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, Axios Border Propaganda, Instagram Block Limit, AG Ken Paxton, Biden-Cartel Partnership Hypothesis, Working Assumptions, Google Products Discrimination, Inalienable Rights, Optimus Biden, President Biden, Black Diner Visit, VP Candidates, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Putin Endorses Biden, Leticia James vs NRA, Fani Willis Phone Data, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilizations.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a finer moment into your life.
It's just getting better.
And if you'd like to take it up to a level that I don't think anybody can even understand, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it's happening now.
Oh, that's good.
Oh, somebody has an old Dilber mug with Dilber's head on it.
I'm seeing that on the locals platform.
They can put pictures in their comments.
Well, let's talk about all the news.
I saw a post by Lori Schmeck, PhD, who says that Alzheimer's is showing to be largely a lifestyle disease.
Do you believe that?
How many of you believe that Alzheimer's is more a lifestyle than genetic?
It might be both.
Usually you need the lifestyle to initiate or trigger the genetic propensity.
Yeah, and I see what you're saying.
I think Lori Schmeck said the same thing, that type 3 diabetes is sort of what Alzheimer's is.
In other words, it might be too much sugar, too much wrong bacteria in your gut.
It could be just living a bad life.
Not bad, but, you know, your lifestyle would be suboptimal.
I'm tempted to believe this.
It seems like it to me.
Anyway, just keep that in mind.
Do you think I should do a video on my eating system?
People get real mad when you suggest there's a better way to eat.
But the thing that I try to add to the system is I'm not trying to tell you how to do anything.
Because you need to come up with your own system.
But what I can do is show you my system.
For example, I'll just give you a preview.
Part of my system is I don't keep any unhealthy food in my house.
That's it.
That's the whole system.
I mean, there's a number of other parts to the system, but that's what I'm talking about.
So I use my human nature, my laziness, to keep me healthy.
Because I know I don't want to drive somewhere to get some unhealthy food.
So I'm just going to eat whatever's there or skip a snack.
So I might do a video on that, because I feel like I could save thousands of lives.
Okay, I just talked myself into it.
When I realized the size of my audience, and I realized that most of you are here because you like hearing what I have to say on various topics, that makes me influential.
With you more than other people because you're here voluntarily.
So if I could tell you something that would completely change your odds of Alzheimer's and keep you healthier without much effort, I guess I have to do that.
So I'll do that.
I'll commit to that.
There's another big balloon flying over the United States just in time to distract us from God knows what.
But we don't know if it's a threat.
Maybe it's just a big balloon.
Do you ever wonder if maybe there's a big balloon going over the United States at any given time?
I feel like there's just always one up there and whatever you need, it's like, Oh, watch out.
Watch out.
There's a balloon.
Here comes another balloon.
I don't know what to think about this big old balloon, but I'm not going to worry about it yet.
Here's a little, uh, slice of reality.
So yesterday I was offered the opportunity to interview an expert on the election from 2020, somebody who had done a lot of research, and using public records only, had come to the conclusion that there was an obvious problem there.
And then the offer was that I could interview said person on my show.
Should I do it?
Advise me.
Should I talk to an expert on my show who will demonstrate that the election, in the expert's opinion, is confirmed to be crooked?
Lots of yeses and lots of nos.
The correct answer is no.
The correct answer is no.
Would you like to know why?
And by the way, it's an easy decision.
It's very easy.
How would I know if the expert was telling me the truth?
How would I know?
I would have no way of knowing.
Remember, I spent probably one year, I think, of doing this.
I kept reminding you that what I call the Joe Rogan model is the worst way to find out what's true.
Now, the Joe Rogan model, and Joe Rogan's great, and I love his show, and I recommend it, and he's a national treasure.
If you only have one point of view, you have that documentary effect.
If you're not capable of fact-checking it with your own knowledge, you have to have the other expert there, or the opposing claim.
If you don't have that, you're just part of a propaganda, accidentally.
Right?
It would be accidental propaganda.
Because anytime you're showing one side of a thing, and you're not showing the other side, you're not useful.
You might be right, You might be right.
I'm not saying that the information is right or wrong.
My point is I don't know.
So risk number one is that I could platform somebody, and without knowing it, be spreading misinformation.
Without knowing it.
So I don't want to do that.
But suppose I invited another expert.
Suppose I invited somebody who says everything was fine.
Do you think they would come on the show at the same time as the expert who looked into it and says, I found something bad?
Of course not!
There's not the slightest chance of that.
Why would they?
There's literally no upside.
It's only downside.
Because I would seem to them like, you know, an unfriendly.
And then they'd be going on to a show with somebody who's loaded with information they haven't seen yet.
To make a claim that they probably wouldn't have a good response to, even if it was a fake claim.
They wouldn't be prepared for the claim.
So, nobody's gonna say yes to that.
And if they do say yes, they're gonna cancel.
Because they'll think about it, and they'll go, oh, there's no upside for me.
So I can't show you an expert, because it would be out of context, it would be unfair.
I can't possibly show you both sides.
So what is left?
Here's the problem.
Although this came to me through a source that I consider credible, so everything about my contact with it was credible, I'll betcha that Cindy Powell would say the same thing about whoever told her there was a Kraken.
Am I right?
I'm guessing.
I wasn't there.
But I'll bet you that Sidney Powell heard from a source that she personally trusted that there was a thing out there and at any moment, you know, it would all be revealed.
And then it ruined her entire career.
Now imagine being in a political season where all the people who have a preference and an audience are being targeted for destruction.
Imagine me going off and doing an episode in which I've got an expert, even if the expert is right.
So none of this has to do with who's right.
It's just the look of it.
It would basically put me in a situation to be cancelled for being an election denier, even if the expert was right.
Because nobody would be able to agree on whether they're right.
They'd just say, well, here's a clip of that Adams guy who's buying into the Kraken.
So it's really a weird situation because you can't get there from here.
There is a truth, I don't know what it is, but there is a truth to the 2020 election.
But there's no expert and no data and no news that could possibly get you to understand what really happened in a credible way.
I don't know how to solve that.
I mean, if you were going to do it in a reasonable way, you'd have a big project with both sides and multiple people from both sides, and you'd dig into every claim and all that.
But that's a lot of resources, and nobody's going to do it.
Because it would require both sides to have the same interest in the truth.
And we know that's not the case.
Because the side that won the election doesn't want anything to change the situation.
So no, nobody would ever agree to that.
All right.
And I'll say again, I do have no reason to distrust the expert or the way it came to me.
They all seem credible to me, but credible is not good enough.
That's the risk reward there is pretty bad.
There is a video I haven't watched yet, but I reposted it in case you want to see it.
It's called The American History of Voter Fraud.
So what it purports to do is give you a tour of all the, I guess they would say, confirmed election problems since JFK, Lyndon Johnson days.
So I'm going to watch it.
I'm not telling you that it's credible or not credible.
I don't know.
But remember, it's a documentary.
Should you trust it?
No.
Unfortunately, it's going to show you one side.
And I'm sure that one side, based on just the preview, looks like it's going to tell you that there's been rampant voter fraud forever in America.
Now, I believe that to be true.
But just be aware that if you're watching a documentary with one point of view, it's always convincing.
Doesn't mean it's true, but it will always be convincing.
All right, here's some Axios propaganda.
So they've got an actual tweet or a post.
I can't believe this.
Yeah, and I think it was the Babylon Bee was saying, is this parody?
Like, we really can't tell at some point.
Listen to this.
By using the term—this is what Axios is saying in a post—by using the term open border, conservatives are falsely suggesting that anyone can get into the USA without much hassle.
But the U.S.—doesn't this just seem funny?
It doesn't even seem like they really—this is real.
I swear to God, they actually said this.
But it gets worse.
They go on.
But the southern border is more fortified than it's ever been.
What?
Well, that is true, because Texas just fortified, well at least that part of it, I guess, is fortified.
Here's my take.
I really feel sorry for anybody who still thinks the news is real.
Do you ever run into people who still think the news is real?
And you don't know what to do?
Because you can't really talk about the topic.
With somebody who thinks news is real.
Yeah, you have to go all the way back.
OK, OK, OK.
I know you want to talk about the border and whatever, but you're going to have to back up a little bit.
Do you understand that the news is not real?
Oh, yeah, there was that fake news once from Fox News.
No, no, no.
I don't think you're understanding.
I mean, the news, the news, it's not real.
Well, I watch CNN, so I don't see the fake news.
No, no.
I don't think you're... I'm not getting through.
The news, and that would include CNN, is not real.
Well, but I check it against the New York Times.
No, no, no, no.
I'm not getting through.
The news is not real.
Yeah, but if I've looked at CNN, the New York Times, and MSNBC, and they all agree, I think that's... No.
No.
Slow down.
The news is not real.
And you really can't get past that, can you?
That's the end of the conversation.
Because if you think the news is real, you really can't have a conversation with somebody who knows it isn't.
There's no way you can have that conversation.
And I think that's the biggest problem with, you know, Our division in the country is that some people think the news is real.
All right.
So this is a funny story.
Instagram apparently has a limit on how many people you can block per day.
Did you know that?
You'll get a warning that says if you block too many people.
So there was some user of Instagram who was getting a bunch of pedos and kept blocking them.
Until there was that message that came on saying that she couldn't block any more pedophiles.
And so this raised the question, what is the allowed number of pedophiles?
I'm just having a joke, obviously.
But it does create a situation whereby the nature of the design It would appear that there's an allowable number of pedophiles.
It's like, ah, you know, that first 25, totally unacceptable.
26 through 1,000, perfectly fine.
Now, of course, nobody sat down and said, let's make a rule that allows the bad people on the platform.
So none of this is intentional, right?
Wouldn't you agree?
It's not intentional.
You all agree with that, right?
This is obviously just a system kind of mistake.
Well, I would refer you to Mark Andreessen, one of the more notable, famous Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, and also one of the smarter people in the Valley.
And he reminded us in a separate topic, it wasn't about this topic, but yesterday he reminded us that the purpose of any design is what it does, or the purpose of a system.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
So there's no such thing as pretending it does one thing while observing it does another.
That can only happen temporarily.
Temporarily, You could build a system that doesn't do what you want.
But if you build a system that doesn't do what you want, and you don't change it, ever, then one must assume it's doing what you want, because it's changeable.
You know, it's easily changeable.
So we must assume that Instagram has a system in which they prefer that you cannot block too many of the bad people.
Yeah, I'm sure they have some internal reason.
Maybe it's to stop some kind of automated attack or process or something.
So I can imagine they'd have some argument.
But there's no doubt that the outcome of the design is it allows bad people in.
Well, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had something provocative to say about the border.
He said that Biden is, quote, clearly in partnership with human trafficking and the cartels.
Do you accept that?
Do you accept that Biden is, quote, clearly in partnership with the cartels?
Well, this gets us back to the design of the system, doesn't it?
If you had a system which gave the cartels everything they wanted, and it gave you nothing that you wanted, the country, what would be the best working assumption about how we got to that place?
Now, I would like to introduce a concept to you.
I've used it before, but I did a bad job of explaining why.
It's called the working assumption, and you should introduce that into your vocabulary, and I'm going to make a strong argument for it.
What we normally do is say, this is true, even if we don't know for sure, or this is false, even if we don't know for sure.
Or we don't know, and then, you know, that's useless.
So, whenever you say something's true, you're going to get pushed back.
Whenever you say something's false, you're going to get pushed back.
And then you both agree to disagree and nothing happens.
That's why I'm introducing this new term that's harder to deal with.
It goes like this.
If I say, it is a true fact that Biden is working with the cartels, What do the Biden supporters say?
They say he proved it.
And I say, well, I don't have any emails or anything like that.
Oh, OK.
So you don't have any evidence.
Well.
Not really.
Well, do you have any quotes where he said I'm working with it?
Well, no.
No, I don't really have any quotes.
I don't have any documents.
I don't have any whistleblowers.
Those are the things you want, and you'd want those, right?
If you want to find out what's true.
But here's why the working assumption gets past that.
I say, I look at the border, and I say, my working assumption is that it's intentional, because as Marc Andreessen points out, and he didn't invent this concept, he was just pointing it out, that the design has gone on too long.
The system has been in place under Biden, you know, he changed Trump's system.
Trump's system was clearly intended to reduce immigration.
Nobody wonders.
Because he did a thing, you know, changed a bunch of processes and executive orders and whatever.
It lowered immigration.
He said, yes, that's what we wanted to do.
And then we observed that it kept doing.
That would be a case where there's no doubt whatsoever what the system was designed to do.
Now, Biden comes in, changes a bunch of things, gets a result that is obviously bad for the country and obviously good for the cartels.
If he had changed it a month after implementing it, when it was clear what it was gonna do, then I would say, oh, that was just a bad mistake.
That's just a bad mistake.
It's a good thing he corrected it.
But if you keep it running, and you keep pretending you can stop it when everybody knows you can, oh, I don't have the power.
I don't know how I'd ever go about stopping this.
And time goes by, years, And it becomes the biggest problem in your country, and you still don't stop it.
The working assumption is that some element of the government is working with the cartels.
Now, I don't buy Ken Paxton's framing, because he says Biden is clearly in partnership.
I actually think Biden might want to stop it.
I don't think there's evidence he's in charge.
I think that politically, it's so bad for Biden that if he were in charge, he would have stopped it.
It's obvious to me.
It's my working assumption that the CIA is working with the cartels, which would be normal business, because the CIA likes to partner with muscle.
They have partnered with, you know, probably every bad organization in our country and others, because they're the muscle.
You know, you want to own the unions if they're going to march, you want to own Black Lives Matter, you want to own Antifa.
You want to own the mafia, you want to own the cartels.
Now, owning them doesn't mean they do what you want them to do.
I don't mean that.
They're not under their control, but rather they have maybe an interest, an association based on self-interest.
My guess is that since I've never heard once of a cartel bothering an American manufacturing company in Mexico, that there's no way that's an accident.
It looks like an arrangement in which the CIA is allowing the cartels to earn as much money as they want through their illegal activities in return for letting the American corporations be non-molested.
Now, can I prove that?
Nope.
So if I claim that to be a fact, I'd be in trouble.
But I don't claim it to be a fact.
I claim it to be a working assumption.
Now here's the reframe.
You ready for this?
As a working assumption that is compatible with what I see as a system which seems to be designed for this output, my working assumption is that the system, given that it's operated for a few years now, is intentional.
And if you want to talk me out of that working assumption, which is not a belief, It's not a belief.
It's not a fact.
It's a working assumption.
If you want to talk me out of it, you're going to have to prove it.
See what I just did there?
If I told you that Biden is working with the cartels, you get to make me prove it.
I made an allegation.
If I make an allegation, I better back it up.
And I agree with that.
I should back it up.
That's why I don't make one.
I'm making an observation.
An observation is that we have a system which is very transparent, we can all see it, we see what its outcome is, and if it's been running for a few years, and it wasn't originally corrected when we had the chance, you should assume, working assumption, that it's intentional, and that the most obvious reason is that there's some kind of working relationship with the cartels.
Does that mean it's a fact?
No.
Does that mean it's my belief?
It doesn't mean that.
It means it's a working assumption that if you were to take a different assumption, I don't know how you'd ever support it.
How would you support the opposite assumption?
That they didn't notice there's a problem?
No.
That they were unable to fix it?
Clearly not true.
So the working assumption is that this is an unsolvable problem because we want it more than we want the solution.
We meaning whoever's in charge of the United States.
How do you like that?
So try to use that language because you can't be debunked for observing.
Observing that the system is signed, and there's not really, I don't even know another explanation that would even come close to fitting all the observations.
Now if you said to me, Scott, the human trafficking is up, but at least they cut down on the fentanyl, then I would say to myself, oh, it looks like they're really trying to stop the cartels from doing illegal things, but maybe one of those things is harder to stop than the other, because they stopped one, You know, but the other one not so good.
So I'd say the working assumption would be they're trying to stop it all, but one is a harder problem.
But if you have a whole range of cartel activities that are only going in one direction, worse, my working assumption is that there's some kind of arrangement with our country in which we're allowing 100,000 people to die from fentanyl because we're getting something of value That compensates for that.
Money.
All right.
Working assumption.
Try it.
I was thinking this day, you know, the founders of Google?
A couple of white boys.
Imagine being the founder of Google.
It becomes, in my opinion, the most powerful business in the world.
No, that's my opinion.
It's based on the fact that they can influence how we think by their reach.
They can manipulate the search engines, etc.
They can find out everything about you and build strategies based on it.
They can manipulate you.
They can brainwash you, etc.
But imagine, just imagine being one of the two founders.
You're a couple of white boys.
And you wake up one day and you realize you've created the most powerful, in my opinion, organization in the world, maybe in the history of the entire world, and you realize that you trained the staff and also the products, the search engines, the AI, to discriminate against people who look like you and your family.
Is that unfair?
That the founders of Google, Built the most powerful company in the world, and it's now trained the staff, almost the entire staff, and the product itself to discriminate against people who look like the founders of the company and their families.
That's a real thing.
Is that a mischaracterization?
Can anybody tell me if that's accurate?
That's not inaccurate, is it?
Is that hyperbole?
Is there any hyperbole there?
Any exaggeration?
They're white boys.
They built Google.
Most powerful entity.
You could argue that, but they're among the most powerful.
And then, and then clearly the company is anti people who look like them.
How would you feel about that?
I mean, I'm actually curious.
Do you think there's any member of their family who's saying, you see what you did there?
Do you have any idea what you've done?
Do you think that Google can be fixed?
I kind of think not.
I feel like the rot is too deep.
So it looks like it's a permanent feature of society.
So anyway, I thought that two white guys founding Google would be as funny as Derek Chauvin being the founder of BLM.
And I would also go so far as to say it's the biggest fuck-up in all of business history.
Yeah, the founders of Google.
The company is a miracle.
It's amazing.
But in terms of turning the biggest company in the world into a discrimination machine, it's the biggest fuck-up in all of business history.
I don't think anything's ever come close.
All right, well, I get all confused with all the lawfare stories, so let me see if I got this one right.
So there was a whistleblower.
Who, for a whistleblower against Hunter in his business dealings.
And the whistleblower went to jail for what the whistleblower did, separately.
Some fraudulent stuff, I guess.
But the whistleblower was then released to home arrest.
You know, they could stay at home.
Now, I don't know if you've ever been to jail.
Personally, I have not.
But I believe that being at home is way better than being in jail.
Am I right?
It's way better.
But his home confinement was apparently revoked after he turned into a whistleblower.
Like, immediately after.
Now, does that look like he's being punished?
It's like every other story.
I'd wait for context.
It's one of those stories where if you talk to the jail, they might have some reason you don't know about.
You know, maybe he had some bad behavior we're not aware of.
But I would certainly suspect that it fits the pattern of the Department of Justice being corrupt and biased.
So, I don't know.
Keep an eye on that.
MSNBC is getting mocked, they had a host on there, that was sort of anti-Christian nationalist.
It wasn't anti-Christian, but it was anti-Christian nationalist.
And the host, or the guest I guess, said that if you believe your rights come from God, you're not a Christian, you're a Christian nationalist.
If you believe your rights come from God.
And I guess the idea is that our rights do not come from God, and we do not live in a system which would recognize that our rights come from God.
And the way that you know that we have a system that does not recognize that rights come from God is that in His creation it had these words, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
Oh, okay.
So it's actually sort of built right into the foundational documents of our country.
However, let me clear up all this where rights come from.
Well, let me ask you in the comments.
How many of you think rights come from God?
Do your rights come from God?
Are you endowed with inalienable rights?
Lots of you, yes.
Some people say the Magna Carta, but I understand that point.
It's a little off point, but I understand where you're coming from.
How many of you believe that your rights come from the country you live in and the laws?
And they say you can do this and you can't do that.
How many thinks that the country gives you your rights?
Some yes, some no.
All right.
Would you like to know the correct answer?
The correct answer is, nobody gives you any rights.
Nobody gives you rights.
Are you serious?
How would you believe anybody gave you a right?
What, did God give some countries different rights than others?
And we can't agree what rights God gave us?
No, God didn't give you any rights.
God may have created you, if that is what you choose to believe.
But I don't believe—was there a place in the Bible where God said what your rights are?
I don't recall that, but I'm not—somebody says implied.
No, the Ten Rules are what you can't do.
Yeah, the Ten Commandments are what you can't do.
That's literally taking your rights away.
That's taking your rights away.
That's what the Ten Commandments is.
It's literally taking your rights away.
Because before that, you had the right to kill your neighbor, I guess.
Until somebody told you you didn't have a right.
I'm just kidding.
Don't get too worked up.
All right, here's the correct answer.
I'm pretty sure God was never in the business of granting rights.
I don't think that was, you know, I just don't think that was part of the deal.
You know, it's like, did God give you some, I don't know, Traffic limits.
It just doesn't make sense.
Those seem like different domains.
I think God had different interests than the law.
I don't even know if he was, I think he was kind of silent on that.
Anyway, here's the truth.
Your rights don't exist.
There's just people who can take away your ability to do things you wanted to do.
That's it.
The state can take away your ability to do things even if you don't like it, and your religion might prevent you from doing things that maybe you wanted to do.
So people can take away your ability to do what you want, but nobody can give you that.
You start as a free person.
And then people tell you what you can't do.
So there's no such thing as giving rights.
There's only taking them away.
There's only taking them away.
And if you understand that, then everything makes sense.
Right?
You don't need God to give you any rights.
Why does God have to give you a right?
I mean, this seems like an unnecessary step.
Because why would God do something that didn't need to be done?
Because unless there was a law taking away your rights, God wasn't limiting you except for the Ten Commandments.
So I think God actually was silent on the question of whether you should own a gun or anything like that.
So no, there are only people who can take your rights away.
There's nobody who can give them to you.
So, I agree, if you adjust for the times, I guess I agree with endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
If you're not a believer, And I'm not.
Then I just read that as, you start with rights, and they can only take them away.
If they try.
So that seems like the better reading.
All right.
Did you see Trump do his Biden impression of trying to get off the stage?
I think this happened.
I think that Trump was doing a huge rally in South Carolina.
And somebody said that his teleprompter malfunctioned.
Can you confirm that?
He had a teleprompter malfunction?
Or did somebody just say that?
So I think what happened is that Trump stood in front of, you know, a gigantic stadium full of people, his teleprompter failed, and he just did, I don't know, 45 minutes of stand-up.
And everybody loved it.
Now, just try to imagine Biden doing that.
Do you think there's any possibility that if Biden was speaking and the teleprompter went off, they would leave him there?
Somebody would be up at that podium immediately saying, oh, sorry, Mr. President, looks like we got a problem.
We'll have to do this later.
Teleprompter broke.
I think it was last night.
So anyway, I could use a fact check on whether he really was off script.
But apparently he has that capability, which is impressive.
Tony Blinken apparently says that people in the government shouldn't use gendered words such as manpower, you guys, ladies and gentlemen, mother and father, son and daughter, husband and wife.
I only say it because it's funny.
Like there's nothing else to add to it except just have a good laugh about it.
Have you seen the video of Optimus?
That's the Tesla robot.
Musk posted a little video of it walking.
So they've actually got the robot walking around the factory floor.
But, I've said this before, but did they really need to make the robot Optimus walk exactly like Joe Biden?
I mean, it's exactly like Joe Biden.
Not a little bit.
It's exactly like Joe Biden.
Which makes me suspect that the real Joe Biden died years ago and he's been replaced with a Tesla robot running on Gemini AI.
Because it acts like it.
And I'm talking about Gemini 1.0.
Anyway.
Then I guess Biden went to visit a what the news is calling a black diner.
Did you know there's such a thing as a black diner?
I thought it was just a diner and everybody could eat there if they wanted to.
So he goes to this so-called black diner and you have to watch the video to watch how low the energy is.
I'd like to give you my impression of the high-energy Biden going to the Black Diner.
Oh, how are you doing there?
Uh...
"Hi there." It was terrific, really.
Scintillating.
Well, you know, the word that came to mind was dynamism.
Dynamism.
And the funniest part was, apparently they kept the customers sort of away from the entry so that he could have a grand entry and there were just a few people there.
And so maybe the owner of the restaurant or something, a black guy, shakes hands, talks to him, looks good.
The third person he met in the black diner was a white guy who was just eating alone.
So he wisely decides not to skip the white guy.
So he has to shake hands with the white guy in the black diner.
And I felt like he was like, ah, I wasted my time.
This is all wasted energy.
I don't have that much energy, but I got to shake hands with the white guy in the black diner.
And I thought, I love the fact that just some random blue-collar white guy was eating at the Black Diner when Biden went there, because nobody told him it's a Black Diner.
He just thought he liked the food.
It's more evidence that all of the racial stuff is imposed upon us.
Like, if you just let people do whatever they wanted to do, they would just eat there for the food, and that would be the end of the story.
All right, well, there's more chatter that Trump might be picking a VP soon, and I'm going to tell you that it's getting easier and easier to predict.
We could be wrong.
By the way, predicting a vice presidential pick is the hardest.
So it's the hardest.
So if I get this one wrong, just remember this was the hardest challenge, because there's lots of variables that we don't always see from the public.
However, Trump is signaling about as hard as I've ever seen anybody signal.
Now, if I'm wrong about this, I'm going to be surprised.
But, alright, one of the ones you think would be a candidate would be Tim Scott.
And Trump is quoted recently as calling Tim Scott, quote, the greatest surrogate I've ever seen.
So that's the kind of energy you give your future vice president, isn't it?
He's the greatest surrogate.
Do you need to have any more convincing that it won't be Tim Scott?
Do you know what you don't say if you even think it's possible that you're going to pick him as the Vice President?
You don't call him a surrogate.
My God.
My God.
You don't call him a surrogate.
All right.
So, would you agree with me there's no chance in the world he's going to pick Tim Scott, if he referred to him in public recently, as the best surrogate of all time?
No, there's no chance he's going to pick him.
That's as clear as it could be.
Now, I think that you can predict Trump not by follow the money, because he's in a political realm, but by follow the energy.
And, you know, Trump says it himself.
He's an energy follower, energy creator.
And if you follow the energy, who does that suggest?
Vivek, right.
Vivek is the energy.
Trump knows it, the country knows it, everybody can see it.
There's nobody even close.
Vivek is actually famous for energy.
He's famous for going to, he did what, the double Grassley?
He went to every Every precinct in Iowa twice.
Nobody's ever done that.
So he was famous for being on every podcast, never looking tired.
He never looked tired.
Have you ever seen him look tired?
I've never seen it.
He's out there doing push-ups and playing tennis and hitting every podcast, answering every question, talking to every person.
It's the most energy you've ever seen.
It's Trumpian level of energy, if not more.
Now, how in the world Does Trump ignore that?
The energy monster himself.
The biggest energy candidate we've ever seen who wasn't Trump and loves Trump.
And he seems to be completely compatible with his views and is the most additive.
It's just a perfect team.
I mean, you can see it.
You can see it from the moon.
You know, you don't have to be in the room.
You can see it from the moon that they're perfect.
So that's my prediction.
Follow the energy, says Vivek.
And let me go through the other potential picks.
We talked about Tim Scott being not likely.
And Vivek's my pick.
But the other potential candidates are... What were we talking about?
Okay.
Here's the problem with all this lawfare stuff that's going against Trump.
As horrible as it is on many different levels, and obviously just lawfare, and it's obviously not a legitimate political process, to me, if Trump doesn't win and jail at least 100 people in a RICO case, they're just gonna do it again.
And they're just gonna put him in jail while he's president.
So, we've lost mutually assured destruction with this lawfare stuff.
You know, we always had this standard that you don't prosecute the losing candidate.
And I think it's pretty obvious that a lot of our leaders could be more easily prosecuted if you put a lot of effort into it.
You could probably find something on all of them.
But they didn't do it.
They didn't do it because it would be mutually assured destruction.
If you started doing it to the other side, they'd do it to you, and then everybody loses.
But apparently that unwritten standard has been violated and ignored because of the lawfare against Trump and his MAGA followers.
And to me, I don't know, am I just completely biased about this?
To me, it seems completely obvious that the Republic is done.
We could maybe reclaim it.
That's not impossible.
But it's definitely not operating at the moment.
We're not in any kind of Democrat Republic.
To me, it seems obvious that the Democrats and maybe the CIA have rigged the system so that voting shouldn't matter.
They've rigged the media.
They've rigged the legal system.
If they have the media and the legal system, then the vote is just, you know, if they have the ability to rig a vote, and I don't know that that's the case, it's just my working assumption.
It's my working assumption that our elections are rigged, not based on evidence, based on observation of how the system is designed.
Remember, design tells you intention, and we have a system designed to not be auditable.
By design.
Everybody knows it.
So my working assumption is that they're rigged.
You're going to have to prove it to me that they're not.
And you know what argument I don't accept?
We checked on those claims and didn't find them to be true.
That's not anything that addresses my argument.
You're going to have to prove the election is true.
I don't have to prove it's rigged because it's designed to be rigged.
You can observe it.
You can see the same thing I see.
I don't have to argue it.
You're looking at it.
Tell me how you're going to audit the electronic part of the election.
You can't, because we don't.
We can't.
There are elements you can audit, but you can't do the whole system.
And mail-in ballots?
There's nobody who has any knowledge of elections who thinks mail-in ballots are anything but a design to rig an election, except for the people in the military, and a few exceptions.
So I don't need to say that I have evidence of the election being rigged.
I have evidence that my working assumption is that you wouldn't design it that way for any other reason.
So somebody's going to have to prove to me there's some other reason why it looks this way.
It's not for me to make any case.
It's a working assumption that the elections are rigged and have been rigged probably forever.
But I don't think the elections do get rigged if they know they're going to win In the normal way, through rigging the media and rigging the lawfare in this case.
So I think that Trump is in an impossible situation.
I don't think he could get enough political muscle to put in jail the hundred treasonous people who are clearly trying to rig the election.
Because that would include, like, the executives of most of the news organizations.
Right?
There's no way to do it.
You'd have to put in jail the prosecutors themselves.
Right?
You would have to jail Soros, for sure.
That's never going to happen.
You would have to jail a bunch of attorneys generals, district attorneys.
You'd have to put a whole bunch of people who were involved in the election in jail, the media.
None of that's going to happen.
And I wouldn't even go so far as to say it should, because it would largely destroy the country.
But we have the even possibly worse situation.
That right now, one group can do it to the other group with impunity.
So that's basically a dictatorship, in effect.
So yeah, the Republic's pretty much done.
You know, I'm fascinated by Putin continuing to say, because he said it again, that Russia prefers Biden as president.
Do you take that as his clever way of really supporting Trump?
Or do you think he actually means that because Trump is unpredictable and he really doesn't like unpredictable?
It's hard to tell because it could go either way.
It's the smartest thing you could do because it gives Trump cover and it makes it look like he's willing to negotiate with a reasonable president.
So the only thing I know for sure is that it's the smartest thing Putin could have said.
I don't know if he means it.
And I don't know what his intention is.
But would you agree it's by far the smartest thing to say?
I mean, by far.
So we'll see.
I saw John Mearsheimer.
Trying to debunk the claim from Zelensky and others that Putin wanted to invade and control all of Ukraine.
Now, I might push back on this opinion a little bit, but according to Mearsheimer, Putin only had about 190,000 troops that he could use for conquering Ukraine, but if we looked at historical comparisons, the right number that it would take for a country that size would be two to three million.
So basically 10 times more than he had.
Which would suggest that Putin never wanted to conquer all of Ukraine.
Now that would be, that's Mearsheimer's take, so I haven't given you my take yet.
My take is that's not so clear.
Because it looked like what he was doing was trying to make a run on Kiev, and he probably thought if he could take out the politicians in Kiev, He could take his time with the rest of the country, if that's what he wanted.
So I guess I disagree that you can look at World War II, which is what Mearsheimer was doing, and say, if it took this many to conquer Poland, you know, for Germany, then that's roughly the amount you need in other cases.
And I think if you can make a blitzkrieg run toward the capital, You can do it with fewer people.
Now, let me use an analogy, a historical analogy.
When the United States tried to conquer Saddam, didn't we think that if we could just take over Baghdad and a few key places, we basically controlled the country?
And didn't we do it with far fewer people than World War II numbers would have suggested?
So I guess I'm pushing back a little bit on the fact that if Putin didn't have enough troops by a World War II standard, that therefore you can tell his intentions.
I think that's, I mean, it's interesting.
I like the context a lot, because it's good to have context.
I just don't know I'm completely sold on that.
Yeah.
I don't know that we could read his mind, and I don't know if we can tell by his military actions.
Well, New York City's appellate court turned down the idea that non-citizens would be allowed to vote in at least the local elections.
How did that ever even become a thing?
How in the world did that even make it to a court?
I don't think there could be anything more basic to the American system than you have to live here to vote.
Well, they live here, but they have to be an American citizen.
You know, I get the idea that if they live here, it would be nice to have some representation, but I feel like we've got to keep that as standard.
If people work to become legal citizens and then vote, then we celebrate you, don't we?
One of the most inspirational things you'll ever see is a foreign-born person becoming an American citizen.
Every time I see it, I get choked up.
Like when one of my friends, after living in the country, I don't know, probably lived here 30 years or something, maybe longer, and became a citizen, finally.
And to me, that was just one of the most, just awesome, like, inspiring moments.
That somebody would work for 30 years, or whatever it was, to accomplish this goal, to become an American.
I love that.
So, yeah, I mean, I'm pro-immigrant as long as we do it right.
All right.
Well, apparently, according to Representative Jordan, Fannie Willis has a whistleblower, somebody who says that they got fired by Fannie for claiming that she misused some grant money.
And I guess seven police officers escorted her out of the building for blaming her boss of misusing some grant money.
Now, of course, this has nothing to do with Trump.
But this would be a case of mutually assured destruction.
Meaning that the prosecutors are gonna get completely analyzed for anything they've done inappropriately, we see happening already, and I am quite on board with it.
Because it doesn't look like the prosecutors are doing anything but finding a person and then finding a crime.
If that's what they're doing, The Republicans can find that person who's the prosecutor and find their crimes as well, if they can find them.
So, yeah.
Had it coming.
Did you know that Letitia James, who's behind the Trump gigantic $454 million suit there, did you know that she also said, besides saying that she would target Trump before even knowing what the crimes were, that she said she would target the NRA, again, not for any specific crime?
And apparently she's on the border of succeeding at that.
So, for four years, she's been trying to take the assets of the NRA and just put them out of business.
And it looks like most of the claims against the NRA were not proven, but there's still an issue of whether they're properly managed, so she might be able to have the management of the organization taken over.
I do not feel like I live in America.
What country is doing this?
Two prominent examples where she told you she was going to go after a first an organization which is as closely tied to the Constitution of the United States as anything could be.
There's nothing closer to the Constitution than the NRA.
You know, whether you like them or hate them, their whole deal is to be as close to the Constitution as possible for the Second Amendment.
And she went after that, and she might succeed, and she went after Trump, and she might succeed.
She belongs in jail.
She belongs in jail for both of these things.
Because if you start with, I'm going to target you, and then you succeed, you should be in jail for that.
I don't know if it's a law.
But in terms of what's ethical and moral, if you target a citizen or a legal entity in the United States, and then you go look for a way to put them in jail, you need to be in jail.
And unambiguously, behind bars for, and it should be like 20 years.
It's not a small deal.
It's a pretty, pretty big foundational problem.
Well, speaking of liars, Fonny Willis.
She is in trouble because she said her affair started or was a certain date, set of dates, but now it turns out that the cell phone data shows that she and Wade were having some fun almost certainly far longer than she said.
Now, Megyn Kelly did an interesting analysis on this, because there was just a ton of contact between her boyfriend and her for that period.
And she looked at, so Megyn Kelly looked at her own phone records, because I guess they talked to each other, Fonny and Nathan Wade, talked to each other 180 times per month on average.
Phone calls, 180 phone calls per month.
So she checked how many she's had with her husband in the last month, and it was 46.
So she was saying, like an actual marriage, 46 phone calls, whereas they had 180.
And my reaction to this was, who makes 46 phone calls in a month?
That's more phone calls than I make in a year.
46 phone calls to one person?
If you added up all the phone calls I've ever made this year, I don't know if it's 40.
Who calls anybody?
Other than calling, like, for goods and services.
You know, I did call my garbage service yesterday to, you know, tray down some garbage cans.
But other than that, who do you make a phone call to?
Anyway.
However, they were working in the same office, so having a lot of phone calls with a co-worker is not as unusual as something else.
So they all look crooked.
The Atlantic, which is a publication that if you knew about them, you would say, oh, it's just a political propaganda entity pretending to be some kind of other publication.
So the Atlantic headline said, How Democrats could disqualify Trump if the Supreme Court doesn't.
So they're suggesting that they might not certify Trump's win even if the court doesn't take him out first.
That's like a headline in a major publication.
But it is a publication.
Have I ever told you that if you know what happened, you don't know anything?
If you know who did it, you probably know everything.
So if you thought that The Atlantic was just another publication, you might say, huh, there's a story.
But if you know The Atlantic is purely a propaganda entity, then when you see them propagandizing That Trump could be knocked off or disqualified by the Supreme Court, but also that if he doesn't, they can use the same technique Trump used for January 6, which is to not certify until, you know, you're sure that you can certify.
So they would use the thing that they're trying to keep him out of office for, they would use that same thing to keep him out of office.
It gets very confusing.
But if you don't think our system is completely corrupt, well, think again.
Yeah, we don't have anything like a republic or democracy anymore.
Tucker Carlson had Steve Kirsh on talking about all the COVID data and excess deaths and things.
And here's my comment.
There is no such thing as credible data about excess mortality or about COVID.
You're welcome to your opinion, and I won't even argue about it.
Because I don't have any data, I believe.
None.
There's no data about anything from the pandemic that I personally find credible.
It's all too motivated.
People trying to prove that they were right all along.
People trying to prove that they're not murderous, criminal Nazis.
So everybody's motivated.
There's no such thing as credible data when everybody's motivated to make themselves stay out of jail or look good.
So that's my take.
Is Steve Kirsch 100% correct?
I have no idea.
No idea.
I mean, he's a very credible, smart, capable, successful guy.
So if you're only looking at those qualities, you'd say, hmm, there's somebody you want to listen to.
Brett Weinstein?
Same thing.
If you say, is he credible, I'd say smart, has all the tools, you know, could look at things deeper than most of us could, doesn't seem to have an agenda, just seems to want to know what it is, but he's using data.
As long as he's using data, what am I going to do with that?
I don't trust any of it.
It doesn't matter where it comes from.
Anyway, so let's stop talking about COVID.
It's too boring.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I have for you on this Caturday Saturday.
And thanks for joining over on the X Platform and Rumble and YouTube, too.
I will see you tomorrow for another exciting episode of Coffee with Scott Adams.
