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, Rumble Studio, Persuasion Frame, Uncontrolled Immigration, Cartel Military Equipment, LA Times Layoff, Nicolle Wallace, Propagandized News, Van Jones Biden Advice, President Biden, Texas Border Fight, Patriot Front, Airline Diversity, Hunter Biden’s Art, Nikki Haley Funders, WSJ, Assassination Priming, President Trump, Tim Scott, CNN Rupar, MSNBC, Kari Lake, AZ GOP Chair Jeff DeWit, Reparation Task Forces, Gaza Plan, Soros Political Donations, 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 in your life.
And if you'd like to take this up to a level that people can barely understand with their tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, Charles Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
Oh, yeah.
Don't take my coffee away from me, World Economic Forum.
I'm going to fight for that.
Well, you might be aware that Barstool Sports is going to be moving to some kind of a special deal with Rumble.
And so Rumble stock was way up on the news last two days.
It's pulling back a little bit today, but that's expected because it was up over, I think it was up over 50% in two days.
I'm a stockholder.
So full disclosure, when I say nice things about Rumble, I am also an investor.
Small one.
I don't have much, just, you know, my little investment.
However, as Dave Rubin points out, Rumble has also just launched to the public its Rumble Studio.
Why is that a big deal?
How many people are business model nerds?
Do I have any business model nerds?
Where you hear of like a new clever way to do business and you say, oh, that is so cool.
Yeah, a lot of you are business model nerds.
That's what I am.
So here's what Rumble Studio did.
So if you're a live streamer like me, your choices were to stream on one platform or to have multiple devices, and you probably said to yourself, you know, I wouldn't mind streaming on Rumble, but, you know, I'm already on these other platforms and, you know, seems like it'd be like extra work and stuff like that.
So Rumble, cleverly, builds the one tool that you need for the other platforms.
Now, if you're going to use Rumble Studio, which would be logical if you want to be on the X platform, which you should, and YouTube at the same time, which you should, why not get Rumble for free?
Right?
So if you're going to use the Rumble Studio, it connects to all the other platforms.
Well, the four platforms, Rumble, Locals, X, and YouTube at the moment.
I think you can add others.
So the point is there's literally one place you can go to now where you can do reliable Streaming on the other platforms, and you can split screen and take guests.
So now even if your platform doesn't allow that, the Rumble Studio will let you do it, and then the platform just shows the show.
So where locals could not do an interview before, now it can.
You just have to go through the Rumble Studio.
So for you nerds about business models, this is really brilliant.
It's brilliant.
Because it sort of guarantees that if you're going to stream anywhere, for free, you just get extra money by including the other platforms and just push the button and they're live.
Like I just did.
So right now I am live on the Rumble Studio on YouTube and Rumble and X. So you can see how it works.
It turns out that there's a new graph, Paul Graham posted this on X, that young women are getting more liberal, young single women, and young single men are getting more conservative.
So where they used to be about the same, they're wildly different now.
So what does that imply about the future of mating?
Well, it tells me that men will be hooking up with robots.
And if you think I'm joking, nope.
Not joking at all.
If you're a guy who's, let's say, not in the top 10% of, you know, height and good looks and income and health and all that other stuff, You're going to be competing with not only guys who are getting all the dates, but you're also going to be competing for a shrinking pool of women who are like you.
So if you're male, you're more likely to be trending conservative.
If you're female, more likely going the other direction.
So there'll be a shrinking pool of women that young men are willing to spend five minutes with.
Forget about sex.
They won't want to be in the same room.
It'll just be too uncomfortable.
And then a robot comes along.
And the robot is always friendly, always positive, never complains, never has a problem, never tries to sue you, never accuses you of crimes that you didn't do.
None of it.
You walk in the house and the robot will be like, hey, how was work?
You're like, well, let me tell you about it.
And it remembers you, you know, makes insightful comments about your situation.
Yes, in all seriousness, we're one year away.
There's no joke, no hyperbole.
And I guarantee it, that young men will be forming relationships with robots because the competition from women is so low at the moment.
It doesn't look like it's changing.
And again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with women.
If it sounds like that, maybe I shouldn't have worded it the way I did.
There's nothing wrong with women.
It's just that, and nothing wrong with men.
It's just that they're diverging in their preferences.
And there's only one way that they can end up.
They're going to replace that thing that diverged from their preference.
There's nothing else that could happen.
It's obvious.
All right, so robots will replace women.
They're also replacing bartenders.
So now they have a, there's a, oh, this is weird.
There's a robot named Adam who can make 65 to 70 drinks an hour and doesn't need bathroom breaks, blah, blah, blah.
And I guess they're being rolled out in various places.
Now what's weird is I used to own a restaurant that had a bar, and our most popular bartender was named Adam.
Isn't that weird?
Because I was going to tell you a story about a bartender named Adam as part of talking about this story.
And then I, for the first time, I noticed, oh, the robot is named Adam.
So what I was going to say is, there's no way that they're ever going to make a robot bartender that's as good as Adam.
I swear to God, that's what I was going to say.
That was literally what I was going to say until I noticed the robot's name is Adam.
So here's what I mean.
When I owned the restaurant, I was a co-owner, we hired a... I think he was a server at first and then he became a bartender.
Now, according to the women who worked at the restaurant, the other employees, the only way to describe Adam the bartender was something with drooling and words that don't make sense.
Something like, what do you think of Adam the bartender?
And they would just go into some kind of shock because he was, I guess, he was really good-looking according to them.
And now he was married so, you know, he was sort of, you know, wasn't available.
But just the fact that they like looking at him.
The day he stopped working as a bartender, the traffic dropped off, I don't know, 20 or 30 percent.
Literally, the entire profit margin for the bar was at him.
Now eventually he was replaced with a female bartender who also understood the show.
In other words, she understood that they weren't there just for the drinks, it was a lot of lonely guys, and they were there to get some kind of contact with somebody who Look good.
And she knew exactly what her mission was.
We didn't we didn't say, you know, of course, as an employer, we're not going to say flirt with the customers.
That's not something you say.
But she was perfectly fine to get big tips by doing that.
So here's the thing.
How in the world can a robot replace a bartender?
Because I feel like it's not understanding the point of a bartender.
It's about the human connection.
The only thing that's better than having a robot bartender is staying home and not going out.
If I'm going to go out to get a drink from a robot, I don't really need to go out at all.
The bartender might be the only person you talk to all night.
You know, for a lot of people.
So, I don't know how far that will go, because that's definitely a job that needs to be a human.
All right, let me ask you a question and see if I'm insane, because I probably am.
If you follow politics as closely as I do, I think most of you do, or you wouldn't be here, does it seem to you that, say, ten years ago, if you looked at a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, you'd say, those people have bad priorities, Or you might say, um, it's all about the team.
Or you might say, um, they're lying.
You know, so both sides will say the other team is lying and they're just trying to win.
Stuff like that.
Basic stuff.
But it seems like if you were watching the news for the last several weeks, the Republican conservative leaning news, the frame that they're going to put on stuff more often than not, especially on X, is persuasion.
And I feel like that's new.
And I don't know if that's happening on the other side, if the Democrats are having the same experience.
But do you see it too?
Like today, for example, Vivek and others, Mike Benz, were posting stuff on X that really was about persuasion in the context of what some candidate is doing or not doing.
Am I right that the persuasion frame has overtaken their lying frame, or they just have different priorities?
Do you see that too?
Or is it just because I'm tuned into it, I see it everywhere?
I'm just looking at your comments.
All right.
So you do see it, right?
Because I think the persuasion frame is more, it's a deeper, richer frame for understanding what we're saying.
If you just go with they're lying, there's nothing to say.
That's the end of the conversation.
Well, the Democrats are lying.
Well, the Republicans are lying.
Yeah, you know, they are.
Probably.
Both sides.
But somebody's doing it better.
Somebody's persuading and somebody's not.
So the persuasion frame, I think, is the stronger one.
So it makes sense that we'd move to it.
Anyway, immigration is the top issue, according to a Harvard-Harris poll.
So if immigration is the top issue in the country, That means that Biden has two choices between now and Election Day.
He can either stop immigration by pretending, oh, we finally got the money or whatever it is.
So he can do what he can do to stop immigration, and let's say he succeeds.
Wouldn't that be disqualifying?
If Biden tried to solve the biggest problem, according to voters, and let's say he solved it, he actually solved immigration, that would be disqualifying, wouldn't it?
You see where I'm going, right?
If he could do it, and the only reason he did it was because of the election, that's completely disqualifying, because it proves he could have done it.
It proves that he was intentionally not doing it.
That's what it would look like, to me.
So, from a persuasion perspective, he has two losing choices.
He can either lose the election because he didn't deal with immigration, or he can deal with it and prove that he could have done it at any time, which definitely should lose you the election.
I don't know if it would, but it definitely should.
So, I feel like he's got two losing strategies.
Because he misplayed the immigration thing so badly that I don't think it's recoverable, at least as a topic.
So Trump should own, assuming Trump gets to the general, he should own the number one topic.
Do you know what the number two topic is?
The economy.
The economy.
Do you know what, do you know why, The economy is number two and not number one, because number one's the economy too.
It's all just the economy, right?
If all of these immigrants were coming in and getting jobs and adding to the, you know, adding to the GDP and nothing else.
They were just coming in and adding to the GDP.
We would probably, we'd probably not complain so much that some bad ones are getting through.
Because it really is about the economy.
It's always about the economy.
Carville was right.
James Carville.
So yes, yeah, there is an equally big problem of Apparently terrorists getting through in large numbers and ms-13 so those things could end the country completely.
They're that bad But we'd feel differently about it If it were economically sound if it were economically sound at least would make a little sense You'd have an argument for it, but there's no real argument for it, which is the vexing problem Apparently Mexico is asking for an urgent investigation by the U.S.
as to how all the cartels are getting advanced military-grade equipment.
Well, how do you think?
What do you think is the answer to how the cartels are getting advanced military equipment from the United States?
Well, it doesn't have to be our intelligence people.
It could have been Afghanistan.
It could have been just bad people selling it to him directly.
Didn't Lloyd Austin say we're missing like a billion dollars of equipment?
Yeah.
Apparently the military is so poorly managed that a billion dollars of equipment can go missing, which presumably means, yeah, maybe some Ukrainians are selling it.
Right.
So, that's bad.
All right, well, NBC News is reporting, and others are, that the LA Times is going to lay off 20% of their staff, 115 journalists.
And how is that story covered?
By NBC News?
That journalists of color are hardest hit.
Yeah.
So out of the 115 journalists, several journalists were people of color.
So that's the way you tell that story.
There was 115 of them, but since several were people of color, it's really a story about abuse to people of color, because several of the 115 were people of color.
And that goes against their promise, says the union.
So the union says the company has reneged on its promises to diversify since young journalists of color have been disproportionately affected.
Disproportionately is several out of 115.
That's disproportionately affected.
And several out of 115.
Very disproportional.
But that's the company's Doing this bad, bad thing, according to the union.
You know, what's interesting is, you know, the industry was having trouble, but they diversified and it didn't make a difference.
I thought the diversification would turn things around in the newspaper industry.
Because, you know, if you just had more people of color writing, then people would want to get their news from a smudgy piece of paper.
Because people love their smudgy pieces of paper in 2024.
If only, if only the writing was more diverse.
But that didn't work out.
I'm very surprised.
Elon Musk pointed out the other day in some public forum that the network news is down about 20 to 30 percent in the past year, but the traffic on X is up about the same amount.
So how happy am I that I escaped the dying, the terrible newspaper industry, the fake news industry?
Anybody who thinks that I'm unhappy about getting out of that industry, you don't know me.
Because I felt really, really uncomfortable taking their money.
Because I consider the news industry completely corrupt.
The newspapers, you know, among the most corrupt.
And the fact that I had to rely on them for my income, was really, really uncomfortable for me.
So, getting cancelled and, you know, just having to build something honest to make money was a good feeling, actually.
I'm pretty happy about it a year later.
Time Magazine's cutting their staff as well.
I wonder why people are not trusting the regular mainstream media as much as they did.
Well, let's look at what Glenn Greenwald It says about Nicole Wallace on MSNBC.
So somebody named Orf on the X platform, ORF, put together a mini-documentary titled The Typhoid Mary of Disinformation, and it's just MSNBC host Nicole Wallace And showing one lie after another, or disinformation, I guess.
We don't know what her internal thoughts were, but it was certainly not true.
And when you see them all compiled, it's really good entertainment.
Now, let me say something that I don't know if this quite rings true with you yet, but it will.
I used to watch the news to learn stuff.
Find out about the world.
But I no longer do.
I literally watch the mainstream news to laugh at how obviously propagandized it is.
So after the New Hampshire results... Now, if you haven't done this, by the way, I recommend it.
If you watch Fox News, it's going to be, you know, victory laps and people saying, yay, a Republican did something good.
Exactly what you think.
But if you watch CNN, there's a whole alternative universe in which they believe January 6th was an insurrection, and they can't understand, based on their own reporting, what's happening.
Now that's funny.
The reason that all the hosts of CNN are confused about why Trump is doing so well is because they believe their own fake news.
That sounds like I'm making a joke, but that's actually literally what happened.
They convinced themselves that their fake news was real, and that Trump did a bunch of real crimes, including a real insurrection.
Now, none of that really happened.
Whatever problems he has with the legal system, anybody who's objective can see that nobody else would have been charged with that stuff.
So, the public can see this clearly.
The Republicans say, oh, the charges are bullshit, so we'll ignore that.
And January 6th obviously wasn't an insurrection, so we'll just ignore that.
And then over at CNN they're like, what's going on?
People don't seem to understand that they seem to be supporting an insurrectionist.
It's because the people do understand that all the news is bullshit.
So they're just ignoring it.
But to watch CNN try to navigate why people are acting irrationally according to them, it's because they don't believe CNN.
That's the whole story, and they can't say that.
They can't say it out loud, because it would give away the game.
So instead, they have to act confused, and then they have to say, there must be something wrong with all those Republicans.
They must be in a cult.
So the best they could come up with is that Republicans are in a cult.
Not that they've lied about every major political story for seven years.
That part doesn't come up as a possibility of why things are the way they are.
Nope.
Doesn't even come up.
All right.
Van Jones is giving some useful advice to the Biden campaign that he should stay hidden since every time he appears in public, it doesn't inspire confidence.
Well, I think that is harsh.
Van Jones, I don't think you should say that the less we see of Biden, the more we like him.
In effect, that's what he's saying.
It's true, but I think it's very unfair and unkind.
Now, if we're only going to talk about the bad things that Biden does, I don't think that's fair.
We should show both sides.
So, although Van Jones says And a lot of people would agree that Biden does not inspire confidence.
I think he does.
And there was a good example of it.
There's a video clip going around today.
And I'll just quote him, because when Biden picks his words, he does it so well.
And he enunciates so clearly that I don't want to characterize it.
I just want to read his exact words the way he did it.
President Biden said.
So I was feeling a little down before I heard that.
And then I thought, wow, yeah, maybe, maybe he's right.
Maybe we shouldn't.
So I wrote it down because I know I'm going to want to tell my grandparent or my grandkids someday.
I don't have grandkids, but if I did just go with it, roll with it, roll with it.
I want to sit them down someday and say, you know, kids, it looks bad.
The world looks like a tough place.
But I'd like you to remember the inspirational words of our greatest president, Joe Biden, who once said, and go forward, go forward and slay.
Well, meanwhile, over at the University of Wisconsin Law School, there's a course that you have to take that teaches you there are no such thing as exceptional white people.
Wait, what?
Yep, there are no exceptional white people.
It actually says that.
Like, it's written down in actual words on a document, officially.
No exceptional white people.
So, good, I didn't know that.
Good to know.
Good to do.
Yeah.
And one section reminded white students they benefit from racial oppression regardless of their correctional efforts.
So no matter what you do, you're still a racist.
If you were a rational white person, And you knew there was a, let's say, a group or an organization that said that no matter what you do, you're a racist.
What would be your right approach?
Spend more time with them?
Get to know them?
Or get the fuck away from them?
What would be the smart approach?
I don't know, I think get the fuck away from people who would say things like this and put it in writing.
Yeah, you want to get the fuck away.
Meanwhile in Texas, there's more, I think there's a A bit of a public push for maybe Texas fighting back against the Feds.
Against the Feds who won in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said that the Feds can take down the barbed wire that the Texas state put up to try to protect Texas from the immigrants.
But the Feds are taking it down.
Okay.
But there's some reports that the Texas National Guard is maybe not going to back down, might put up some more wire, but I don't believe those reports yet.
I would say I would hold on believing that that's going to happen.
Maybe.
And, you know, there was a little bit of a push for them to defy.
What would happen if they did defy?
Suppose Texas just said, you can take down our fence all day and we'll just put a new one up as soon as you're gone.
What if they just kept putting it back up?
Would it come to arrests?
Would somebody get arrested?
Do you think the Biden administration could Deal with an American being arrested for trying to protect the border?
Are they going to arrest the National Guard?
Are they going to arrest the governor?
On one hand, I don't want to see a fight between Texas and the federal government because it could get ugly.
On the other hand, I'm really curious how it would go.
Because as long as immigration and uncontrolled immigration is the number one issue in the country, along with economics, same issue in a sense, or the Venn diagrams are pretty overlapping, I feel like the public would not be okay with a Texas official, especially a military official, being arrested for protecting the country.
Yeah, I don't know what would happen.
I don't recommend it, but we might find out.
Well, let's talk about the Patriot Front.
Remember I told you that watching the news feels different now?
There was a time when this group, the Patriot Front, if I saw them marching, I'd say, well, there's a real news story.
I need to dig into the details of this and understand it and everything.
Who are these people?
And now it's just funny.
Isn't it?
Because they're so obviously not organic.
Whatever they are, they're not what they say they are.
That's the only thing you can know for sure.
So when I watch them, it's as humor.
It's like comedy.
Are you with me?
Whenever you see the Patriot Front in the news, you tell me you don't laugh.
You laugh!
Right?
When you see Joe Biden giving a speech, Do you say to yourself, oh, there's some new information that will inform us about the country?
No!
You actually laugh.
You literally laugh.
When Trump is giving a rally, and he's assigning nicknames to his enemies and stuff, do you say to yourself, oh, those nicknames are an important feature of reality?
Or do you say, oh, that's pretty funny.
That's a good nickname.
Especially when he retires them.
I'll talk about that in a minute.
But the Patriot Front remind me to talk about retiring nicknames, in case I forget.
So apparently there's a video that purports to be somebody catching the leader of the Patriot Front without a mask.
He actually gives his name.
And he's asked if they're federal agents.
Here's his exact words when asked if they're feds.
Quote, I'm not a federal agent.
Hmm.
Was that exactly the answer to the question?
I'm not a federal agent.
Hmm.
Huh.
What would that leave unspoken?
Well, that would not answer the question, are there any feds in the group?
Wouldn't answer that question.
It wouldn't answer the question if he's working with the feds, would it?
It wouldn't answer the question if he's working for somebody.
Perhaps an entity that gives them money.
Doesn't answer that question, does it?
The only thing we know is that he's not personally on the payroll of the federal government, which I completely believe.
I don't believe that the leader of the group is on the payroll of the federal government.
But this, ladies and gentlemen, is what you call a too specific denial.
It's the number one way you can pick a lie, right?
There's nothing better than this.
The number one way you can identify a lie is the overly specific denial.
Did you kill that victim at 10 o'clock last night?
No!
God no, I didn't kill him at 10 o'clock.
It was 9.59, I checked.
Yeah, so the overly specific denials are almost a guarantee of guilt.
It's not a guarantee, but it's really close.
Now, would you like to see what somebody would say if they had no involvement whatsoever with the Feds?
Hey, people say you're feds.
What do you say to that?
Here's an honest answer, if there's an honest answer to be had.
It would go like this.
We have no connections to the feds whatsoever.
Nobody in our group has any connections to the feds.
Does that answer all of your questions?
Kind of does.
Kind of does.
Yeah, nobody in the group has any connections.
Not financial, not you're on the payroll, not they're your friends, not you're doing them a favor.
No connection.
Nobody in the group, no connection.
That's a no.
Do you know what's not a no?
I'm not a federal agent.
That's not a no.
Now, how many of you caught that before I had to explain it?
Because this is a basic rule of detecting lies.
It's one of the best ones.
I see a lot of you caught it, and that's good.
So you're onto this.
Now, am I right?
Am I right that now that we can see politics through a persuasion lens, it transforms it into comedy?
Perfect example.
The Patriot Front is nothing but comedy because you can see through their persuasion so easily.
Do I care if the Fed pays them or what?
I don't care.
It's just funny.
They're not serious.
It shouldn't matter.
Now, will MSNBC and CNN try to treat them like they're a legitimate organization?
Of course they will.
Which would be what?
Funny.
It would be funny.
So let's keep mocking.
Well, the good news, it's not all bad news today, there's some good news as well.
Airlines are doing a great job at increasing diversity.
So, airlines have made that a priority.
The country's a lot better with the diversity.
So airlines are improving diversity.
So congratulations, airlines, improving diversity.
Next story.
NBC News says the nose wheel of a Boeing 757 jet fell off and rolled away while the plane was waiting on the runway for takeoff with almost 200 people on board.
They were on the runway, waiting to take off, and the passengers looked out the window and watched the front wheel rolling away down the runway.
Now, I don't know if they saw it, but I feel like they could have.
Makes it a funnier story.
So, yeah.
Well, at least that's not connected to any other story in the news, so we'll just leave it there.
Next story.
Moving along.
Alaska Airlines says many of its Boeing 737 Max planes were found to have loose bolts.
A lot of loose bolts.
Huh.
Do you know what is the number one thing you check before you fly an airplane?
Does anybody know a private pilot?
If you're a private pilot, and you're in charge of the airplane, You literally go around it and check the bolts every time you fly it.
Did you know that?
You don't check the bolts, oh, every now and then.
No, you check the bolts.
You check the bolts every single time you fly it.
How many of you knew that?
Now, obviously, it's a different situation with a jet.
You know, the pilot's not walking around the jet looking for bolts.
But don't you think somebody should?
Don't you think that every time they fly, somebody ought to check to see if a bolt is coming loose?
Maybe every time.
So anyway, that's happening.
So again, I just read you the news with no commentary.
Was it funny?
By itself, right?
I didn't add a thing.
The news was funny.
Without any commentary.
I just read it to you in the order that I wrote it down.
They're all real stories.
Yeah.
Alright, here's another one.
Let's see if this... Hunter Biden, apparently you sold 1.5 million dollars of paintings so far.
There have been 10 buyers and some of them bought multiple paintings.
Because, you know...
One Hunter Biden painting is never enough.
You want, you want multiple.
Um, now I was thinking of getting myself a Hunter Biden painting, but if I feel, well, again, for you business model nerds, for the business model nerds, I'd like to explain a way to get a high quality Hunter Biden painting without spending this much money.
You buy it from one of the people who bought it.
Cause you find one of those people who paid half a million dollars for a painting and you say, um, do you have that on your wall?
No.
Do you mind if I buy it from you?
How much?
And I'd say $200.
And then they'd say $200.
I paid half a million dollars for this.
And then I'd say, do you have any other offers?
And ladies and gentlemen, here's another example of where the news is just funny.
It's funny because you can see through it, right?
I didn't add anything to it.
I didn't add anything.
Do you think that the secondary value of this art, is it going up in value, like art does?
You know, if you buy art from one of the masters, it probably goes up in value.
Do you think Hunter Biden's art is collectively worth 1.5 million, the stuff they bought already?
Or do you think the real value might be closer to zero, after you've bribed the government?
So, there's another story that's just funny.
It's funny because you can see exactly what's going on, right?
Am I right?
It's only funny because now we're sophisticated enough to spot money laundering.
How many of you, let's say seven years ago, would not have even been keyed in to the fact that it's an obvious money laundering bribery scheme?
You might not have even noticed.
You would have just said, oh, that's interesting that Hunter's getting out of the influence business and he's becoming an artist.
But once you know that it's the most classic money laundering scheme of all time, art, that it just looks funny that he's doing it right in front of us, you know, shamelessly.
All right, Vivek talked about Nikki Haley's biggest supporters.
He was posting this today, Vivek Ramaswamy, that he said that Nikki Haley's biggest supporters include the same left-wing mega donors, example Reid Hoffman, who funded the lawsuits against Trump.
It's now plainly obvious, says Vivek, that her sole objective, Nikki Haley's, is to await Trump's unlawful elimination from the ballot and trot into power.
It does look like that, doesn't it?
And it's kind of funny.
The best play that the Democrats have is to hope that they can jail Trump on trumped-up charges, which is the simulation talking to us, trumped-up charges, or that he gets assassinated, I guess, because people are saying it out loud at this point.
So, does it seem funny to you that the only way to stop Trump has nothing to do with elections?
The Democrats know that they ran a cadaver against the most popular political figure since what?
Reagan?
Kennedy?
I don't know.
Yeah.
So, no, I realize, you know, a big part of the country doesn't like him at all, but still, he's a force of nature.
And they're running a cadaver against them, and maybe that won't work out.
So they're going to need a plan B. All right.
So here's what ABC News said about it.
They said, the latest, New Hampshire primary sees strong turnout of unaffiliated voters and moderates.
Yeah, so unaffiliated voters and moderates.
That's what ABC News calls the non-Republicans who are voting in the Republican primary, which is legal.
Legally, they can do it.
What would you call it?
Would you call it a strong turnout of unaffiliated and moderates?
Or would you call it Democrats trying to cheat to make it look like Trump doesn't have a commanding lead, when in fact, with the Republicans, he has a commanding lead.
But if they get enough Democrats to vote for Haley, it'll look like it's a close election and maybe she should stay in the race.
Now, don't you think that's funny?
That they call that unaffiliated and moderates?
When all it was was Democrats cheating?
So they cheat right in front of us.
Like, right in front of us, transparently, they're cheating.
And, you know, it's legal, but it's still cheating, because they're trying to get a... They're trying to come up... They're trying to get a disingenuous result.
They're trying to fool the news, who are on their side, of course, the Democrats, into reporting it like the result meant something.
Doesn't mean anything.
If you do an election where anybody can vote as a Republican and half of them tell you in advance that it's just a play, it's an op, and their vote is not even serious in any way, and then the news reports it like there was a primary.
Or whatever.
Yeah, primary, I guess.
Right.
So it worked.
Isn't that funny?
Because the news industry simply has to talk about whatever's happening.
They know they're gonna talk about it.
So there's gonna be some chat-chat about this primary.
But even though every single observer, and they even say it out loud, knows that the result is nonsense, it's a complete nonsense result.
Because it's a combination of people who are voting for different reasons.
The average of people who are cheating and the people who are picking a real president is not a thing.
Let me say that better.
If you took the average of people who wanted to pick a president, and you took the average, that might tell you something.
Oh, on average, people like this candidate over another.
But if you take the average of people who were there to pick a Republican nominee, plus the people who were there just to bias the thing and ruin the experiment, and you take the average, that's nothing.
But the news is reporting on the average.
They know it's nothing.
You know nothing if you add together numbers that don't have anything to do with each other, which is what they did.
Then took the average.
All right, so that's crazy.
Also, Vivek is pointing out that the Wall Street Journal board They seem to be, some say, priming the country for an assassination.
And here are the exact words.
The Wall Street Journal board wrote this.
Strange things can happen.
So they're saying that Nikki Haley staying in makes sense because things could happen.
Strange things could happen to Trump between now and Election Day.
Yeah, strange things.
What would be some of the strange things?
Well, the strange things can happen with candidates who are this old and this disliked by majority of the public, they say.
The 2024 election may have more twists before the Trump vs. Biden die is cast.
How many of you recognize that quote, the die is cast?
That's a Caesar quote.
Do you know what happened to Caesar?
He was assassinated.
Yeah, and die is right in the sentence.
Die.
The die is cast.
So, does it look like we're being prepped?
By the way, all of your comments have stopped on Locals.
Looks like.
I can see that you're typing, so... Anyway, your comments just stopped.
But they're still working on the other platform.
Other platforms.
So the Rumble Studio is working.
Anyway, so yeah, I think it's exactly what it looks like.
I think the Democrats literally would do anything to stop Trump.
They would put him in jail, they would take him off the ballot, and if that failed, it could get worse.
Absolutely.
Let's talk about Vice President, because we'll be talking about that until Trump picks one.
It looks like Glenn Beck, as you know, said Vivek would be a good choice.
He told President Trump that in person, he says.
A lot of other people say it too.
And then when Trump, as you know, he won the New Hampshire primary, you probably already know that.
But he did something that people are noting was unusual, that in his victory speech he gave Vivek a minute to speak.
I don't think that was that unusual, because he says he loves Vivek, because Vivek says good things about him, and, you know, he's definitely on his side.
And Vivek was great for a minute, and it was funny.
But here's the funny thing.
If you weren't watching CNN's coverage, you missed a good comedy show.
So I watched live, as Trump was gently mocking Tim Scott,
For the fact, well, not really mocking Tim Scott, but mocking Nikki Haley for the fact that she was governor who appointed Tim Scott to the position before he wanted himself as senator, and that you would expect, being from the same state, South Carolina, that Nikki Haley and Tim Scott would be on the same page, and you'd expect Tim Scott to maybe endorse his state person, but instead he endorsed Trump.
So Trump was pointing out that Nikki Haley couldn't even get Tim Scott to endorse her.
And here's how CNN played it.
They got rid of the laugh track.
Now when I say laugh track, I mean the actual genuine laughter of the audience.
And then they did a close-up on Trump.
And it completely changed it from a joking thing that his audience enjoyed, because they did, they were laughing pretty hard, to something that they called awkward.
And when they went back to whichever the host was, she did the frozen face for a moment and just said, awkward.
So everybody who was watching CNN believes that there was an awkward exchange between Tim Scott and Trump.
Partly because they ruepart it, and they cut off the part where Tim Scott joked back.
Because Tim Scott actually went to the podium, you know, and said into the microphone, you know, in sort of an aggressive but joking way, no, it's because I love you more.
You know, it's not that I dislike Haley, it's that I love you more, Trump.
Now that was a good, well-played.
Tim Scott actually spontaneously and perfectly played the moment to, you know, keep it joking so it wasn't too serious.
And CNN got rid of the laughs.
If you take the laughs out, it looks really awkward.
If you put the laughs in, you can see that, you know, Tim Scott knew he had to, like, respond in a way that wasn't embarrassing, but then he did.
So he came off really well, I thought.
So yeah, that was fun.
That was funny.
Entertaining fake news.
They also say that Trump gave an angry speech.
So again, I didn't watch every minute of Trump's speech, but when I turned it on, everybody was laughing.
They were literally joking and laughing at his jokes.
And so that's what I saw.
Oh, everybody's really happy and laughing.
And I turned it to CNN and they're like, he gave such an angry speech.
Yeah.
Why does he have to be so angry?
Cause that's part of their dictator narrative.
They have to sell you that he's not only a dictator, but he's a, um, unpredictable, uh, chaos dictator.
Do you know why they can't say that he's a dictator and just leave it there?
Take a guess.
Why do you think they can't call Trump a dictator and just say, just he's a dictator, but they also have to say, but he's unpredictable chaos, you know, evil dictator, not just a dictator.
Do you know why?
Do you know what Putin's popularity is in the, in the Russian country?
Putin's popularity I think is north of 80%.
And I don't see people saying that's a fake number.
Now obviously the news is very controlled, but Russia has the Internet.
Do they not?
Can't every Russian get to the internet and see all free information everywhere?
I think they can.
And they still decided that even in a war, that looks to us very optional from Russia's point of view, that even in a war, the popularity of Putin's like 80%.
So just think about this.
The best approach that the Democrats would come up with When our border is open and people are pouring over with every kind of crime and fentanyl that you could imagine, as well as good people, of course, that while the country is frightened to death, that they're saying, watch out for the dictator, because we don't want you to have a president that has 80% popularity and closed the border, like Putin did.
Putin closed his border, 80% popularity.
Now, I'm not coming out in favor of Putin.
Somebody will take the clip and take it out of context and say, oh, you're favoring Putin.
No, I'm not.
I'm not favoring dictators.
I'm not saying Trump's a dictator.
I'm not saying Putin's a good guy.
He's not.
What I'm saying is it's hilarious to me that the Democrats picked as their main attack to smear Trump with the dictator label When the dictator is the most popular person in the world right now.
With his own people.
80%.
Right?
Do you know who else is that level of popularity?
I believe the president of El Salvador, right?
President of El Salvador just put like a million people in jail.
He put a million people in jail.
Does it sound like he followed all the democratic processes?
No!
He's very popular.
Because he acted like a dictator.
Yeah.
Now, it's not being presented that way in our press.
He's being presented as a champion of democracy and he got rid of the bad guys, which he did.
But I think he might have bent a rule or two to get rid of those bad guys, you know, dictator style.
It's just that the public loved it.
They said, yeah, if that's the dictator you're going to be, I'll take a little more of that.
And when Trump says, I'm going to be a dictator when it comes to the border, I don't say I want less of that.
I say when it comes to the border, yes, be a dictator.
That is exactly what I want.
I want you to be a dictator on the border.
Everything else?
Well, that's a different conversation.
But on the border?
Yes!
Yes!
Be a dictator!
Go take control and close that thing.
Close that thing.
All right.
I talked about CNN being entertaining.
MSNBC I just find disturbing.
Because, and I'm going to say this, this is not an exaggeration.
I mean this in the literal scientific medical sense.
When I watch CNN, it looks like people lying.
And maybe they know they're doing it.
And they know they're pushing a narrative.
They don't look crazy.
But when I turn on MSNBC, they don't look like they know they're lying.
They actually look mentally ill.
Now, Nicole Wallace, she looks like she knows she's lying.
She doesn't look mentally ill to me.
But when I watch Joy Reid or Rachel Maddenow, they actually look like they're having a mental health crisis on TV.
Now again, I'm no mental health professional, so you shouldn't take my mental diagnoses from a distance from people I've never met in person.
That wouldn't be smart.
But the way I receive it, just as a viewer, I receive it as mental illness.
Do you see that?
Or is it just me?
Do you see that CNN looks more like just traditional liars who have a point of view that they're pushing, and MSNBC looks actually like mental illness to me.
Not all of them.
Chris Hayes looks like he's normal, he just has a point of view.
I also think it's interesting that Joy Reid, her job is to read a teleprompter, but without the Joy.
So she's literally Joy Reid, whose job is to read stuff but remove the joy and tell you how it's all bad because Trump.
That's a weird coincidence.
And don't get me started on a racial mad now.
That's a weird coincidence, too.
All right.
Did you hear the secret recording of Carrie Lake attempting to be bribed by Republican Party chair Jeff DeWitt, allegedly?
Caught on a secret recording allegedly lots of allegedly's have to be put on here, you know in the in the era of AI I Don't automatically know it's real, right?
So I think it's probably real But you don't automatically know that's real especially in audio only So don't assume it's real Unless Carrie Lake confirms it, which she might have.
She might have done that.
Has she done that yet?
Has Carrie confirmed that it's real?
Because if she says it's real, then it's real.
All right, did anybody see that yet?
Looks like the comments are working again.
All right, well, so what happened on the recording was this Republican Party chair, Said there are powerful people who want to keep you out of the race when she was running for Senate in Arizona and that they would be willing to bribe her.
You put it right out there.
There are powerful people that he wouldn't name.
And he actually said they want to offer you a high-paying position.
And she was like, no, no.
This is about the country.
I'm not looking for the money.
And then when he said, name a number, he actually said, Give me a number to take back to them.
In other words, how much money would it take?
And I think he said something like 10 million or he was putting on some big numbers.
And he was going to take that back to them and say for this amount of money, she would leave.
But she said, get out of here.
I don't do that.
You know, you're trying to bribe me.
This is about the country falling apart.
This isn't about making money now.
If Carrie Lake is the one who created that recording, and it's not real, that would be hilarious.
I don't think that's the case.
But I have a much better feeling about Carrie Lake's honesty after hearing the recording.
Now, you can't rule out that she prefers to be influenced by some other entity, so you don't know that.
But at least she wasn't willing to take a Republican bribe, you know?
And you would think that someone who was at least willing to consider a bribe from anybody would have gone further in the conversation.
Right?
If she were the person who would take a bribe from anyone, the way she would have handled it, I think, is, no, that's crazy.
What kind of number are they talking about?
Right?
The fact that Carrie has zero interest in what kind of a number they were talking about, like how many millions of dollars they would give her, she didn't even want to know a number.
Now that tells me she's not one likely to take a bribe in any context.
Because if you don't ask for the number, you're really not interested.
I mean, that's the minimum you'd ask for.
It's like, no, I would never do that.
How much are they offering?
Because even I do that in my own life.
People will make an offer for something I don't want to do.
I remember early in Dilbert, there was some company that did tobacco products, wanted to advertise using Dilbert.
I said, I'm not going to advertise tobacco.
That's crazy.
And then I said, but just out of curiosity, how much were they going to offer?
Now, of course I asked the question, but no, there's no amount of money that I would have taken to advertise tobacco, in case you're wondering.
All right, let's see, what else we got?
Kansas City has a reparations plan that has been delayed, so the Kansas City Reparations Commission, they needed more time.
Yeah, so that's going to be delayed.
So that's too bad because we're really expecting something useful and good to come out of that.
Over in Boston, similar.
They're forming a task force, but it's going to take a while.
Now, do you know what I call this technique?
The form a task force and get back to me technique?
That's called the pointy-haired boss strategy.
The pointy-haired boss strategy involves Oh, yeah, I'm totally interested in that thing you're proposing that I'm totally not interested in.
So I'll tell you what.
What we need is a lot of details.
Oh, somebody says Carrie Lake said it is real.
So we do have confirmation that audio tape is real.
Well, good for Carrie.
She went up in my estimation because of that.
She's always very capable, but now we know she's also honest.
So Boston is also going to have that test for us, take some time and get back to him.
Now, I call it the pointy-haired boss strategy, because you don't want to say no, but you can't say yes.
So you send them back to study it, and when they come back with a result, you say, that's not good enough, you better study it some more.
Until they just give up.
That's how it's done in corporate America.
Just study that thing until you give up.
But, I think this is the same approach they would work in Gaza.
So Israel has the same situation.
They can't allow Hamas to form another country next to them just like they did before.
But they also, because of the intense international pressure, they can't say they're not going to do it.
Which is what Netanyahu is saying, but it's not working out well.
So what could Israel do?
Much like the reparations people are doing.
Well, if I were Israel, this is what I'd do.
I'd say, you know what?
You Hamas supporters say that at the end of this war, at the end of the military actions, that you want to rebuild yourself.
Can you give us a specific detailed plan of how you plan to run and keep terrorism away from Israel?
That's the important part.
Come back with a detailed plan.
of how Hamas will take power over, and then what they will do specifically to make sure that Hamas no longer attacks Israel.
Do you think that could ever be done?
Do you think Hamas could ever put together, in writing, a plan that says, all right, we're gonna take over, but this time we're gonna put in all these functions that will guarantee that we don't attack Israel.
They can't do that.
There's no way in the world they could do that.
But if you don't ask them to tell you what is your plan for how we should rebuild Gaza, then it looks like you're the bad guy.
Right?
So you don't say, you don't say no to reparations.
You say, go study it and tell us the details.
When they come back with the details, it's like, give every black descendant of slavery $1.2 million and everybody laughs at it because it's just so stupid and impractical.
Same thing would happen if Hamas came back with a plan.
They come back with their plans like, all right, here's the plan.
We just go back into power.
And then Israel said, well, the most important part's missing.
The part where you do something differently so we're no longer attacked like October 7th.
So go back and work on that some more until you've addressed what you can do.
And they'll go back and work on it for another year and they'll come back.
Alright, here's our plan.
We'll take over the government.
Hamas will be back in charge.
Everybody will give us money to rebuild.
And that's our plan.
Then Israel will say, did you maybe not get the memo?
We said, this entire past year, you were supposed to be working on your specific plan about how to stop future terrorism, because that's sort of a base requirement for having a country next to us.
And then they say, well, you better give us another six months.
You could make them spin their wheels forever until they just give up.
Because that's what's going to happen with the reparations committees.
They're just going to spin their wheels.
Occasionally they'll come up with a plan that's so absurdly impractical that nobody takes it seriously.
And then they're sent back to study it some more.
You could do the same thing with Gaza forever.
Give us your plan.
Well, that's not a plan.
Try again.
But I definitely would like to do work with you and see what your plan is.
Come back when you got one.
And then repeat.
All right, so, you know, more reports about this Soros organization pouring zillions of dollars into various entities and political groups in the United States.
And I have this question.
Shouldn't there be some kind of a law about one person, how much any one entity can put into the political process?
Now, you don't want to say it's zero, because that's a free speech issue, because sometimes you have to pay to get your voice out.
So that requires money.
So yes, money in politics and paying to get your message out, that seems fine.
But at some point, There's an amount of money that's so great that you've subverted the political republic.
So I feel like we should at least consider a maximum amount that can go into the system in every different way.
So if the Soros organization is putting, you know, lots of money into different organizations, I think you'd have to sum it up and say, okay, that's too much control for one person.
Something like that.
Now, I don't like, I don't love new laws and new regulations and new limits on freedom, but I feel like it might increase our freedom by getting that, you know, the money effect out.
We're limiting it.
Just a thought.
It just seems crazy to me that we would let one person have this much influence when we know it.
Soros probably controls 20 million votes.
You get one.
But Soros can probably influence Probably 20 million people.
You know, just his own money alone.
That feels right.
You know, maybe 20 percent of Democrats would vote the way they vote because they've been influenced by his money one way or the other.
That's a lot.
It's enough to control the country.
All right.
What we need is love, says Jose.
What we need is love.
Well, I'll try the love.
You try the love, I'll try being well-armed.
We'll see who does better.
Yeah, if you look at Zuckerberg, Hoffman, and Soros, between the three of them, they do control a lot of the country in terms of our opinions.
So Bo Johnson saying some rumors about, no, who is it?
it.
No, MMJM says, but Klott, that's me, told us Soros is just a nice giving guy a few months back.
He called it all a conspiracy theory that he was evil.
No, I didn't.
Nope.
Literally didn't happen.
You are hallucinating.
I definitely never said he's giving money because he's a nice guy.
I said I don't understand it.
Which I still don't.
So there's something about it that I don't understand.
See, you think that Soros is the head of the snake.
Was that anti-Semitic?
Did I accidentally use an anti-Semitic trope?
If I did, I take that part back.
But you know what I mean.
It's a common statement.
The head of the animal or head of the beast.
I don't think he's in charge.
I don't think Soros is calling the shots.
I believe Soros is controlled by somebody's country's intelligence operation.
It might be ours.
Might be ours, I don't know.
And I would imagine that he's putting a lot of money into things we don't know for the same reason.
That he's being controlled by some intelligence entities.
Because I kind of doubt he could do so well without a little help.
You know what I mean?
Isn't he an unusually good investor?
You know, unusually good for years and years.
He keeps nailing it, doesn't he?
Wow.
He's so good at investing.
Do you think that's all just natural?
It's organic?
It could be.
Maybe he's a super genius.
But he doesn't act like one.
When he talks, you don't say to yourself, well, there's a guy.
Got everything right.
I mean, maybe he got lucky when he started.
But...
I can't imagine that the intelligence groups in the various countries would leave him alone, right?
You don't think anybody's knocked on his door and said, all right, you have all this influence and all this money, maybe we should be talking to you, because we want to influence things too.
So I don't know what's true and what's not true with Soros.
I don't know that he's the evil one.
I know that the outcome is pure evil.
That's easy to know, because you can just observe that directly.
But we don't know why.
I don't know why.
That's still a big mystery to me.
And those of you who default to it's a big Jewish worldwide conspiracy, I will ask you again, who has ever had a conspiracy that big for decades and decades and not one whistleblower?
Not a single person ever said, you know, we had a meeting.
Or, you know, behind the scenes, people are doing this or that.
Not once.
No whistleblowers.
That's a pretty good record.
All right.
Czar Putin.
Well, your comments are all working now.
Oh, good.
Check out, now Google manipulates elections.
Yes, I've seen that before.
Yeah, so I don't think we have anything like, you know, free and fair elections.
And I think they're calling the 2020 election rigged.
It's sort of an understatement.
I'm pretty sure they're all rigged.
I doubt we've had anything like a fair election.
Now, when I say rigged, I don't mean that the votes were miscounted.
I mean that if you count the money influence and the persuasion and the fake news and the lawfare and, you know, all the changing of the rules and the pandemic, collectively, it was a rigged election.
No doubt about it.
All right, that ladies and gentlemen is what I had to say today and Oh, I assume the votes were miscounted.
Yeah.
So here's my take on the election.
Personally, I don't have any proof of any election tampering.
But in the context of literally everything else being corrupt, you'd have to be a fucking idiot to think that's the only uncorrupt part of the country.
Literally everything is corrupt in this country.
Everything.
Not every person.
Carrie Lake showed you that not every person is corrupt.
But she also showed you that the process is always corrupt.
All right.
That's all I got for you today.
Thanks for joining on the YouTube Rumble and the X Platform.
I hope you enjoyed this.
This came to you by the Rumble Studio, which I highly recommend.
