
When there's enough to kill every pet to.
Because people, I don't care about them, but if you, you know, if the pets start getting into it, well, we've got to draw the line there.
How in the world, how in the world can Trump lose this election if it's a fair election?
He can't.
That's why it's not going to be a fair election.
I don't think there's a chance.
Right?
Whoever is behind this is who's running the country.
Would you agree?
Whoever is behind all this fentanyl coming in is running the country.
At least in important ways.
Because if the president were in charge, there are lots of ways to stop it.
I mean... Well, I don't even know what else to say about it.
I mean, this is so absurd at this point that I don't get it.
Anyway.
So...
How about all that news about Ukraine, huh?
You know?
I hate that I look on social media and I turn on the news and it's just Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine.
They just can't stop talking about it, right?
No, the news kind of stopped.
It's the same war.
News kind of stopped.
And how about Gaza?
How about those latest casualty figures from Gaza, right?
Did the news stop?
The news stopped, right?
So we got two major wars?
And three, three wars.
Four if you count the border.
Yeah.
And the news decided, oh, you know what's interesting, Iowa?
It's really cold in Iowa.
How about those UFOs?
Hey, look at the UFOs.
Well, here's a, There's now a story that there are leaked German plans for World War II.
No, not causing World War II.
I'm going to throw you like a little surprise.
The news is reporting that Germany is preparing to, wait for this, fight against World War II.
Yeah, they'd actually be on our side this time.
Apparently they'd be on our side.
So that's good news.
The worry is that Russia, if they wrap things up in Ukraine and they feel emboldened by it because they got some property, that they would start going after the Baltics.
Let's see, what's there?
You got your Estonia, your Latvia, and your Lithuania.
Now Joe Biden probably thinks Lithuania is where we get our lithium, so Maybe we do, but that would be a weird coincidence.
I don't think we get any lithium from Lithuania, but it would be funny if we did.
Anyway, so it turns out there are a number of Russian nationals in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
I don't know.
I feel like we should just let Russia have all the Russian-speaking people and just say, can you just take all the Russians?
Will you leave us alone if you have all the Russians?
Because that's making it a little too easy for him.
Because I feel like he can win all the Russians.
But if he tries to take over Poland, well, now I got a bigger problem.
Because honestly, I'm not super concerned about the borders of Lithuania.
I know I should be.
I will say that if they fuck with Estonia, they're going to run into a problem.
The Estonians... Well, there's a friend of mine who lives in Estonia.
And they don't want to piss him off.
Because if they do, they're going to piss me off.
And then I'm all in on Estonia.
So... Don't mess with Estonia.
You should leave that one alone.
Putin, are you listening?
Putin?
I figure he probably watches my show.
Trying to learn English.
Putin?
I don't know about Lithuania and Latvia, but you better keep your hands off Estonia.
You better keep your hands off of that one.
That's going to be a different game.
So, that's just a warning for you.
Anyway, as Germany said when These leaked plans came out.
So the plans involve an assumption that Putin keeps going and keeps conquering stuff.
And then what would they do about it?
But as the German military quite reasonably and rationally says, we plan for everything.
And that should have been the story.
So they shouldn't have had to ask the German general, hey, is this what you plan to do?
No.
We plan for everything.
That's what we do.
We just make sure we've considered every possibility.
This is one of the possibilities, so we plan for it.
So I'm not sure that this means they think it's going to happen.
It just means it would be very smart to have a contingency plan, so they're just being smart.
Are you kidding me?
There is a lithium battery energy storage park in Lithuania.
Come on!
That's actually true.
Lithium battery storage facility in Lithuania.
There had to be.
All right, well, I think we should trick Putin into attacking Elbonia.
Because if we can get Putin to put all of his resources into Elbonia, well, then they wouldn't exist.
Because Elbonia doesn't exist.
So, that's my plan.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, there was so much news today, I don't think I even saw it all.
Was there any big story I forgot to mention?
I feel like there's something big I'm forgetting to mention.
I did hear on MSNBC that the experts are saying they don't necessarily think that any of Trump's trials will have an outcome before the election.
And they're real worried about that.
Because if the outcome is after the election, then I don't know, I suppose he pardons himself or the country ignores it or something.
Buy a blonde wig.
Everybody wants me to wear a Joy Reid wig.
Oh, Sword of Truth sounds like sort of.
Yeah, that's a problem.
Comment says, Bill Ackman is not anti-woke.
He wanted Claudine Gay because she's not Jewish, says you.
Now five of eight Ivy League schools have Jewish presidents.
And the problem with that is?
What's your problem with that?
Yeah, see the problem is, what are we supposed to do?
Tell the Jewish population of America to stop over- like, over-succeeding?
What do you want to do about that?
Is anybody claiming they got their jobs because they're Jewish?
If you can claim that, then we have something to talk about.
If they didn't get their job because they're Jewish, Then you don't have anything to talk about.
It just means that one group of Americans is excelling.
Would you want them not to be in the country?
Would you want the Jewish Americans who are qualified enough to be running major Ivy League institutions, you want them to go to some other country?
They're like insanely great assets of the country.
And you're bitching about them doing too well?
That's like saying Viveka is too smart so there's something suspicious going on.
I think we need to accept exceptionalism from individuals and maybe get over it.
Yeah, just get over it.
Individuals can excel of any type.
Doesn't matter who they are.
Tucker is having on the What do you call the surgeon surgeon general?
I think of Florida a black gentleman who according to most Republicans his view is that the The the vaccines were horribly dangerous.
So most of you would say he's doing a great job He's a black man who excelled is saying what you wanted to say better than the rest according to Republicans probably would say that so Why can't people just do well?
Like, what's the problem if somebody who doesn't look like you does great?
Why do they propagate so much anti-whiteness?
Well, I don't think the Jews are doing it.
Are they?
You think that, well, I mean, if they are, it's because they're college presidents.
It's not because they're Jewish.
I don't think that has to do with Jewish.
That has everything to do with Democrats.
If it's something that's common to every single Democrat, and the Democrats are super diverse, how are you picking one group out?
I think you have some self-reflection to do there.
Do a little self-reflection on that.
All right, what else we have going on?
UFO grifters?
How many of you would say it now seems obvious that the UFO thing is nothing but a planned distraction?
How many of you would say that that's fair to say?
So let me call out a comment that I see a lot.
This comment says, Scott has a blind spot for the quote chosen people.
Epstein shows you how success is achieved.
Really?
So Epstein is an example of all Jews.
Fuck you.
Just fuck you.
Fuck you.
That's the only thing I can say to that, is just fuck you.
Really.
That doesn't work with anybody.
There's nobody, there's nobody who's your example of all the people.
Fuck you.
Fuck you hard.
All right.
That's all I have to say about that.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's enough for you on YouTube and Rumble and X. Thanks for joining and we'll have more fun tomorrow.
