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, Rachel Levine, Climate Change, Food Supply Quality, Jon Stewart, AI Gemini Pro, AI Movie Making, Stephen King, Fani Willis, Liar Face, Red State Economies, ABC News Spin, Alexei Navalny, American Moral Authority, RFK Jr., President Biden's Memory, President Trump, Trump Staffers Surveilled, Alexander Smirnov Arrest, Comer Witness Arrested, Thomas Sowell, Clifton Duncan, Pastor Darrell Scott, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
do do do do do do rum pum pum pum pum pum pum Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
Oh, man, do we have a fun day today of news.
I mean, it's not fun if your name is Navalny.
We'll get to that.
But for the rest of you, if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that you can not even understand with your human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice 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 in the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
I was sipping off the dregs, but they were good dregs, as it turns out.
Well, will I get to the big stories?
Yes, I will.
We'll talk about Fonny and we'll talk about Navalny and we'll talk about Tucker and all that stuff.
But first, some palate cleansers.
There's a report today in one publication saying that people are returning their Apple Vision Pro goggles because they give them headaches and eye strain and they're heavy.
Somebody even burst a blood vessel.
Now, do you think that's true?
Or do you think this is marketing by Meta?
You think it's true?
There were days when I would, I remember when I was young, I would have read a story like that and I always said to myself, huh, maybe I won't get that product because there's somebody saying that, you know, they're returning them and it hurts them.
But in today's world, I say to myself, do they have a big competitor who has an enormous influence on other organizations?
Yes, they do.
Meta.
Meta would like you to buy their version of this and not the Apple Vision Pro.
So, do I have any evidence to suggest that Meta is behind this story that is conveniently planted in the press?
I don't.
But I definitely don't believe it.
Because we live in a world where this would be a normal marketing thing to do, to plant a fake story in the press.
I'm not saying they did that, but it would be such a routine, ordinary thing to do.
No, I don't believe this story.
It might be true, but I don't believe it.
There's a story that 77% of young Americans are too fat, mentally ill, on drugs, or more, to join the military.
According to the Pentagon, 77% of young Americans are too fat, mentally ill, on drugs.
Huh.
Well, okay.
Does that matter?
Here's the weird thing.
You say to yourself, well, obviously, yeah, you don't want soldiers who can't carry a backpack or a gun.
Of course it matters.
But does it matter if most of your military will soon be people wearing the Apple Vision Pro goggles or possibly the Meta goggles and just steering a drone or a robot on the battlefield?
Because I'm pretty sure you could be pretty fat and mentally ill and still get that job done.
It might not matter.
It might actually not matter.
We're right at the cusp of where having fit soldiers probably doesn't make any difference at all.
Are you watching the Ukraine-Russia war at all?
Here's a story you haven't heard.
Russia's winning because their soldiers are stronger and fitter, less fat, and more mentally capable.
Nope, because it turns out that the soldiers don't have much to do with the war.
The soldiers are the people you kill until one side says, no, I'm tired of you killing this one kind of person of mine.
Well, we're not killing your women.
All right.
All right.
Keep going.
But you're killing all our young people, our young people who are the future.
No, we're not killing anybody who's the future.
You've got plenty of men.
No, you'll be fine.
So I'm not even sure that I accept the premise that our military needs to be fit, you know, beyond the special forces.
Obviously, they've got to be super fit.
But the average person is just there to be a target.
Most of the military exists to be a target for the other side.
So dying is their primary function.
They're just hoping the other side dies at a higher rate so that they give up faster.
Yeah.
So here's my favorite.
Oh, that's not my favorite because we've got so many fun stories.
You know, Rachel Levine, in our government, a trans person, did a little video in which Rachel said that climate change is having a disproportionate effect on the physical and mental health of black communities.
All right, let me concentrate.
You've got a trans person saying that the black community is disproportionately affected by climate change.
This might be The final intersectional destination.
You know, you've heard about intersectional theory, that there would be, let's say for example, somebody who is both black and LGBTQ, for example.
And that would be two bits of discrimination that they might be up against instead of just one.
But now the news has gone intersectional.
When you've got your trans people talking about climate change hurting black communities the most, I think you can just ignore all of that.
I don't even know what to do with that.
What do I even do with that?
The level of absurdity is just so far off the charts.
It's crazy.
All right.
You might be aware that a few days ago there was a New York City video of people in their 30s running around and looking all healthy and thin.
And I made a comment on that that it looked like our current food sources are poisoned.
Now, if 77% of young Americans are too fat and also mentally ill or on drugs, but a lot of that's the food source.
So, do you think that our food source, and the poisoning thereof, it's deeply unhealthy, does that have an impact on homeland security?
Apparently.
If you believe that our military has to be able to run and carry things and be healthy, yes.
Yes.
So, I got a big response.
There were 7 million views, ultimately.
Last time I checked, it might be higher.
Elon Musk weighed in, commented on it, that probably gave it a boost.
Then Bill Ackman weighed in, also noting that our food supply is really questionable.
And at the same time, Tucker Carlson's over there in Russia, showing us videos he made, well, he's not there now, but showing videos he made in Russia when he interviewed Putin, showing that their food is cheap and plentiful over there, and they don't have GMO stuff.
That's just sort of a context thing, but then RFK jr.
I think it was day before yesterday yesterday posted a Big thing talking about our food supply is basically poison Now that's some that's some big names Who on the same day were willing to say?
We can't ignore our food supply There's something deeply wrong with it.
I Clearly, there's something deeply, deeply wrong with our food supply.
I think it's poison.
I mean, I don't think that's even, not intentional poison, but effectively poison.
All right, so we'll see if that turns into anything.
If it does, that would be an example of the X platform really making a difference.
Because if it, if it makes this a higher priority, that would be really good for the country.
All right, Jon Stewart's getting blasted by some Democrats for his, quote, bullsiderism.
In other words, Jon Stewart, you think GMO is another hoax, somebody says?
Could be.
Apparently the Democrats don't like it when Jon Stewart goes after bullsides because he's been off the air so long.
That going after both sides doesn't seem like the right thing to do anymore.
So, poor Jon Stewart.
We'll see if he can break through.
I do like his both-sides-erism.
And I would say that he would be morally bankrupt if he were not both-side-erizing a little bit.
So, I'm still going to vote for him.
Let's say I still support his show.
I haven't watched it yet, but I plan to.
And if he keeps going after both sides and keeps making Democrats angry, and maybe makes Republicans angry at the same time, I would be pretty happy with that.
So keep going, Jon Stewart.
Let's see what you can do.
Too early to say yes, no, thumbs up, thumbs down, but I like where he's heading.
There is a huge AI breakthrough that many of you will say to yourselves, I don't even think that's a big thing at all.
I thought we could already do that, but we really couldn't.
So Rowan Cheung, who's got a great post on X about AI almost every day, says Google just dropped their Gemini Pro 1.5.
That's their next version of AI.
And it has a million token contact strength.
Now that doesn't mean anything to you, but apparently it's just an enormous move ahead, such that the model can now understand entire books, full movies, and podcast series all in one go.
So in theory, I could just say, look at all of my podcasts.
And this new Google AI would just look at all of them and know everything I've ever said, everything I've ever written.
I could just tell it to look at my book, look at this book.
And in like a second, it's going to know my whole book and be able to talk about it intelligently forever.
All right.
So apparently this surpasses all other chatbots.
Now at the same time there's a, what was it called?
Sora.
A new version of a new movie making AI.
And you can talk into reality of the movie.
Now that only does like A minute or something or it does small chunks, but obviously that will turn into entire movies pretty soon.
But here's what is obvious to me.
So I have a book or two.
That I would like to turn into movies.
God's debris.
And I'm waiting for the moment I can, you know, just have an AI and talk it into existence.
Because what I'd like to do is just feed the entire book into an AI and say, make it a movie.
Because it's all there.
All the descriptions, the scenes.
Now, it might make it into a movie that I didn't imagine.
In other words, I could change the scenery in a way that wasn't in my mind.
And then I could just say, hey, redo that, but make the scenery more darker and foreboding or something.
And there would just be a new movie.
Everything else would be the same.
Now, I don't think we're going to get there.
At least for a long time.
I don't think AI is going to produce a movie that you would watch just the way it cranks it out.
I think you're going to need a director slash producer whose job is to know how to manipulate AI.
And probably there will be more than one AI needed for every project.
So if there is somebody Who has already learned enough about AI, and I don't know if the tools are quite there, but maybe another month they will be.
I might be in the market to hire a producer, or a director.
Somebody who would say, I will spend one month using AI tools to turn this into a movie.
So, we'll see.
It's close.
Stephen King is real mad at Elon Musk, and he wrote, Dear Elon, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, and so on.
And then he closes it off with, fuck your need to put your personal brand on everything.
Now, I said to myself, I was trying to imagine Stephen King looking at the news and saying to himself, hmm, let's see, look at the news, all the stories in the news, you're You know what?
The thing that bothers me the most is a guy spent $44 billion and then wanted to change the name of the thing you bought so that we didn't confuse it with the past thing, which was piece of shit and apparently totally biased and was a violation of free speech.
I wonder why he changed the name.
But Elon made some reference to maybe Stephen King was drinking something.
And I would like to give you this advice, which I've given you many times.
If you see somebody acting like this, like Stephen King was acting, assume they're drunk.
And just call them out for being drunk.
Which I did.
I just said, I assume you're drunk.
And in my experience, they all stop immediately.
Because he probably was drunk.
I mean, I'm only basing that based on the output, not on any other knowledge.
It looks drunk to me.
So why not just assume that's what it is?
Because if you assume he's drunk, your mind is completely calmed.
Because you go, oh, I don't even need to respond to that.
He's just drunk.
And the number of times I've asked my trolls if they're drunk, and they just completely go silent, which is unusual for a troll.
You know, if somebody with a big account engages them.
Then they get all excited and they come in their pants and they have to tell all their friends and they make screenshots.
And they usually start with a screenshot that says, I guess this person with the big account had nothing else to do today except respond to me.
You know, and they're all real happy that they got a response.
That's what a real troll does.
But I swear, you should try it yourself.
Just ask them if they're drinking, and it'll just stop.
It's like the best trick ever.
All right, we are gonna talk about Funny Willis.
How many of you were transfixed and stuck to your screen watching the, what would you call it, the court case?
Is it proceeding?
What would be the right name for it?
A court proceeding?
So they're trying to decide if Fonny, the DA who's going after Trump in Georgia, Fulton County, if she should be removed from the case and it centers around whether she hired her boyfriend and overpaid him and then she repaid him with Um, trips, and whether she reimbursed him for those trips or not, and whether she lied about the beginning of the thing.
Now, if she lied in some official document, we don't know that for sure.
But if she lied, that'd be a big problem, because she's going after Trump for similar kinds of stuff.
So, here are the following observations.
Number one, even MSNBC, one of their legal analysts, said that she probably will be disqualified because she allegedly lied to the court.
And it's epic and it's monumental.
So this is an MSNBC person.
And it's probably game over and she'll be disqualified.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, this is the most dangerous of the Trump legal jeopardies.
And it looks like, at the very least, it will be delayed until after the election, making it a moot point.
Yeah.
It looks like Trump is winning as hard as you could win at the moment.
In fact, Trump has never had a better two weeks in his life.
So I'm seeing in the comments that Turley says no.
Would that be that there's a possibility that it won't be delayed or that she won't be removed from the case?
I'll look into that afterwards.
So I've told you before that anytime Jonathan Turley It has an opinion on a big legal case.
I just stop what I'm doing, and I assume he's right.
And if I said anything different, I'd try to correct it.
Yeah.
So he's all over this.
I'll talk about him in a moment.
So here are some of the things people are saying.
Number one, there's a story that says she was wearing her dress backwards.
Now, I'm told in the comments this morning that that's not true.
And that it's a different dress than the one found online in which the little thing you tie would be in the back.
So the dress online does look exactly like her dress backwards in my opinion.
So I don't know if it's true.
Yeah.
I don't know if it's true.
So it's funny though.
And then somebody else says she had an American flag pin that was backwards or something.
I don't know if any of that's true.
But I will tell you that she had a bad case of liar face.
I've told you what liar face is?
Liar face...
Um, is when your eyes don't match your mouth.
Now, I've said before that it's when you're smiling in a way that doesn't match the eyes, but it's anytime the mouth and the eyes don't match.
So, did you see her eyes when she came onto the stand?
The wide open eyes?
And then the frown?
So her eyes were super open, but her frown didn't match her eyes.
It was really obvious.
I'll show you the picture actually, if I didn't show you this already.
So look at Now the reason I do this is so you can recognize it in other people.
So this is not even about funny.
It's just so you can recognize it.
Can you see it?
I'll show you on each platform.
So look at the eyes.
Then look at the mouth.
There's some kind of incongruity between the eyes and the mouth.
And when you see that, and by the way, she doesn't always have it.
That's not her normal resting face.
If it were a normal resting face, it wouldn't mean anything.
It's the face she adopted for this situation.
That's what makes it mean something.
So she's got a bad case of liar face.
Some people are saying that she's bombastic and unlikable and she's basically making herself look like not a sympathetic character.
Some say.
But the New York Times says opposite.
It says that Fonny is finding out what many black women have found, and that you've got a bunch of men, white men in wool suits, who are trying to attack this beautiful creature in her glowing ruby outfit or whatever color it is.
That's actually what the New York Times was writing.
I swear to God that is a real thing that happened.
It's hard to know when I'm joking, because the news is so absurd at this point.
So anyway, she apparently was doing stupid things for somebody who knows the law, because she kept volunteering too much.
And then she also acted belligerent in a way that you might expect a judge would find her in contempt, because she was a little bit too, let's say, pushing back a little too hard, compared to what you would expect in a courtroom.
Now, did you know that the judge in the case used to work for her?
Did you know that?
How many knew that?
The judge actually worked for her.
Now, imagine if you didn't know that.
How many times have I told you that if the only thing you know is what the news reports of what happened, you don't know anything?
What happened doesn't tell you a thing.
The only thing that matters is who, and who they're connected to.
That tells you everything.
So, some say that the judge who used to work for her, let's see, where did she work for?
Previously worked for District Attorney Fonnie Wills for almost four years.
Now just think about the fact That you didn't know that.
Some of you did know that.
But what if you didn't?
Wouldn't it look completely different?
Now, one of the questions is, why wasn't he being tougher on her?
I have three theories for that.
Number one, he knew he was being televised, the judge, and he didn't want to You know, put too heavy a hand on it, because it would look like maybe he was influencing the outcome if he was too tough on anybody.
Maybe.
So maybe it had only to do with the fact that it was public, and it was high profile.
So, if you look at, for example, an NBA game, basketball, you might see a lot of smaller fouls get called, but then they get in the playoffs, or the finals, and the refs will, what they say, let them play.
In other words, the things that might have been fouls before, they'll be less likely to call them because they just want to play.
Like, just, you know, let's give us a show.
Just play.
So it could be that because it was public, the judge was just going to let them play and not call as many fouls.
Maybe.
I don't know enough about that world, but I'll put that out there as a hypothesis.
The other hypothesis is the obvious one.
A skinny white guy cannot be tough with a black woman if anybody's watching, or even if they're not.
Right?
Now, remember I said the other day that it's just a basic universal truth that white men are afraid of black women.
Period.
I don't know about anybody else.
I don't know if black men are afraid of black women, but I know that black women do have a Privileged place in society in the sense that so many people are afraid of them, literally afraid, that they just have a little more flexibility, a little more freedom to do things and get away with it.
Now some of it is because of being female.
Would you agree that a female can get away with worse behavior, let's say during an arrest?
You know, let's say if a cop pulled over a female and the female resisted, the cop would be like, there's not a lot of danger involved here.
So probably wouldn't treat it the same as if it were a male who were actually dangerous.
And so females, you know, you're going to get treated differently.
And then being black and female probably gives you some intersectional defense as well.
But I'm gonna add a third hypothesis that maybe has nothing to do with race, maybe has nothing to do with female.
And this one's my better hypothesis.
I've told you this one before.
It's the Indian elephant trainer theory of persuasion.
The Indian elephant trainer.
So this imagines there's, over in India, there's an elephant trainer.
And the reason that the little 100-pound Indian trainer can beat the crap out of a full-grown elephant, and like just hit it with a stick, And the full-grown elephant will be like, oh, OK.
I'll do what you want.
Don't worry.
Oh, fine, fine.
Now, the elephant could just turn around and stomp that guy to death.
Could pick him up with a trunk and use him as a hammer.
But it doesn't.
And the reason it doesn't is that it was trained as a baby that this person can hurt you.
It doesn't realize it grew up.
So you can train something when it's young to not know that it has the power when it's older.
The judge used to work for Fonny for four years.
How do you think Fonny treated that lawyer when he was a lawyer?
Do you think that what you see on the stand is completely only because she's in this specific situation?
Or are we seeing something about her combative personality?
Is it possible that she abused him for four years and that by the time he got to be a judge, he was like the elephant who had grown up.
But she had beat him as a baby elephant for so long that by the time he was a giant elephant, a judge, and he had control over her, he didn't quite know it.
Because he seems to be acting like she's in charge.
Is that what you see?
If you watch, it's a little bit like she's in charge.
And others have observed, why does it act like she's in charge?
Like she's just offering her own testimony and saying things that, as a witness, you're not supposed to do.
But she's getting away with it.
So it could be three things.
It could be a little bit because it's in public.
Could be a little bit, meaning that he's just letting them play.
He's not calling fouls.
He just wants to get through it.
Could be that.
Could be that he just can't go hard against a black woman who has a high-paying job in America today.
Could be totally that.
Could be this is the way he is all the time.
We don't know, right?
We don't know the context.
The context might be that if you were in the courtroom with this judge in any other case, maybe it would look the same.
So let's not assume he's acting differently, because you don't know that, right?
You don't know if he's acting differently.
So to be fair to the judge, it might be just the way he is all the time, and it might work just fine.
Maybe he gets good results.
I don't even know if there's anything wrong with it.
But the other possibility is the Indian elephant trainer.
That's the one I would put my money on, actually.
All right, what else is happening?
Apparently, lawyers pay for lots of things in cash.
So one of the parts of Fani's defense is that when she and her boyfriend traveled, she would reimburse him.
So there might be records of him paying for some part of the trip, say the hotel or something, but she would reimburse him with cash.
So that there wouldn't be any, not so there would be no record, she's saying she did reimburse him with cash, and therefore there would be no record of it.
And she was asked if there would be a record of her withdrawing the money, and she was clever enough to indicate that maybe she wouldn't be withdrawing the same amounts.
In other words, there's no reason that the amount you withdraw would ever match the amount you gave to somebody.
Because you would withdraw more than you're going to give to any one person, right?
And you might withdraw several times and then just give a bunch of it to somebody.
So you wouldn't really be able to line up the withdrawals from how much you gave away.
Except that she said she had a habit of keeping up to $9,000 in cash.
What is your ATM withdrawal level limit?
It's like $800 or $1,000.
So in order to build up enough cash to pay for an overseas vacation, how many times would you have to go to the ATM?
Probably several, unless you did it at the desk.
So would there be records of that?
I don't know that we'll ever check.
So, let me ask you this.
How many of you bring cash on foreign trips?
The reason she gave is that you could negotiate with the locals with cash and get better deals.
Well, I brought cash.
The most cash I've ever brought on a vacation.
And this would be a vacation with four people, like a family.
So as the person paying the bills for the entire family for a, let's say, Mexican, you know, Cabo vacation, definitely not more than $1,000.
Not more than a thousand for a family of four.
And that's a high-end vacation, you know, staying at a nice place.
Now, is she really telling us that she would travel to these somewhat more dangerous places with thousands of dollars in cash?
Really?
I don't think anybody does that.
And then her alleged lover there said that it was not unusual for people to pay his law firm with large amounts of cash, like actual dollar bills.
Does that sound real?
There's not a single part of this that sounds honest.
I mean, even if they do have massive amounts of cash, it's not for illegal stuff.
It's to conceal something.
So I was just trying to imagine what it must be like to be Trump.
Because he must be glued to this thing.
Trump is winning so hard.
He is winning so hard.
Because she's coming off as a liar and a crook.
And he's just sitting home watching.
The biggest thing will probably be delayed, etc.
So I could not enjoy this more.
I can't wait.
I don't know if her dress is on backwards, but it's a fun little detail to add to it.
Probably not.
I suppose if I had to bet on it, I would bet her dress is not on backwards.
But I love the story.
I love the story.
By the way, speaking of dangerous foreign places, my neighbor just got robbed.
The house was broken into last night.
So last night while I was sitting in my house, my neighbor's house, the upstairs balcony door was kicked in and his house was robbed while he was at the gym.
That's the second time my neighbors have been hit by, sorry, the second time my neighbors have been hit in the past year by what looks like an organized Central American gang, or South American.
So, do you think they'll get me next?
Now keep in mind, our neighborhood is bristling with security cameras.
So every person who comes in and out, we have their license plate.
So today we're reorganizing and everybody's checking their cameras.
If we can narrow down the time, the hard part is just narrowing down the time.
If we can get it within an hour, we'll probably have five different angles of the car.
Yeah, but it's narrowing down the time that was a problem in this one.
Now in my case, I have very visible security cameras.
If I could give you one piece of advice, if you have security cameras, don't make them like little invisible things.
They should be right in the driveway.
Like my main camera is literally looking right at you from the driveway.
If you walk anywhere around the house, you're gonna look right at a camera.
Right.
I'm watching you at the same time every time.
And by the way, I have two security systems.
So if one was down, the other one would get you.
Two video security systems.
You're never going to get the other one.
You'll never find it.
So I got one hidden and one visible.
Plus, my neighbors have cameras on my front yard.
So I've got at least... I don't even know how many cameras are on my house, but it's a lot.
And if you got inside my house and you made a bad calculation and I was in there at the same time, it will be a fight to the death.
Just so you know.
If you get inside my house, it's going to be to the death.
I just want everybody to know there will be no survivors.
It might be me who gets killed, but I'm definitely not going to take that as a friendly visit.
Okay.
Let's see what else is going on.
ABC News – this was a surprising headline.
It said that – now, it's coming from ABC News, who generally you don't assume would be Trump-friendly, right?
You don't think of them as Republican-friendly.
But look at this headline.
ABC News said that the economies in the red states do much better than the economies in the other states.
And they actually reported that.
Now are you surprised?
Yeah.
Are you surprised that lately, and this is like recent news, that they say the best-performing states voted in favor of Trump, according to an ABC news analysis?
So are you surprised that they would cover the news straight like that, without any spin?
Well, of course that didn't happen.
So they talked to an economist to explain it.
And here's how the economist explained that the red states were having better recently.
Recently they were doing better.
He said it was because people like warm weather.
So they were moving to the warm states.
That's an economist.
An economist said it was the weather.
Now what the economist didn't mention is Wasn't it always warmer in Florida than New York?
Do we remember a time when that was reversed?
Oh, I remember when I lived in New York.
We wouldn't go to Florida because it was too cold down there in the winter.
Is there anybody at ABC News who could call out The Economist for noting that the weather's not really ever changed?
But wait, there's more.
Turns out that the power of the red states is really centralized.
The economic power is because they have blue cities within the red states.
So it's the blue cities that are driving the rest of the red state to look good.
Plus the weather.
Plus the weather.
Do you remember when you thought the news was real?
you Does anybody remember that?
I was trying to think when it was I realized that none of the news is real.
I mean it was definitely 2016.
But even before that I thought, before that I thought the news was maybe sometimes wrong.
But that's really all I thought about it.
I didn't know that it was just absolutely completely fake.
I mean, this is just the fakest news you've ever seen.
They find good news for Republicans and they just torture the news until it says something bad about Republicans.
All right.
All right.
Yeah, we'll talk about Navalny.
So Putin's biggest critic who is still alive, because apparently being Putin's biggest critic is not good for your life expectancy.
There's a long list of his critics who have suspiciously died.
They have trouble falling off of balconies.
So one of the reasons that I know that my neighbors were not robbed by Russians is that they got on the balcony and kicked in the door and got out.
But none of them fell off the balcony and died.
So we can be sure they were not Putin critics, because they never would have gotten near that balcony, because that's pretty deadly to a critic.
So, so Novaldi was allegedly seemingly healthy, you know, the day before he died.
There's some video of him doing a testimony from jail.
He looked alive then.
And they say he just went for a walk in his prison yard and fell over and died.
Because that happens all the time.
So everybody assumes that Putin had a murder right in front of the world as a message to the rest of his critics, which I think they received.
My guess is the rest of his critics' message received.
Message received.
Now, what are the responses to this?
Well, Representative Eric Swalwell from my area, he said, Putin murders Navalny the same week Donald Trump invites Russia to invade Europe and Mike Johnson, the Speaker, blocks aid to Ukraine.
This isn't a coincidence.
It's the green light Putin has been given.
That's right.
Because Putin is responding to the guy who isn't the President of the United States.
That is just funny.
Just funny.
I responded to Swalwell's post with my own, and I said, it was clever for Putin to kill his critic in prison while the January Sixers are still incarcerated and Biden is trying to jail Trump.
America will have to sit this one out.
We have no moral authority.
We also have no leader.
Unless it's Jill.
Is Jill in charge?
So let me say this just as clearly as I possibly can.
I'm not a big fan of Putin's murdering people.
I do believe he has murdered people.
I'm not a fan of anything else he's doing in particular.
Although I do believe Tucker Carlson when he says that if you buy a cheeseburger in Moscow, it's priced quite reasonably.
I think I can hold both of those thoughts.
Let's see if I can do it.
Cheeseburgers, very affordable, but also Putin, brutal dictator.
How can those two things both be true?
Oh, I'm trying to combine them, but my brain is exploding.
How can I possibly think that food could be affordable at the same time there's a murderous dictator?
It's hard, but I can do it.
But let me say as clearly as possible, I do not believe that America has any moral authority that would make us better than murdering your critic in jail.
We are literally trying to kill our critics in jail.
We meaning the Biden administration.
They are literally using lawfare to take people's freedom away.
They are literally using the government to take our freedom of speech away.
They are literally using the government to take our Second Amendment rights away.
No, we're not even a little bit, not even a little bit better than that.
Morally.
Not morally and ethically.
Now, we might be better economically.
Maybe our military is a little bit better.
Stuff like that.
And, you know, we might have a whole bunch of advantages.
For example, it's still better to criticize the government if you're in America than in Russia.
That could be true.
Let's see if I can hold those two thoughts in my head.
Watch this.
Now, this will amaze Democrats that I can do this.
We are abusing people for their free speech and trying to limit it in the United States with the government using the social networks as part of their non-government mechanism to do it.
Hold that in my head.
At the same time, we're still better than Russia.
Oh, how do I combine those two thoughts that are so different?
I'm doing it.
I'm doing it right now.
Watch this.
Combined.
No problem.
I wake up every day and wonder if the Biden administration will put me in jail for trumped-up charges.
Really.
Like, literally.
If I went to Russia, would I be afraid?
Snowden seems to be doing okay.
Tucker didn't seem to have any problems.
Now, I'm only joking a little bit here.
I'm not going to move to Russia because I don't think it's really safer.
We have no moral justification.
We cannot say that we're better than this.
We are not better than this.
We're exactly this.
And let me ask you this.
If we assume the obvious, that Putin gave the order to kill him, and it was now, do you think it had to do with our political situation?
Of course it did!
Because Putin is pretty freaking smart, no matter what else he is.
Oh, let me see if I can hold the two thoughts.
He's a brutal dictator, but he's also smart.
How could they possibly be true at the same time?
Watch me do it.
I'm doing it right now.
Yes, if I were going to murder my critic in jail and let everybody in the world know I murdered my critic in jail, I would do it while the Biden administration is trying to put Trump in prison.
While the January Sixers are in prison.
While they're trying to put Peter Navarro in fucking prison.
No, we're not better than this.
We are this.
The reason Putin can do this right in fucking front of you is because he knows we're the same.
And it's obvious.
All right.
And it also calls into question who's in charge.
So if you don't think we're the same, let me just read you some news stories, all right?
This is not even an argument about the same point.
This is just the next thing that was written on my notes.
So just hold in your mind that in Russia they kill their critics.
Totally different than America, right?
So now let me read just a coincidental, the next story on my list.
Uh, the Biden administration is going to give Nikki Haley secret service protection, but not RFK Jr.
Do you get it now?
Do you understand now?
Is there any questions?
They're doing this right in front of us.
Now, Putin, presumably, murdered his critic in prison and let everybody know he did it.
There's nothing was hidden.
The Biden administration is creating a situation of where RFK Jr.
is literally at risk of being murdered.
And they're doing it right in front of you by giving, probably, Nikki Haley Secret Service protection.
And in the past, they've given protection to people in RFK Jr.' 's situation.
There's no other way to interpret that, is there?
Is there a second way to understand this story?
I don't believe there is.
I believe this is literally just Navalny.
They're trying to Navalny RFK jr.
But just make it look like it's a little more accidental But it's pretty intentional There was this would also allow the CIA to murder him directly like his uncle allegedly Yeah, let me say that again.
Just so it didn't sound like an afterthought By not giving him Secret Service protection It allows our CIA to murder him As we believe they murdered his uncle.
And if you heard that a gunman killed RFK Jr., God forbid, I don't wanna think that into existence, do you think that we would find him?
Nope.
Nope.
If anything happens to RFK Jr., the most predictable thing is that we won't know who did it.
We might know who did it, but not officially.
That situation is now fully in effect.
The CIA can literally kill RFK Jr.
if he becomes more of a threat than he is, and they can just make the case go away by saying we can't find the guy who did it.
Now, if RFK Jr.
had Secret Service protection, Do you think that they would be able to murder him and be just as confident that they could get completely away with it?
It'd be harder, because that would be a lot more people who would have to be in on the plot and far less likely.
So, yes, I believe this is exactly what it looks like.
I don't believe there's, like, any extra story that goes along with this.
It's exactly what it looks like.
Biden trying to murder his opponent, just like Navalny.
Well, speaking of Jonathan Turley, he's talking about how President Joe Biden said that the special counsel, Robert Herr, had been the one to ask Joe Biden if he knew the date of the death of his son, Beau.
Now, Joe Biden got real mad and came out and said, how in the hell does he dare raise that?
And made it seem like a big deal that he would even be asked that question.
We now know that he did not ask that question and that Joe Biden himself volunteered the topic and couldn't remember the date.
And that when he went in public to say that the H.E.R.
report was wrong, he lied about what was in there.
Very, very directly on a key point about his memory.
So either he didn't remember what happened at the testimony, or he did remember and he lied in front of the public about it.
Wow.
And as Turley says, if it is true, meaning that Biden is the one who brought it up, not her people, if it is true, this is not something that the White House can simply correct with a few brackets rewrites.
The corrected version would read, quote, how in the hell dare could I raise that when I raised the question?
I thought to myself, it wasn't any of their damn business.
In other words, you can't say there's just like a word that was wrong in that.
Basically, you're going to have to admit that he either doesn't remember what happened, or that he lied and knew it.
Those are the only two choices left.
Well, now that you know the full network that happened, we now know through Michael Schellenberger's reporting and Matt Taibbi, and remind me of the third reporter, whose name is less familiar to me, Alex Gutentag.
Alex Gutentag.
Thank you for that.
God, I love being live.
It's so good being fact-checked live.
Like, you really can't compare that.
It's really amazing.
It's better than having, like, a producer look stuff up.
Because I can ask any question, and there's somebody in the audience who gives me an immediate answer.
It's so cool.
Anyway.
We know from their reporting that the CIA
In order, I guess it must have been an Obama-approved, Clinton-approved plan, were going to get their allies in other countries to spy on 26 specific Trump staff campaign people, and then package that up as something suspicious, so that then America would have the legal precedent to look into it as well, and literally spy on the campaign.
So Trump was right from the get-go that they were literally colluding to spy on his campaign.
Probably one of the top things that Democrats used to say he was crazy and chaotic and dangerous is that he was claiming he'd been spied on, when in fact he'd been spied on and we now know the details.
Now, there's also indication that maybe The Ukraine was one of the countries used to spy on the Trump staffers.
In other words, Ukraine, which was already in the full control of the CIA by then, we just used a separate country to act like it was a different country when it never was, it was just our country that we were controlling, to act like something came from another country so that we could act like that was the precedent for us to be involved legally.
In other words, for America to spy on the same people.
Wow.
We know that the CIA has performed about 80 different coups in other countries.
Now there's a suggestion that the point of the Mar-a-Lago raid was to find a binder which would explain this entire collusion situation.
Now let me go back to the Putin thing.
Putin allegedly and probably murdered a critic in prison in front of the entire world while we all watched.
That's bad.
Just for Eric Swalwell and some of the other people, I'm labeling that bad.
I want to be clear about that.
Murdering your critic in jail, I don't like it at all.
So I want to be, no ambiguity about that.
That's bad.
Don't do it.
Even if it makes the cheeseburgers cheaper, still, still I say don't do it.
That's where my moral Ethical line is, I don't care how cheap the cheeseburgers are, according to Tucker Carlson.
No.
Murdering your critic in jail in front of the world?
Bad.
It's bad.
Now let's compare that.
Because we like to rank things by their moral and ethical qualities.
So let's compare that to what Biden, Obama, John Brennan, the CIA, and Hillary Clinton did a massive campaign to create a fake predicate for investigating Americans, all illegal.
To do that they may have had a binder that had all the details that they tried to steal back and now they're trying to put Russia No, now they're trying to put Trump in jail and the January Sixers are all in jail So that they could call it an insurrection when obviously they were trying to correct a rigged election in their view So Who's the good guy?
We're a lot better than Putin, aren't we?
Or so much better than Putin?
No.
Now, how do you process the fact that John Brennan is a free man?
How do you process that?
It answered all the questions.
He's either running the country, John Brennan, or he works for whoever does.
I think you say that with some certainty now, because he'd already be in jail.
With the stuff that we already know, with what we already know, there would either be a massive investigation of him, or he would be in jail.
But nothing like that's happening.
And you know It won't, at least under the current administration.
Right?
Is there anybody thinks that if you assume that all the new reporting is correct, and I think it is, there's no risk he'll go to jail.
And I think you found your man.
He's either the man literally running the country, which is a possibility.
I don't think it's the top possibility.
I think the top possibility is he's working for somebody.
Whoever that is, is running the country.
Because if they can protect John Brennan, they are running the country.
If this were Russia, there's only one person who could do that.
Right?
There's only one person in Russia that could do that.
It would be Putin.
Nobody else could do that.
So, you just watch.
The longer we go with no legal ramifications for Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, Clapper, you could argue that Biden and Obama have some special situation being president.
But we're just going to ignore all of that, right?
I don't know about Comey.
Comey might be some kind of hybrid weird situation.
I don't know exactly what his deal was.
All right.
And now CNN is reporting that because the news cycle is going so poorly that a former FBI informant who is being charged with lying about Biden's role in in a Ukrainian business, the one, you know, Burisma.
So apparently.
Comer and the Republicans had said they had a ex-FBI informant who said he had direct information that Burisma was bribing Hunter and now he's been arrested by the FBI for lying.
So this allows the CNN to suggest that the entire Biden took a bribe story has been destroyed.
But they will not report as prominently, they might report it but not as prominently, that the case does not depend on that one guy.
That there is so much evidence that you could take that one guy out.
It doesn't make that much difference.
It would have been really convenient to have such a good witness if it were true.
But you could take him out.
Do you believe that the FBI is acting legally and ethically and that they have strong information that is reliable that this individual lied about what he saw?
Maybe.
I mean, trusting a Russian to not lie would be, you know...
You're really going out on a limb if you're going to believe the Russian guy who was an FBI informant.
So he's a very low credibility kind of character who's had some issues before.
However, in this specific situation, and giving the full context of badness by our own country, I think there's at least a coin flip chance that the FBI is arresting him to suppress his story.
Is that fair?
I think it's a coin flip.
My take is that maybe he lied, and maybe he didn't, and the FBI knows it, and they're arresting him anyway just to take him out of the story and to change the narrative of the story.
I would love to live in a country where if the FBI arrests somebody, you think to yourself, whoa, there must be some good evidence they did a crime.
We're not in that country.
Absolutely not.
Yeah.
Having them arrest somebody for purely political reasons, completely within the realm of possibility.
Now, let me tell you why.
Do you think that the FBI informed Comer and his associates, or anybody in Congress, that the person they were using as a source, they knew he lied?
Why didn't they just say that?
Now, arresting him, maybe they needed to not tip him off, because they waited until he came to the U.S.
to arrest him.
So maybe they just didn't want to tip him off.
Don't you think that it would be the job of the FBI to tell the congressional group investigating that their main witness was lying and the FBI knew it because they had some kind of information that you and I haven't seen?
Why would they arrest him first?
Does that track for you?
Because it means they've known for a while, keep in mind, that they had to wait for him to come to the United States to arrest him.
Which suggests that for some time, they've known he was lying.
They knew specifically why.
They had evidence he was lying.
And that was not presented to Comer?
Comer didn't hear about it until he got arrested?
What's that tell you?
Well, it tells you that there's nobody dedicated to finding out the truth.
That's for damn sure.
You can rule out People are trying to get to the bottom of what really happened.
Nothing like that's happening.
Although I think Comer would like to get to the bottom of it, if it's as dirty as he thinks.
All right.
So, that's a real good play by the media.
Because the story of Brisma and the Bidens is all so complicated that if you can get some lying pundits, like an Adam Schiff or a Swalwell, to go on TV and just say, well, their witness was just arrested by the FBI for lying, what would Democrats say about the entire story?
They would say it must be a fake story.
Because that one guy, just one part of a massive amount of information, but that one guy got arrested.
And they're going to say that means the whole story is false because that one guy lied.
That's going to work, by the way.
As a play for confusing Democrats who don't get real news, that would work.
That's a really good play.
Nicely done.
Nicely done in an evil way.
Imagine being a Democrat right now and watching the news and not being on the X platform.
Wouldn't that be weird?
You wouldn't know what's going on.
Literally the only place in the world you can find the news that gives you any context about any of these stories is on X. It's the only place.
Now, so what do Democrats believe?
Democrats have to be told that X is no longer a free speech platform and that it's just a bunch of MAGA people.
Because otherwise they might be exposed to the other side of the story.
Now, I'm gonna ask this question I've asked before, but I got more thinking about it.
I get almost no interaction with Democrats on X, and that's completely different from what it looked like before Elon Musk took over.
So, did all of the Democrats go to Threads, and yet Threads is unsuccessful?
It can't be that.
Was there some change in the algorithm so that Democrats never come into contact with my posts so they don't comment?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Because if the algorithm had fed me things it thought I wanted to see, it might reasonably give me more things that agree with me, and less things that don't.
That's possible.
However, I have another theory that a massive amount of the so-called Democrats that I was wrestling with for the last several years online were not real.
That they were just bots and trolls.
And paid, probably.
So it could be that Elon did a better job of getting rid of the bots and the trolls, and that they were never real in the first place.
But I don't think so.
Because they sure look real.
I mean, some of them look like bots.
Here's my other possibility.
I've been told, and I guess I need a fact check on this, I've been told that Democrats employ some kind of a block list Is that a thing?
Can you mass block everybody who is a person that... It is a thing?
Why have I never seen that feature?
Does that feature exist within X, or do you have to use a third party to do that?
And is that real?
It's an outside service, but how could they do it?
Do you give them your password?
So you must give them access to your account, right?
Because I've noticed that a lot of stories that seem to have Democrats weighing in are blocked to me, meaning I can't see the Democrat quote.
Am I on a mass block list?
And so have the Democrats found a way to prevent other Democrats from seeing the other side of the story?
I think that might be happening.
I don't know for sure, so I need a fact check on that.
And that's all they would need.
You could go on X and be there all day long, as long as you made sure you didn't accidentally see any real news if you used the block list.
That's pretty clever.
I don't know if that's true.
I'm going to say it's rumored and some of you are saying it's true, but I don't see sources.
All right.
So, Thomas Massey reminds us about the so-called vaccinations that we got, and he reminds us that they kept having to change the definition of a vaccination every time we found out it didn't do what they said.
So at first, it didn't stop the spread.
So they had to change the vaccination.
So it didn't say that.
And then they apparently there wasn't a good enough information that it stopped the severity.
So they had to back off on that.
I think I'm getting this right.
I'm not sure if I'm getting it right.
But just think about the total amount of fuckery that happened to the American citizens during the pandemic.
Oh yeah, RFK Jr.
just won a massive case, a lawsuit, about how the truth about various COVID things was suppressed by the government working with social media companies.
So I'm not smart enough to know, but some observers are saying this is a gigantic thing.
That we now have a court case which demonstrates the government worked with social media to deny the public useful information about their health.
Let me say that again.
We now have a court-validated truth, thanks to RFK Jr.' 's lawsuit, that says that the government worked with social media companies to deny the public Useful information about their own health.
Now, let's compare that to Putin killing his critic in jail.
Which is worse?
That's easy.
We're worse.
Those are not even close.
Yeah.
The suppression of free speech in the context of useful information about your health Denying us useful information about our health for over 300 million people versus killing one guy in jail.
Terrible.
Oh, hold on, hold on.
Let me see if I can hold them both in my mind.
It's terrible to deny millions of people useful information that's true about their health.
But wait!
It's also bad to kill your critic in jail.
How can those both be true at the same time?
Okay, I'm doing it.
I'm holding them both in my mind.
Look at me do it.
So, yeah, just remember the pandemic.
Anyway, Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon Bee, had an interesting post yesterday, and he notes that Thomas Sowell, famous black economist, I hate that I have to put black in that sentence, but unfortunately the context sort of requires it.
Can we ever get to the point where you can just say Thomas Sowell?
One of the most brilliant people, you know, alive.
He's still alive, he's super old.
Anyway, so Seth Dillon says, Thomas Sowell recounted a story about a young black man who wanted to join the Air Force and become a pilot.
But he never applied because he figured they'd discriminate against him.
He didn't know race-based discrimination was unlawful or that black men had a long history of being Air Force pilots.
Sowell noted that this young man's false belief about racism did him more harm in terms of blocking off pathways to success than any actual racism.
Okay, that's the kind of observation which is why I should say you should know who the hell Thomas Sowell is, right?
He's basically the black Mark Twain of economists.
He's the black Mark Twain of economists.
And what I mean by that is he has that Warren Buffett ability to tell you something useful and interesting in a very concise way, But make you remember it because of the way he said it.
That's the important part.
A lot of people have made similar observations to Thomas Sowell, but when he says it, he's got that Mark Twain, Warren Buffett, little extra tang on it, and it makes you remember it.
So you can quote it.
So what he says becomes viral because of the genius of the way he puts it.
You know, just like Warren Buffett does.
Now, Dr. Darryl Scott, you might know as a big Trump supporter and a black pastor.
He says, if that story is true, it was an individual mindset, not a collective one.
All he had to do was ask someone.
And it's true.
All he had to do was ask someone.
But do you think it's also true that it's not a collective mindset, that it's not a general Understanding among the black community.
I asked Dr. Gerald Scott.
I haven't seen an answer.
This is not a rhetorical question.
This is an actual question for my own education.
Does the black community generally know they have a huge hiring advantage in America today?
Because I don't see an indication of it.
What do you think?
Do you think if you polled black Americans, just stop them on the street, and say, are you aware, you'd ask the question differently, but just for our purposes, are you aware that being black is a huge advantage in hiring, both in government and in any large organization or company?
How many would say, oh yeah, I know that.
Yeah.
Mark Lamont Hill says I spew racist hogwash.
Mark Lamont Hill.
It's good to have enemies like that.
I'm not going to kill him in a Russian prison.
I'd rather have him keep saying silly stuff about me.
Anyway, I would love to know the answer to that question, because I don't believe that today the average person, black person, knows they have a huge hiring advantage.
Let me tell a story that's related to this in a fascinating way.
There's a young black man named Clifton Duncan who is doing a GoFundMe fundraiser to do a play about Thomas Sowell's life.
Now, how good an idea is that?
A play about Thomas Sowell's life.
Right?
Now, remember, the beauty of it is that Thomas Sowell's own words would form, you know, the bones of an excellent play.
Because everything he says is so interesting.
And you just wrap that in a story, I'm totally going to watch that play.
Or I might wait for the digital version.
So Clifton does his fundraiser.
And I see it and I go, huh.
Clifton Duncan's a serious, really smart guy.
And he has exactly the right background skills to pull it off.
So he has the ability to execute.
And then he combined his ability to execute with an awesome idea.
Like a really good idea.
One of the best I've ever seen on a GoFundMe, actually.
It's a perfect use for it.
So I said to myself, well, it's the right person.
It's the right, yeah, I'm gonna talk about that.
Yeah, it's the right person, and it's the right product.
And so he puts that up there, and how did he do?
So how do you do when you've got the right person, the right product?
And here's the important part.
Clifton Duncan did not say, well, if I ask for money, you know, they're going to discriminate against me and I won't get any.
So he asked for, I think, $23,000 or something.
He thought that would, you know, kickstart it.
Last I checked, he was up to $63,000.
to $63,000.
I donated.
And I never donate.
I I never do the GoFundMes.
But this is one of those rare cases where this would be so good for civilization, for American civilization, this would be such a positive thing.
God yes, that's worth a hundred bucks.
I'll put a hundred bucks into that.
So I did.
Now, compare that to how other people act.
So here's a young black man who built up his skills, and then without thinking that he would be discriminated, he simply did the thing that makes sense.
And then he made a killing.
What's it up to now?
Yeah, $63,000.
So he's oversubscribed, you know, by triple.
That's the way to do it.
That is the way to do it.
And this dovetails into my larger message, which, believe it or not, is the thing that got me cancelled.
What I'm describing now is the, let's say, the more polite version of what got me cancelled.
So let me explain what got me canceled, and you'll see it's the same story, but I said it in the most offensive way.
I think if you live in a world where you're dividing people by race, and dividing them against each other, and you're telling one group that the other group is their oppressors, and that they are the victims of them, that would necessarily cause you to act in a certain way that might not be to your advantage.
What I was trying to say is if you keep up that, not only will we not help you, we being anybody who's not a black American, not only will we not help you, we will get the fuck away from you as far as we can.
Which is good advice in every situation.
Not about black people, don't get me wrong.
The advice is to get away from people who have it in for you.
If somebody is being trained through official government and corporate training, That you're the problem, you don't want to be near that.
You should go wherever that's not the case.
Go to another country, another state, another corporation, another town.
But you need to get away from it.
Because it's too big to fix.
You're not going to individually fix it.
You're not going to individually get DEI out of your corporation.
Nobody can do that.
So you need to protect yourself and get the fuck away from any of that influence.
What I advise, as a smarter technique, is strategy.
If you're a black American and you got trapped in the DEI victim-oppressor model, you're not going anywhere.
The only chance you have is to be a grifter and write a book complaining about racism.
But if you're in that victim-oppressor mentality, You're probably not going to try to become an airline pilot or an Air Force pilot, as the Thomas Sowell anecdote from Seth Dillon tells us.
And I have a real question for Dr. Darryl Scott about how well understood it is that simply going and getting the, you know, applying for a good job, if you're educated and you've got the skills, is going to work every time.
It'll work every time.
It's just a huge path to success.
So what I say is you should employ strategy, not whining.
Whining might even be, you know, appropriate in a lot of cases.
There might be lots of cases, indeed, in the real world, in which something unfair happened to you and people that look like you.
That's real.
I do believe that systemic racism exists.
That's a real thing.
It's just that if you give it too much respect, you're screwing yourself and the rest of the country at the same time.
Don't screw yourself.
Do what's good for you.
What's good for you is to ignore that bullshit, even if you think it's true.
That whether it's true or not, you should ignore, because that's a bad strategy.
The right strategy is to get a quality education, network with as many people as you can, and try a bunch of things that individually, maybe they don't work, but you keep trying a number of things.
Who did I just describe?
Clifton Duncan, right?
So he got a good education and exactly the thing he wants to do.
He's tried a number of things.
He's still looking for his big head.
He's a young guy.
I think this could be it.
I feel good about this one.
And if it isn't, what do you think he's going to do?
Probably try some more things.
Probably network some more, right?
But his network got him three times the amount of Probably his networking, more than any one thing, got him three times the amount he asked for in the GoFundMe.
If he goes to make this movie, will he be discriminated against because he's a black man?
Nope.
Absolutely not.
If he makes a quality play about Thomas Sowell, who every white and black person should be paying attention to because he's awesome, Will people say, I'm not going to go to that show because a black guy made it?
No.
No.
Clifton Duncan will succeed, whether it's this or what comes after, because he does all the right things.
His strategy is on point.
Now, your strategy doesn't work day one.
That doesn't work for anybody.
But if he keeps pushing, if he just does what he does now, and keeps pushing, he's in a really competitive field.
But even within that field, I'd bet on him.
I'd bet $100 on him, so I literally bet on him.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is All I needed to say.
And that's the greatest show you're ever going to see today.
I feel like I left some news because there was so much news that I even got up early and I couldn't get through it.
It was just so much news.
And, you know, I think it has something to do with the season and the election year and everything.
But there's a lot happening.
Oh, three years back I read a comment from a user named Driel, and I've only read one of his comments out of a thousand since then.
But now don't you feel good, don't you?
All right.
Thanks for joining on the X platform and on YouTube and on Rumble.
If you wanted more interaction in the comments, you'd probably want to join the Locals group at scottadams.locals.com.
If you only want to see the Dilbert comic and the Dilbert digital comic, do that on X. You can subscribe there.
See my profile.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, Have a great day.
Everything's going to be funny in 2024, so don't take it too seriously.
