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, Inflation Propaganda, Fake News, Peter Zeihan, Chris Hayes, Nikki Haley, Tricky Nikki, Fani Willis Allegations, Soros Funded Prosecutors, Anti-White US Military, Jon Stewart, President Biden, Replacing Biden Op, Dementia Anger, Trans Mass Shooters, UCSF Anti-White, Washing Feet Commercial, Ukraine Funding Bill, All-In Podcast, NBC News Spin, Scott Adams
---
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 don't think there's ever been a better time in your experience, but if you'd like to take it up to levels that could only be described as Taylor Swift at the Super Bowl.
I'm sorry, we're not done with her yet.
But if you'd like to take it up to that level, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, shells or 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 of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go!
Oh, perfect.
Perfect!
Well, there are more planes falling apart in the sky.
There's a small plane approaching Buffalo Niagara International, and the back door just fell off.
Now, I should tell you, just in case you're wondering, who makes all these airplanes?
Well, I've decided that Dilbert's Company is going to be in the business of making screws for airplanes.
That keep coming unscrewed in the air.
And I'm going to be spending a lot of time today trying to draw a picture of a pilot of an aircraft Where suddenly the entire aircraft has fallen apart in the sky.
So I'm trying to figure out how to draw this without too much detail, because I want the pilot to still be sitting in his pilot's seat, but all the other parts of the airplane just sort of just, you know, are like separating.
So you can see that the nose cone is a little bit up here and, you know, the co-pilot's back a little bit.
Anyway, you'd have to be subscribing to Dilbert to see that either on X or at scottadams.locals.com NBC News reports, and I swear I'm not making this up, these are the actual words I am quoting from an NBC News post on the X platform.
I'd like to read it exactly as written.
NBC News.
A Connecticut pastor has been arrested on allegations that he sold crystal meth out of his church's rectory.
Seriously?
Well, I have this advice for you.
The best place to keep your crystal meth is in your rectory.
Especially if you get pulled over by the police.
We'd like to check your rectory.
I don't think you want to.
Alright, well I have nothing to say about that except it's kind of funny that he kept his meth in his rectory.
I don't know.
Am I the only one who sees it?
I'm not the only one, right?
Did NBC do this intentionally?
Do you think they knew exactly what they were doing?
I feel like they did.
They put that meth right up your rectory, right?
Wall Street Journal says China is emerging as the big ocean power.
So apparently they've got gigantic shipbuilding capabilities.
So they're going to fill the ocean with ships.
You know, it's funny, I was just thinking about this the other day.
That doesn't it seem like we're not talking enough about how China is going to own the entire ocean?
Because all it takes is the number of ships, right?
If you just make it a sort of a fact on the ground, but in the water in this case, that you just have more stuff there, you end up kind of owning it.
So I would say this is a pretty big risk.
Who's going to own the ocean?
Especially since I do believe there will be a number of countries that are formed to be away from regular countries.
I think that's going to be a big thing.
There's already talk of an AI computing platform that will be built in the ocean so that it's not censored by governments.
So that's not too dangerous.
No, we're going to have at least one AI.
Maybe.
I mean, it's not a done deal.
But one AI might be floating in the ocean and totally uncensored.
I think it will probably get bombed by the United States.
We'll have to take it out.
Because we don't want any AIs that are uncensored, that's for sure.
All right.
But did you know that India has overtaken China as the most populated country?
Did that sneak up on you like it snuck up on me?
So it turns out India is the most populated country.
So I'm glad that India's our friend.
All right, let's talk about inflation.
Do you believe any numbers about inflation?
Is there anything the government could tell you about inflation that you would believe is accurate or useful?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
But here's what happened.
Experts were thinking it would be maybe as low as 2.9.
But it came in at 3.1, so it's hotter than they hoped.
But it's down from what it was at 3.4.
Or is it?
It depends what you're measuring and when you start measuring.
So New York Times reports it as inflation is cooling less than expected.
Which is another way to say there's too much inflation.
Another way to look at it would be overall prices are up almost 18% since Biden took office.
But here's the thing.
You can definitely count on the American public not being able to understand math or data or really anything complicated.
So the Democrats can simply say inflation is under control and is doing fine.
Even while you go into the store and buy things and it's obviously, it's obviously more expensive.
Like obviously.
Like a lot.
Have you tried to ship anything lately?
I just bought some, you know, some construction supplies that are not terribly heavy.
You know, it's not like wood.
It's not wood.
It's not metal.
It's just some stuff.
And the shipping is $2,000.
The shipping.
$2,000.
For sort of an ordinary product.
What it is is these faux brick and faux wood things that you put on a wall so it looks like it's wood or it looks like it's brick.
But they're not real brick.
You know, the actual thing that looks like brick is sort of a plastic-y looking thing.
Yeah, a veneer.
$2,000 just to ship it.
I don't know, if you've tried to ship anything, it's like $100 to ship a small package overnight.
$100.
The last time I checked, it was like $30.
I mean, it's crazy.
Yeah, mostly fuel probably.
So here's what I would tell you about inflation.
The way we measure it is everything.
And the way we talk about it is everything.
Nobody really understands this.
I think people understand that they're paying more.
But beyond that, we don't really know how to sort out the data.
Well, Rasmussen had a poll that said 81% of voters say the issue of crime will be important in this year's election.
And 48% expect to be very important.
And I realized that there's something different about the Biden voters and the Trump voters.
Trump voters, just tell me if you think this is true, as a kind of a summary of the whole situation.
It seems to me that Trump voters think our top priorities are crime, border security, the economy, And unnecessary foreign spending.
Does that sound fair?
Those being the biggest priorities.
Whereas the Biden voters are people who still think the news is real.
And it turns out that's not a joke.
There's a Gallup poll that shows Republicans understand the news is not real and don't trust it.
And Republicans actually think it's real.
You know, not all of them.
But on average, there's a huge difference.
Huge difference.
Whether you believe the news is real or not.
And I feel like that's the entire story.
And if we don't frame it that way, we're just being silly.
Because it seems to me that we don't have disagreements about policy as much as we think.
We have disagreements about reality, and the main disagreement is that part of the country thinks the news is real and is trying to tell you real news.
That hasn't been the case in a long time, and I don't know if it's ever been the case.
There was a time when I thought it was real, you know, back in the Walter Cronkite days.
I thought that was real news.
By today's perspective, that seems funny.
Would you agree?
Is it obvious to you that the news was never real?
It's just as we figured it out.
It took a while.
Yeah.
Of course it's never been real.
Let me give you some examples.
You might know of somebody named Peter Zahn, who's a geopolitical analyst, likes to talk about it on videos and such.
He's got a new one in which he speaks of Tucker Carlson and his interview with Putin.
He calls him an American journalist, but he puts journalists in quotes.
Really.
Tucker Carlson, of all the journalists out there, he's the one you'd pick out.
To put it in quotes.
I don't know if he's a journalist.
He might be a quote journalist.
Really?
Let's see how the others are doing.
Should we do a brief review of how the real journalists are doing?
The ones you can count on?
Let's see, Chris Hayes at MSNBC posts this.
He says, two of the most untold stories of the Biden administration, both of which we've told before, you yell at me, in other words, MSNBC has told them, are, number one, under Biden, U.S.
oil production is higher than any country ever in history.
Number two, under Trump, violent crime spiked, and under Biden, violent crime is falling.
So, that would be an example of a real journalist, right there.
Not one of these fake, Tucker Carlson kind of journalists.
It's somebody who will tell you two real facts.
Oil production is higher than any country ever before under Biden, and that violent crime spiked under Trump and now it's down.
Is there... I wonder...
Is there any kind of huge global external event that would have any bearing on these numbers?
Let's say, I don't know, how about the pandemic?
Just to pick one example.
So would the pandemic have had any impact on oil production?
And is the comparison what Biden did to what Trump did?
Is that the correct comparison?
Because I feel like almost everything gets bigger or more as you go forward in time.
Shouldn't the actual comparison be not what Biden is doing now in oil production compared to what Trump did?
Shouldn't it be what Trump would have done if he had been in office versus what Biden did?
And how would you compare those?
You can't.
Because Trump wasn't in office.
So how do you know that this is anything?
It's not anything.
Unless you're comparing it, you know, the right comparison.
So no, you cannot make a comparison of what somebody's doing today with what somebody did four years ago when the situation was totally different.
And maybe the pandemic had something to do with how much oil got pumped because we were needing less of it.
I would think.
And plus, it takes a while to ramp up production, so it wouldn't surprise me.
Given that gas prices were high, Wouldn't you expect a lot more drilling?
So, what about that violent crime spike?
I thought all the experts agreed that the violent crime spike was related to the pandemic.
Didn't everybody know that?
And then when the pandemic ended, didn't we all expect that it would go down, which it did?
Now what went up is property crime.
And that's based on an actual change in policy.
So the change that Biden is lucky enough to be under is one that just happened because the pandemic ended.
But the crime that's still higher is because of actual Democrat policies of letting criminals out of jail.
Now, how many of MSNBC's viewers would have known that this is an absurd two comparisons and that the pandemic basically explains both of them, plus the passage of time?
Not many would know that.
But Chris Hayes is what I call a real journalist, not one of these Tucker Carlson, go to Moscow and talk to the most important person in the world because nobody else talked to him and get some scoops and nobody had.
Journalist, with quotes.
All right, let's talk about believing the news.
So here's some things we know.
Back when I was a kid, I remember in my parents' day, they were told that cigarettes were good for them.
It was healthy.
But, you know, thank God we're not idiots like that now, so we know that's not true.
And then when I was younger, we were told that occasional drinking was actually good for you.
But now, it turns out, that was never true.
So thank God we're not dumb like we used to be, thinking drinking's good for you if you only do a little bit of it, right?
Then when I was a kid, there was a food pyramid that told us to eat the wrong foods.
Turns out the food industry was behind it and none of it was science.
But thank God we don't do that anymore.
I mean, look how smart we are.
Now we know tobacco is bad.
We know drinking is bad for you.
And we know the food pyramid was a hoax.
It was fake.
But we're smarter now.
Like when you look back at how dumb we were.
Oh my goodness.
We were so simple-minded back then when I was a kid.
But we've gotten so much smarter now.
We would never fall for that sort of a thing.
We're much more sophisticated.
And then there was the pandemic in which nearly 100% of everything we were told by scientists and experts turned out to be wrong or direct lies.
But, you know, that pandemic was a while ago.
That was a few years ago.
And it was a fog of war, you know.
So, like, you can't really imagine that anything like that is still happening today.
I mean, not really.
And we've seen that 100% of our institutions are clearly corrupt.
But not science.
Not science.
It's everything else.
So we've gotten so much better because we used to be so gullible.
Or believe in cigarettes are good and drinking's good and the food pyramid's real and the pandemic stuff was real and all our institutions, we thought maybe weren't that corrupt, but it turns out we were wrong about all that stuff.
But thank goodness, thank goodness, we're right about climate change.
Am I right?
Because you'd hate to get that one wrong, given, you know, the stakes involved.
So, here's what I would recommend.
I'd love to see somebody as a dirty trick, a Republican dirty trick, put together a climate loyalty pledge.
And ask Democrats to sign it.
Now here would be what makes it funny.
It would be asking them to sign what they actually do believe.
I would just word it in the funniest way.
So it wouldn't be anything fake.
It would be things they really genuinely believe.
And I would just ask them to say it.
For example, the Loyalty Pledge might say, I believe that science is so accurate that it can measure the temperature of the planet within a tenth of a degree, including historically.
I'd just like to see people put their name to that.
And then also that they believe that science can predict the temperature for 75 years in the future.
Including the effect of all technological changes, new discoveries, etc.
I'd love to see somebody sign that, because that's what they believe.
So why wouldn't you put it in writing?
Why not?
Let me say as clearly as I could possibly say this.
I don't know if humans are causing the world to overheat and it's a problem.
I don't know.
But I do know that science doesn't know either.
That's the only thing I'm positive about.
Now, let me put it in this frame.
If you've lived in a real world where you've seen how real organizations work, you've seen how real professionals operate, you've seen how real scientists work, you see how a corporation does things that maybe the public doesn't see everything that's happening behind the scenes.
So you've lived in a real world.
And you would believe that scientists can measure the average temperature of the planet to within a tenth of the degree.
That's not really a realistic thing to think.
And try to put yourself 40 years in the future.
Just fast forward your mind, and then think back.
Think how you're going to feel, if you're still around, that you once believed that scientists could measure the temperature of the Earth within a tenth of a degree, and then predict it for the next 75 years.
How are you going to feel about that?
Aren't you going to think, oh God, that was so obvious.
Why didn't I see that they couldn't possibly do that?
But again, let me say, I don't know if the planet is warming.
I just know that nobody else knows.
That's the only thing I'm sure of.
Yeah, it's the only thing I'm sure of.
And by the way, we should do largely a lot of the same things we're doing, whether it's warming or not.
We still want alternate clean energy sources.
We still want tons of nuclear power.
We still want fusion.
We still want electric, if it works.
So, I wouldn't do much different, but I'd change the story.
Tucker Carlson is making news by saying that Moscow is cleaner and safer than any major city in the U.S.
And, you know, that's probably true.
But how much do you want to live in their entire system?
And I ask that as an actual question.
That sounded rhetorical.
That's an actual question.
What's it like to be an average Russian?
And why don't I know that?
Is the average Russian saying, oh, my political system is so bad?
Or are they saying, you know what?
The things that I can't do I don't care about.
I can't criticize the government, but I didn't have much to say anyway.
And Moscow looks pretty clean.
Taxes look pretty good.
So, and it looks like even Putin has, you know, support for the war.
He appears to be one of the most popular leaders anywhere.
So, I would say I don't want to move to a place that has less freedom than the United States, but the freedom in the United States has shrunk to the point where it can't be that different from Russia.
In the United States, you can go to jail for saying things that are true.
You can go to jail for free speech.
So, is that that different?
I do also wonder about organized crime.
Isn't Moscow riddled with, you know, criminals, like the organized crime kind?
Yeah.
Anyway, we'll talk more about Russia.
It looks like Trump has a new nickname he's testing out for Nikki Haley, Tricky Dicky.
So, here are some things that Nikki posted.
See if you can tell how many of these are obvious hoaxes, that every Republican knows is a hoax, but why doesn't Nikki Haley know it?
Here's what she said.
In Arlington Cemetery, she was talking about Trump, she says, in Arlington Cemetery, you said, what was in it for them?
Do you believe that really happened?
No.
You insulted military families two days ago.
No.
That didn't happen.
You call veterans suckers and losers.
No.
Nobody who's a Republican believes any of that happened.
Those are all those anonymous one-person-says-stories.
Those are never true.
Stories like this are never true.
If it just has this character to it, it's not true.
Oh, somebody said he said something behind closed doors.
How about And then she says, you can't fix that with a fake social media post.
What?
So here's what Trump says back to her, after all these hoaxes.
He says, Bird Brain has become a crazed lunatic, totally unhinged, and that she's suffering from a terminal disease, Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Well, I don't think she has Trump Derangement Syndrome, because I don't think she believes any of those stories are true.
Do you?
Do you think she thinks any of those stories are true?
But you know who thinks those stories are true?
The Never Trumpers, maybe, if they even believe it, and Democrats, because they don't have real news.
So the Democrats are listening, you know, to people like Chris Hayes, and I guess Nikki Haley now, and poor bastards, they just don't have real news.
Well, speaking of Trump, he's rumored to be maybe attending the Fannie Willis hearing, in which she'll be... There's some allegations of misconduct with her boyfriend, hiring him when he wasn't qualified to prosecute Trump, and maybe taking some trips, and having him pay her back for her hiring him.
You know, those are the allegations.
And apparently there's some allegations that she may have lied about the date when the affair started, which would be trouble because it'd be lying under oath.
And here I'm going to reiterate my suggestion.
I feel like you could find at least this much criminal activity by every Soros-funded prosecutor.
Not the same.
It'd be, you know, different stuff.
But I feel as if if you just looked into deeply the activities of any public official whatsoever, you'd find all kinds of stuff.
Like even the ones you like.
There'd be something there, you know, that you didn't like.
And I feel like I don't know why there is not some billionaire who just says, look, go research every one of these Soros prosecutors, anybody who was funded by Soros, and just find every possible bad thing they've ever done and just lawfare them out of business.
Because they are being hired to lawfare Republicans into jail.
It would be perfectly fair to lawfare them either into jail or out of the job.
I'd be really disappointed if there's no billionaires willing to fund that because that's sort of a, I don't know, maybe a $10 million expense that would be necessary to save the entire country.
It feels like that would be worth the expense.
If I were a billionaire, I'd fund it.
There's a story that the Daily Caller says, there's a big decline in recruits for the military, but it's almost entirely of white men.
So white people don't want to join the military.
But there is an increase in, not enough to compensate, but black and Hispanic recruits are more, or joining the military, but not enough to make up for the shortfall.
Now, does that surprise you?
Let me state it directly.
When I was a kid, I thought the country was for everybody, and certainly there was discrimination which I opposed.
So, you know, I think we get better and better at removing the historic kinds of discrimination.
But we ended up just replacing it with anti-white stuff.
I don't support a military that's anti-white.
I don't support them.
And I definitely would not recommend any white person join that military.
At all.
Now, if you were black or Hispanic, I would definitely fight for this country.
Because it's doing a damn good job for you at the moment.
It's doing a really good job for you.
I would fight for that country.
If I were you.
But, no, as a white person, the military has not, let's say, What would you say?
Presented itself?
Engaged?
No, it hasn't.
It hasn't presented itself as something I could support.
Because it appears to be opposed to me.
Right?
The minimum requirement for fighting is that you're fighting for the people who are on your side.
It's very clear that my government has policies, not just opinions, but policies They're anti-me.
I'm not going to fight for that.
If you at least get rid of DEI and ESG, I'd say, oh, well, there's a country.
There's a country I'm going to support.
And I would certainly fight to end any discrimination that, you know, was a legacy type discrimination anywhere.
Absolutely.
I'm on board with that.
But at the moment, no, I don't think white people should support the country militarily.
I don't think that, I don't think that sacrifice is warranted.
Because you're not fighting for your team.
You'd be fighting for somebody else's team, basically.
All right.
The Daily Show is back with Jon Stewart.
And I watched a clip of it, wondering if he had lost his magic and whether it would be a sad pro-Democrat thing.
And it was actually good.
And he actually went directly at Biden's age in a hilarious way.
Better than anything I've seen.
Actually, as good or better than any Republican has.
Now, he also went after Trump for, you know, all the Trumpy stuff.
But I thought it was actually pretty balanced.
So I was all prepared to say, oh, here's another one of those things.
I hear you say, don't trust him.
Don't trust him.
Well, somebody said this to me the other day online.
They were mocking me for trusting something.
Now that's really bad mind reading.
Do you know who I trust?
My family.
And that's about it.
That's about it.
I don't trust anybody in politics.
Are you kidding me?
In politics?
Or business?
I don't trust anybody in business or anybody in politics.
I don't trust any strangers.
Yeah.
And somebody's giving me a specific name.
I'm not going to say who it is.
But if you think that because I retweet somebody or tell you you should look at their work on the internet, do you think that means that I believe that everything they say is true and there's no tricks involved and never could be?
I would never think that.
Never.
No.
I don't trust anybody except family members.
Right?
Everybody else has got to prove it.
Now, I'm seeing some other names go by.
People are challenging me.
Challenge me.
Do you trust this one or don't trust this one?
I will say there are people who, by their actions, Uh, are so compatible with my interests that I would trust them to pursue their own best interest, but it happens to be exactly mine.
Like, there's no difference.
So some of the names that just went by, you're saying, well, do you trust this one?
Because there are people that I've said good things about and am friends with.
I could definitely easily be friends with somebody who has the same interests I have and expresses it that way.
But that doesn't mean I would trust them in every situation, unmentioned, in every context.
You know, that's just not something that you should do.
You shouldn't do it at all.
You should always assume that something you don't expect could happen.
It's just normal.
Yeah, you can list names all day and I'm going to say the same thing.
If their interests align with me and they've shown a pattern of it, I'm probably going to be pretty happy about it.
Doesn't mean they can't change their minds or be secret agents of the Kremlin that I don't know about.
It's possible.
So you should start with skepticism.
That's just basic.
So here's what Jon Stewart said in The Daily Show that I thought was brilliant.
I can't do his joke, but I'll just like point to it.
He showed the clips of all the Democrats who were saying that Biden is sharp and in control and he's like leader and if you're sitting in a meeting with this guy, he's showing all that leadership and he's so sharp.
And then Jon Stewart looks at the camera and he says, Why don't you show us those videos?
Why is it only people talking about him being sharp and leaderly?
Why are all the videos that we do have of him not being sharp and not being leaderly?
But if he's always sharp and leaderly behind closed doors, wouldn't it be really effective if you could maybe get a video of that and just show us?
Just maybe show us that sharpness.
Now that's good.
Right?
Can you complain about that?
Does that sound like, you know, like a Democrat?
He's just all a Democrat being a Democrat?
It doesn't.
I actually think he's going to attempt to play this right down the middle.
I think he's going to try.
Whether he accomplishes that, we don't know.
But it honestly looks like he's going to attempt a down the middle play, which would be fantastic.
It would just be fantastic.
So I'm going to root for him.
Um, did you notice that Biden is walking more and more like 3CPO?
Am I the only one?
Do you know how 3CPO from Star Wars walks?
I am going to give you my impression of 3CPO, but I want you to look at it and you tell me if it doesn't look exactly like the recent Biden videos.
All right?
3CPO, coming up.
up here it goes.
Three CPL.
Three CPL.
Close.
That's pretty close.
You know, ever since Gallagher died, I'm sort of the king of physical humor now.
But yeah, that's nothing to be worried about.
However, I do think it's part of a larger plan.
See, I think the plan is to replace, if they can just keep Biden alive long enough, we're right at the point where you could deepfake him, completely replace him with a deepfake, and then very soon, an actual robot.
But if you've watched any actual robots, you know, even the good ones, they all sort of walk like 3CPO.
So here's my conspiracy theory.
I think this is not the way Biden walks naturally.
I don't think so.
I think he walks like everybody else.
I think it's a long-term plan to act more and more like a robot So when they replace him with a robot in November, it looks just like him.
Let me just give you an example, okay?
So I'm gonna give you another physical example.
Imagine if Biden walked like this.
You know?
And then you replace him with a robot, and suddenly it's like...
Everybody would know that.
But if every day he acts a little bit more like a robot, he can't answer any hard questions, and he doesn't walk regular, it's going to look like this.
He's going to go from this to this, and you're going to go, well, it's a little different, but not much different.
I think that's the real Biden.
Yeah.
So, what I think is really missing from the news cycle is a really good conspiracy theory.
So I want to somehow merge this with something with UFOs.
Maybe it's all part of the UFO human replacement with robots.
Something.
I'm going to work on a better one.
But I do think they're making him walk like that to Primus for the robot replacement.
Well, I have a theory.
Let's see if you have the same theory.
There are two videos that Biden's been in recently.
They're packaged, you know, produced videos, not live.
One of them was during the Super Bowl where he complained about the snacks are too small and there's shrinkflation.
Now, just think about that story.
That really happened in the real world.
In the real world, where we've got wars and every kind of problem, the President of the United States said no to doing an interview, but yes to complaining about his snacks being too small.
Then today we see a video in which he shows that he can have a conversation with black people So he's with a black family.
It looks like a father and two teens and President Biden is eating fried chicken with the black people and talking about basketball He's eating fried chicken and talking about basketball Now I'm not making that up Now think about that story, and think about the snacks are too small.
What do they have in common?
What do those two things have in common?
I'm going to tell you what they have in common, and once you see it, once you see it, you'll never be able to see it another way.
What they have in common is they look like they were his ideas.
And it looks like the advisors are not trying to protect him anymore.
It looks like the advisors are going to let him go with his gut.
What would be the best way to get rid of Biden if you were on his staff and you knew you had to get rid of him because you just can't win with him?
But you can't tell him to leave.
You can't go public.
How would you get rid of him?
If you knew you had to, but you can't do it in any, like, normal way.
Here's what I would do.
Oh, I've got this great idea.
Instead of doing an interview for the Super Bowl, which everybody would do, that would show how capable I am, and normal, I'm gonna do something about snacks are too small, that will make me look like a ridiculous idiot, and not serious, and certainly not up to the job.
What do you think, staff?
I think that's the best idea you've had all year.
Yeah, let's put that together right away.
Yeah.
Do you have any other good ideas?
Yes, I do.
I've got an idea.
How about I show that I can have a conversation with a black family?
And we'll leave some fried chicken and talk about basketball.
That sounds like a great idea.
We'll put that together right away.
So here's what I'd like you to look for.
Those are two stories that have a lot in common, which is there's no professional political person who would have allowed these things to happen.
No professional political person would allow these things to happen unless they decided he's not their guy.
Unless they already knew who the replacement would be.
Unless they didn't even care who the replacement would be.
It just had to be anybody but him.
Could you imagine the moral ethical dilemma that's going on right now among his closest staff?
Imagine having to answer to history's judgment when you've seen what he's really like behind closed doors, and you know that everyone else knows That you know what's happening behind closed doors.
We will find out what was happening, right?
That's the kind of story that's guaranteed.
You know, after Biden passes, there will be tons of books saying, oh, you can't believe how bad it was.
I mean, we were changing his diaper.
You know, it's going to be all that stuff.
Like, literally, it's going to be that stuff.
And all those people are going to have to explain why they let the country be at such risk and they didn't whistleblow.
Now, obviously, they don't want to lose their jobs, so it's obvious why.
But that's a lot to ask of people.
So there's got to be There's got to be this ethical moral emergency, like a crisis is happening within each individual, because there's no way they don't know what they're doing and what's going on, right?
They may still prefer not having a Republican in charge.
I get that.
But there's a real moral ethical problem that they have to deal with.
And I think that the way humans are, the way they would deal with that is by not dealing with it and simply letting him decompose in front of us.
It looks very much.
Like the David Axelrods, who clearly don't want to be associated with his next run, are trying to find a way to let him kill him.
Basically, politically, suicide him.
Just let him do his thing until it's just so embarrassing the outcome is obvious.
So it looks to me like they're going to embrace and amplify.
Embrace meaning instead of protecting Biden, they're going to let Biden be Biden and watch him destroy himself in front of the public because Probably by now they've tried to advise him and got dementia anger.
You want to make a bet on this one?
Here's the easiest thing you could predict.
By now, well-meaning people who love Joe Biden, genuinely love him, have tried to talk him out of running.
Would you agree?
By now, the people who really care about him have tried to talk about him running, and that would include family, I'm sure, as well as staff.
What do you think he said to the staff?
Now, to the family, he was probably, you know, had a family kind of reaction.
But what do you think he would say to the staff who questioned his capability?
Dementia anger?
And how many times would you put up with dementia, anger, dressing down in your job before you decide to take him out of office?
For me, it'd be once.
If that happened to me once, and he disrespected me, it doesn't matter if he's the president.
If he disrespected me that way, even once, let's say yelling at me in front of a room full of people, I would probably do whatever I could to legally take him out of the office.
That would be personal.
I would take that very personally and I would act accordingly.
It looks like there are people who are just personally bothered and are taking it out on him personally.
Because letting him do these things, that snack commercial, that looked personal.
As well as political.
But it looks like actual hate.
You know when you hear about a murder?
And if somebody gets shot once in the head, and maybe once in the chest, what do you say about it?
Oh, it's professional.
Professional job.
They just basically got the job done quickly.
Two taps.
But what happens if you see somebody who's been stabbed 150 times?
You always say that's personal.
Right?
Or insanity, but usually personal.
When you see that Biden was allowed to do the snacks are too small commercial, that looks personal, doesn't it?
That's a little bit more like the 115 stab wounds situation.
There's no way you'd let him do this if you if you still cared about him.
This is people letting him go, in my opinion.
All right.
So some Republican Folks in the House committees are trying to get a hold of the videos or audios in which Biden talked to the special counsel, Robert Herr.
Because as you know, Robert Herr, in his report, characterized Biden as not being, let's say, mentally 100% there.
And so Republicans are saying, maybe we should see this video or hear this audio, to which I say, Yes, maybe you should.
I don't know the legality of it, though.
What right would the Republican-led House committee have to that information?
Is that public?
What would make them have access to that?
Can they just ask for it?
And they could just ask for oversight.
Oversight of what, though?
What would the oversight be of?
Because they don't have oversight of the special counsel, right?
Isn't the whole point of a special counsel is that the Congress can't stop what he's doing?
Hmm.
DOJ?
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I'm assuming that they have some legal standing there.
I just don't know what it is.
All right.
Joe Biden said costs have fallen from everything from a gallon of gas to a gallon of milk.
Is that true?
Costs have fallen for everything from a gallon of gas to a gallon of milk.
No, that's true.
That's completely true.
What are you talking about?
It's 100% true.
It just depends what time point you start measuring, right?
It is probably true that at one point milk was higher than today, and at one point gas was higher than today.
But, as the RNC research says, they say he's lying.
they say overall costs are up 17.3% under Biden, while gas prices remain 30% higher or so than when he took office.
Well, both of those things are true.
And they can both be true.
It can be true that they came down a little from their high.
It could be true that they're still way higher than when he took office.
So why does Biden just get in front of people and say something so out of context and misleading?
Well, it's because his people still think the news is real.
When CNN covers this, are they going to fact check it?
Maybe, if they're done with him.
But I doubt it.
I think they'll just ignore it.
Now, to be fair, would Trump ever make a claim like this?
And I mean in the very general sense like this.
Would Trump ever claim that something's doing well if there were some other context which would make it not look like it's doing so well?
Yeah, of course he would.
All the politicians seem to do that.
It's kind of universal.
So that part doesn't surprise me.
The only thing I'm talking about is the fact-checkers, the fact that you can just say that kind of stuff and it won't be fact-checked.
Do you think if Trump said this it wouldn't be fact-checked to death?
Of course it would.
Of course it would.
But it looks like only the Republican social media people are going to see the fact-check on that one.
Here's the most predictable thing in the world.
If you haven't heard the news, I'd like to see if you can predict.
All right, this is only for the people who haven't heard the news already.
Biden is going to have an upcoming physical exam, and you must answer the question, will the physical exam include a cognitive test?
Go.
Whoa, you're good.
Whoa, I can't believe how well you can predict.
Impressive, people.
You're so impressive.
No, surprisingly, despite the fact that the cognitive exam is the one we care about the most, they just won't do that.
Unnecessary.
Do you know why it's unnecessary?
Because if you were in the room with him, you would see him with all his sharpness and his leadership and his memory is, oh, his memory is so good.
They probably won't get that on video.
For some reason, they just always forget to turn on the video when he's being all leaderly and sharp.
So, I mean, only because of chance and neglect will you not have a good video of him being all sharp and leaderly.
But I guess that's why they don't need that cognitive test.
Now, I've got some questions.
Who does the White House doctor work for?
I mean, I actually don't know.
Does the White House doctor have only one responsibility, which is to the patient?
Does the White House doctor not have responsibility to the country?
Because if you go to your personal doctor, you do not expect your personal doctor to favor America over your health.
My doctor better care about my health more than everything else.
Better, or else I need a new doctor.
But is the White House doctor a political animal, a personal doctor, or does that doctor work for us?
Do you know?
I'm looking at the, yeah, I get that there's patient privilege, but the whole point of a president doing a physical exam is to make it public.
That's the point of it.
So, how do we explain the White House doctor, and is there any oversight that the Congress has?
Can Congress call the White House doctor in and ask the White House doctor to explain how do you let this go on?
Can they?
Now, I've been told that the 25th Amendment has no chance, no matter how bad Biden is.
Have you heard the same?
Because you would have to get so many people to vote for it.
Almost no chance.
Yeah.
So apparently just having a bad memory.
isn't going to come anywhere near the standard.
You'd have to be actually just a blithering idiot.
You know brain dead basically.
So just being not being good at your job comes nowhere near the standard for a mental disability.
Which is weird.
But it probably has to be that way because otherwise everybody called the president crazy and kick him out of office.
And I'll say again, I do not want Biden removed from office because I would love to watch him go all the way to the election and watch the Democrats lose in a way that they can see coming for two years.
And he should get an MRI of his brain.
Absolutely.
All right.
Here's a story from the libs of TikTok and others are reporting a surprising number of shooters.
Mass shooters lately are Trans or non-binary.
Now, I hate these stories.
And as you know, I don't usually cover them.
So I don't cover the mass shooting stories because I don't like to encourage them.
And they're all the same.
And I normally don't talk too much about trans stuff.
It's just not my beat.
And it's such a yucky topic.
It's like a hate-filled topic.
You can't really get into the topic without being slimed by the topic, no matter what your opinion is.
So I kind of stay away from it.
Here's the list.
So, according to the Libs of TikTok, the Colorado Spring Shooter was non-binary.
Nashville School Shooter, trans.
Aberdeen Shooter, trans.
Denver Shooter, trans.
Iowa School Shooter, trans.
Genderfluid Lakewood Church Shooter, trans.
Are those all true?
Is that true?
Yeah.
Now, is that unexpected?
Is it unexpected?
I'm assuming every one of these trans were born biologically male.
Were any of them born female?
I don't think so, yeah.
So, does this surprise you?
That a group who are in the category of trans would also have related or even unrelated mental problems.
That's not surprising, is it?
If you took any group of people who had known mental problems, wouldn't you expect more violent crime?
That seems somewhat expectable.
Now, let me say as clearly as possible before I'm taken out of context, I don't think that all trans or non-binary people have mental illness.
I just think that the trans community has more mental illness than most communities.
Most.
Right, I don't think there's anything that would be even comparable, really.
So, it shouldn't surprise you that people who have a known high level of mental illness, that would express itself in other ways.
But there does seem to be something weird going on, like even that alone doesn't seem to explain it.
Thomas Massey responded to the list and said, we should know which government approved drugs they were on.
Yes, we should.
We should know what government approved drugs they're on.
But there too, you have to be careful, don't you?
Because wouldn't you expect?
That the people who are taking drugs for depression or whatever it is, that they might also have other mental issues that would be acted out in other ways.
So I don't know if it would show you that the drug is causing it, or would it show you that people who have mental problems are more likely to take drugs.
It could work either way.
So you'd have to be careful with that data, but I would definitely like to know what it says.
I just wouldn't take it at face value.
You'd have to dig a little deeper.
Oh, I'm seeing... So, somebody's fact-checking me.
Several of the trigger pullers were born female.
They were born female and they transitioned to male.
Is that right?
Were they all... Were some of them presenting as male?
Were some of them presenting as female when they shot?
Okay, so we don't have a biological correlation.
I'm saying in the fact-checking.
You know, that's why I like doing this live.
That's an advantage you really can't get in a recorded show, can you?
Getting fact-checked in real time.
And that was a good fact-check.
That was actually a really useful fact-check.
So, no, they're not all biologically born male.
All right, next story.
UCSF had a speaker, Dante King.
Who said the U.S.
is racist.
No surprise there.
Says that there's a white rape culture.
What?
And he said that... He said that white... What?
He said that whites are psychopaths.
He said whites are psychopaths and their behavior represents an underlying Biologically transmitted proclivity with roots deep in their evolutionary history.
So that was a speaker that the UCSF allowed in to say his thing.
Now, I think he should be allowed to speak.
Absolutely.
But is there any other opinions that they're banning?
Yeah!
Yeah, so apparently it's okay to say that white people suck, but you wouldn't be able to do, you know, any other group that way, obviously.
Matt Walsh is talking about that.
Pro Jesus commercial on the Super Bowl, the one that showed a whole bunch of people having their feet washed.
So it's just a whole bunch of, it looked like AI generated, pictures of people washing the feet of other people.
And Matt Walsh pointed out what I noticed immediately as well.
It was only white people washing the feet of non-white people.
Now there might have been an exception, but that's mostly what it was.
It was a whole bunch of examples.
That was probably the most disgusting and useless commercial I've ever seen.
You know what I don't want to see?
Is more than one example of somebody washing somebody else's feet.
Now, I get that Jesus did it exactly one time, and it was a special case.
You know, it wasn't like he went around washing feet all day.
So, everything about that commercial was wrong, but When you watch the racial dimension of it, which I'm sure was not a message that the creators of the commercial were trying to send, it's just that they couldn't do it not that way.
Like, if you showed even one scene where that was reversed, they would be in all kinds of trouble.
Even if six of them went one way and one of them went the other way, they'd still be in trouble.
So it's more of a sign of the times than a sign that the people who put the commercial together are bad people.
They're probably good people, but boy, was that a terrible commercial.
What a waste of money.
So I guess a number of Republicans have voted to break a Senate filibuster to push forward toward a vote on the $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine and, I guess, Taiwan and Israel.
I think that's all in there.
Here's what you need to know.
These are the names of the Republicans who voted to get it out of the filibuster.
Now, we think it's dead on arrival in the House, at the very least, but shouldn't you know the names of everybody who was in favor of this?
You should hear their names.
So I'm just gonna read you their last names.
So if you hear these names in other contexts, you might say to yourself, hey, is there any pattern that's developing here?
So the Republicans who voted to move that bill along would be Capito, Cassidy, Collins, Ernst, Grassley, Kennedy, surprisingly, McConnell, Moran, Murkowski, Romney, So I just want you to hear those names.
Is that right?
Thune, it's Thune, right?
H is silent.
Tillis, Wicker, Young, and Cornyn.
So I just want you to hear those names.
Because there's a lot going on in this country that we don't understand.
And you have to know the players to have any chance of figuring out what's going on.
So the H is not silent.
So he's Thune, not Toone.
Senator Thune, I'm told.
See?
It worked again.
Fact-checked in real time.
But I don't really understand why there would be so many people in favor of this.
And I was listening to the explanation of Senator Tillis.
And Senator Tillis, Republican, says that it's an important vote to give this money to Ukraine, especially, because if we don't, it will embolden our enemies.
It will embolden our enemies.
What does that sound like?
You know what that sounds like?
It sounds like this.
Hey, Scott, could you leave your cubicle and could you put together a presentation that makes it look like it's a good idea to do this thing that's obviously not a good idea?
And I say, well, how am I going to make a PowerPoint slideshow that says a bad idea is a good idea?
Well, you can do it.
I'm sure you can do it.
And I'll be like, OK.
Well, I can't rely on any facts.
Because the facts would show it's a bad idea.
So I'm going to need something a little more conceptual.
Maybe something that's a little bit hard to prove.
Maybe something that has no facts behind it whatsoever.
Maybe something totally speculative.
Like, if we don't do this, it might embolden our competitors.
Now, if you were in the corporate world and somebody gave you some bullshit like that, it's gonna embolden somebody.
But that's it.
That was the whole argument.
It's gonna embolden somebody you don't like to be emboldened.
Would you feel that's good enough?
Like if it's the real world and you're making the decision?
No.
A phrase like, it will embolden your enemies, is what you say when you don't have an argument.
Do you know what you say when you have an argument?
Other stuff.
Other stuff.
You say stuff like, I think we can win this war, and Putin will be crushed, and there'll be some, I don't know, big advantage to us.
Now, you could agree with it or disagree with it, but it would sound like somebody saying a realish reason.
Or you could say, this is a real cheap way to not have to build up our military because it will degrade Russia or something.
But you can disagree with that.
But it sounds like a real reason.
But does this embolden Russia and China sound real to you?
Embolden them to do what exactly?
Is China going to say, it looks like we've got a free pass on Taiwan?
Do you think they're thinking that?
What exactly are they emboldened to do?
Is Russia now going to take over some other countries?
Is it going to take over Poland?
Does that seem likely?
Is there any indication that they would ever take over or try to take over a NATO country?
I don't feel like it.
I don't know.
You're going to have to do better than embolden our enemies.
Because I think our enemies are emboldened all the time.
And correct me if I'm wrong, the longer we fund this war, the closer Russia and China get to each other.
So, is that better or worse than emboldening them?
Which would you rather have?
Do you want to embolden them, or do you want to drive them together?
I feel like both of those are bad.
But in such a general way that it doesn't seem like I should pay attention to it.
It's too generic.
You're gonna have to give me something that's not just a generic thing you can say about every situation.
Right?
How about using the same logic for, I don't know, every other issue?
You don't want to embolden the wrong people.
So, let's see, what did Mitt Romney say?
It's the most important vote we'll ever take at the U.S.
Senators.
How could that possibly be true?
The most important vote.
Really?
I mean, I'm not even going to give an argument against it.
It's like, this is the one you'd pick out as the most important?
Because what would be the alternative?
I think if you don't vote for it, Ukraine and Russia make peace.
Would that be the outcome?
Wouldn't Zelensky have to make peace?
And if he tried, do you think that Putin would say, no, you have to give us the rest of Ukraine?
Would he?
I don't think he would.
I think he'd say, well, we'll keep what we have, which was going to happen anyway.
So I feel like it's the least important thing they would ever vote on, except that it costs money and would drive us closer to nuclear war.
Let's see what Elon Musk says about this, the funding.
He says, there's been no change in the Russia-Ukraine border for a year, just lots of dead kids.
What kind of psycho wants to continue?
It's getting harder to do things.
Well, no, this is me.
That's not.
So let me also give you an opinion from the All In podcast.
Now you know the All In podcast?
Everybody's familiar with it?
So it's like David Sachs and several others whose names don't come to me at the moment.
Chamath.
Chamath and Jason.
We're better on first names.
And David Friedberg, right.
It seems to me that the All In podcast has, whether they intended it or not, they have formed something like a National Advisory Committee.
Now, nobody would call them that, and they wouldn't call themselves that, but here's the phenomenon that I see forming.
It will get harder and harder for our government to do things that the smartest people think are stupid.
Now, Elon Musk, you know, does that by himself.
How would you like to be doing something that Elon Musk calls out in public as stupid?
It's hard, isn't it?
Because everything about Musk suggests he's only about what works.
There's nothing about him that suggests he's political in any traditional way.
He's entirely about what works.
And he might be among the best people on the planet, For being able to predict what will work.
I mean, look at his track record.
Well, he even predicted his own companies wouldn't work, but he made them work anyway.
So I'm not sure how you score that.
But my point is that when the smartest people say something's a bad idea, that is a lot of pressure on that idea.
And the All In podcast, I think, is becoming the strongest, it's not there yet, but it's heading in the direction of being the strongest force for common sense.
Because when you see four people who are arguably four of the smartest people you'll ever see have a conversation, and they have a strong opinion and it's all in the same direction, nobody disagrees among the four of them or so, that's pretty strong.
And it's creating this sort of counterforce that is not big enough to be like a national story yet, but you can't miss it.
Let me ask you this.
Is there anybody in your life who, if you saw they had an opposite opinion of the one you were starting to form, they would immediately pause and say, Oh, I better find out why this opinion is out there.
I do.
For example, if I have a legal opinion and I see Alan Dershowitz, let's say it's a constitutional question, and I've got my layperson's opinion, it's not very good, and then I see Jonathan Turley or Dershowitz have a different opinion, I immediately stop and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm probably wrong.
And then I look to see if I can just adopt their opinion.
Which I almost always do.
Now, if I saw a story about a business, you know, some big business thing, and I thought the all-in podcast people all thought it was a good business, or they all thought it was a bad business, I would change my opinion immediately.
Indeed, they talked about a company that I thought was a good investment.
And when they were done, I decided to pull my money out.
Because they said something I hadn't heard before.
And I don't make investment advice, so I'm not going to tell you what company it was.
But basically, I had a positive feeling about a company.
I heard them say some things that I should have known but didn't.
I just wasn't as well informed as they were.
And when they said it, I said to myself, oh, damn.
How did I not know that?
And it changed my thinking.
Now, if they had been just a bunch of idiots, I don't know if it would have changed my thinking.
But if you see these highly accomplished, smart, independent thinkers who appear not to be in any political camp whatsoever, when you hear them all on the same side of something, it's pretty powerful.
It's pretty powerful.
Now, for me also, I'll name some other names.
I often mention Mike Cernovich, because even if I don't agree with him on everything, and nobody agrees on everything, right?
Anytime he has an opinion that disagrees with me, I immediately stop and go figure out what I missed.
And then, you know, maybe I still disagree, but I'm gonna go look to see what I missed, right?
And that's what the All In Pod guys are doing.
At the very least, they're gonna make you say, ah, did I miss that?
And go look at it, right?
So, and again, you all have your own names of, Thomas Massey, there's another one.
Thomas Massey, I'm not gonna agree with him on everything, but if he has opinions that's different than mine, I'd just immediately stop and go figure out what's he up to?
Like, why is he disagreeing with me?
Yeah.
And yeah, Glenn Greenwald would be another, et cetera.
Steve Cortez.
Yeah, these are very credible people.
All right, so I think that's a very important force that's forming and it is the corrective force we need.
I would love to reach a point someday when there's a political debate and somebody says, you know, the All In podcast said this.
And actually make that as part of the argument.
It's like, here's the smartest people who looked into it, and they have an opinion that's different from yours.
Now, Vivek is that too.
Vivek has that same thing.
If Vivek has an opinion I disagree with, which I hate, I immediately say, alright, what'd I miss?
What's he seeing that I don't see?
And usually there is something.
Here's a reframe that Vivek had on spaces.
He said that we shouldn't give Biden any more money for border security until he enforces the laws that are already in the books.
And I thought to myself, that's exactly how you would run a company.
If it were a company, you'd say, why am I giving you more money for the thing that you have all the assets you needed already and you're just not using them?
That's exactly the type of thing you don't give money to.
That's exactly what you don't give money to.
Somebody who's not using what they have.
That's really basic.
And the funny thing is, until I heard him say it, It didn't really occur to me.
Somehow that wasn't anywhere in the front of my mind.
But the moment he says it, you say to yourself, well yeah, as much as I think we might need extra funding, and we probably do for the border, you don't know how much you need until you use what you have.
Am I right?
If they could use what they already have, and it would immediately go back to something like it was during the Trump era, when Trump used exactly those same tools.
Now, I don't know if that's the case.
It could be that something fundamentally has changed and those same set of tools don't work anymore.
But I would certainly not give them any money until I knew that.
I would certainly want to know that.
So, yeah.
The Viveks, the all-in pod people, the Elon Musks, they're really making a difference by being just smarter than the people who are in the conversation.
That's really what it is.
Even Lindsey Graham is saying that the Ukraine aid should be in the form of a loan now.
So Trump moved Lindsey Graham as well.
So I guess Trump has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the immunity question, which the lower courts said he did not have.
So that would be immunity for being accused of doing insurrection-y things during the 2020 election.
Here's how NBC News reported it.
They say that former President Trump files last-ditch request Blah, blah, blah, to prevent his prosecution for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
Is that what happened?
Do we just report that like it's a fact?
Because wouldn't this fact require knowing Trump's inner thoughts, which are not in evidence anywhere?
The only place his inner thoughts are in evidence are in his actions, and his actions were go peacefully, and apparently every bit of knowledge we have about it was he was trying to delay a process he thought was corrupt to make sure it wasn't corrupt.
Now, couldn't that also be the way you described it?
That he would be seeking immunity from an unreasonable prosecution for trying to protect the republic from what looked like a rigged election to many people.
Is that not accurate?
Because I think it's accurate based on the facts.
The NBC News report would assume that they know something about his inner thoughts that has never been expressed by him, written down, or in evidence from anybody who ever talked to him.
Think about the fact that all of the investigating, all the interviews about Trump, not once did anybody say, you know, privately, he knew the election was fair.
Not one person.
Do you know why?
Because privately, he didn't think it was fair.
The obvious reason.
He thought exactly what he said, that there was probably some cheating.
He wanted to figure it out, and if they could delay for, you know, a day or whatever he wanted to figure it out, maybe he could get lucky.
Maybe he could get lucky.
And then, of course, the way they report the extra delegates is that they're fake delegates.
Is that the right word?
Did Trump try to get fake delegates?
Or were they alternate, alternate slated delegates, so that he could keep his legal challenge alive, which is what some of us know, but has never been reported to anybody on the left.
Right.
That there was a legitimate legal play that involves getting these alternate electors, and it's not that you think that they will necessarily make the decision.
It's simply that you're establishing the seriousness of your claim, and it's just part of the legal positioning.
And that's the way it was explained in actual documents that, you know, have been kicked up from the lawyers, that they were actually saying it as a legal strategy, not an illegal insurrection strategy, but in their opinion.
And they could be wrong.
But in their opinion, it was a way to keep a legal challenge alive, you know, give them a little better odds.
But NBC reports it like there's a fact that he tried to, quote, overturn the election.
Now, on a technical level, he was trying to overturn it, but not overturn it from correct to incorrect.
He was trying to overturn it from incorrect to correct, which also would have gone his way if he had been able to do it.
Now, the news doesn't think that's important.
We don't need to know.
That the other explanation of what happened, the one that fits the facts, there's only one that fits the facts.
The one that fits the facts is it was a legal strategy and they honestly believed that the thing had been rigged.
That fits every fact.
What doesn't fit the fact is he knew it was a real election and he tried to stay in office.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I wanted to talk about today.
I went longer than I thought.
Thank you for joining on YouTube and Rumble and the X Platform.
I'm going to stay on and talk to the Locals people a little bit more, because they get extra.
They're special.
If you'd like to be one of them, you'd have to subscribe on scottadams.locals.com for my other comics and calendar, digital calendar, and all that stuff.
