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, President Biden's Vigor, Gemini AI, Sergey Brin, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Octopus Murders, Florida DEI, DEI Ban, DNC Brainwashing, Senator Chris Murphy, Violent Crime Reduction, Election Year Gaslighting, Migrant Replacement Theory, Jonathan Turley, J6 Enhanced Sentences, J6 Political Prisoners, Democrats Transitioning Children, NYT Biden Poll, Election Transparency, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, Natural Gas Reduction, Climate Change, US Economic Collapse, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that could only be described as galactic, well then all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, shells, or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, surprisingly good.
How often does a surprise turn out to be better than you thought?
Have you ever noticed that?
that you don't often get surprised with something that's better than you thought.
It's about a three to one ratio.
Oh, that's a surprise.
Three to one.
I don't know why.
All right.
Here's something I don't think I've said too often.
Maybe never.
If you don't subscribe to the Dilbert comic, which you can now only get by subscription on the X platform, Or on Locals at scottadams.locals where you get lots of other stuff as well.
You would miss today's Sunday comic.
And I'm just going to tell you two things about it.
In the first panel Dilber tells his boss he wants to transition.
That's the first thing I'm going to tell you about it.
The second thing I'm going to tell you about it is, it might be the funniest thing I've ever written.
It might be.
You can judge for yourself, but it might be the funniest thing I've ever written.
Look at the comments if you don't believe me.
They're saying it right now.
I saw a post on X saying that CNN was considering canning Anderson Cooper and Chris Wallace.
Is that true?
Can I get a fact check on that?
Since when do they tell you they're considering firing?
That doesn't sound true to me.
Does it?
Who has that conversation?
You know, we're really thinking hard about getting rid of our top host.
I don't know.
I'm going to put a big question mark next to that one.
Yeah.
I'm going to say I don't believe it yet.
If you want to see something that's really funny, I just reposted it.
It's a compilation of Morning Joe talking about Trump in 2016 when they liked him.
And then it's a quick cut to 2024 when they don't like him.
Oh, you have to see it.
I don't think there's anything that's ever been on TV that's as entertaining as watching Morning Joe being normal and nice, and then watching him in deep TDS.
I can't even explain it.
You just have to see it yourself.
All right.
SNL was mocking Joe Biden for his lack of vigor.
The funniest, the funniest line was one of the characters said he had a grandpa monkey grip.
Grandpa monkey grip.
And he can jump over walls and he's so much full of vigor.
So what does it tell you when CNN, SNL, I just combined CNN and SNL.
But what does it tell you when SNL is openly mocking one of the candidates and it happens to be a Democrat?
They're very done with him.
I feel like they're very done with him.
And at least SNL has the self-awareness to know, even if they prefer him as president, they know physically and mentally he's kind of gone.
So I give them credit for being honest about that, because they didn't have to be.
We're in this weird world where if they just ignored that one president can barely function, They could have gotten away with it.
It probably wouldn't have made any difference to their numbers.
But they played it straight, and I appreciate that.
There's a video of Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google, talking about the new problems they have with racist AI that shows everybody looking black, no matter what they were.
And Sergey said, yeah, we messed up on image generation.
And he thought that the reason that maybe they messed up was, wait for it, not enough testing.
Not enough testing.
Now, you know, I'm no entrepreneur who created the biggest company, most impressive company.
I don't know if it's the biggest, but most impressive company in the world.
But Sergi I don't think it was a testing problem.
I think it tested just the way they built it.
That's why they rolled it out.
That's what I think.
And you know what else?
It's not an image problem.
It's the whole damn thing.
It's not an image problem.
You want to find out if it's an image problem or if it's just broken?
Try to Google this.
Crime by demographic.
Do it.
Just Google crime by demographic group.
Do you know what comes up?
Lots of stories about how black people are the biggest victims of crime.
So, is that because they didn't test it enough?
Because you know some people when they do that search, sometimes they're looking for who's the biggest victims of crime.
So that's totally appropriate.
But other times they're trying to figure out who's committing the crimes.
Such as, you know, are migrants doing more crimes?
Are immigrants doing more crimes?
Is there any difference, you know, that we can identify?
And I'm not saying there's a reason for it, because that gets into racist territory, but certainly you should understand it, and the demographic nature of it is part of understanding it, even if, you know, the reasons that you give to the underlying problem should be, you know, probably deeper than the ones we give it.
Yeah, no, Google is completely broken and has nothing to do with testing.
You know, the way I interpret that is, if we tested it better, we could have gotten away with it.
And what I mean by gotten away with it is making it anti-white.
It was just a little bit too anti-white, so they didn't get away with it.
That's really all there was.
If they'd made it as subtle, like the search results I just mentioned, If you weren't looking for that search result, you wouldn't know that it's completely illegitimate, basically.
You wouldn't know that.
But if you do any kind of searching on anything that's a little bit interesting, you immediately find out the whole thing's broken.
It doesn't give you anything like interesting, whatever you're looking for.
It doesn't trust you.
Anyway.
No, it's not a problem with testing, but it does suggest that maybe they don't know how to fix it.
There might be no way to fix it.
You know, some have suggested they'd have to fire 80% of their staff, and that's not gonna happen.
So no, it looks unfixable, interestingly enough.
Now, here's a real question.
Is it possible that AI could ever replace Google as a search engine?
Because doesn't AI just sort of use Google?
I mean, you still need the basic search engine and AI just sits on top of it, right?
So I don't think that AI can replace it.
And does anybody have any data that's not corrupted that way?
I don't know.
So, I don't know, I suppose that Google will continue being the brain of the world.
Now, you're completely aware that if Google decides that the president should be X or Y, they get to decide, right?
In our current system, whoever Google decides to make president, they can just change the algorithm and make him president.
Did you know that?
Now, it might not work in this specific case, because Biden is just disintegrating in front of us.
That might be the special case.
But if the election was supposed to be close, then Google decides.
Or mail-in ballots decide.
The only thing that doesn't decide, for sure, is the voters.
I think the only purpose for voting is to create the illusion that it was close, so that whatever the bad guys do to rig it, it won't be so obvious it was rigged.
So I think the only purpose of voting at the moment is to hide the rigging.
Would you agree?
Well, let's see what Tucker says.
Wall Street Apes had this post.
Tucker was talking about the CIA controlling elections.
And I'm just going to read his whole four-paragraph thing.
And I want to see if this matches where you are.
Is this where you are in understanding your world?
So Tucker says, the fact that CIA is playing in domestic politics, and actually has for a long time, is shocking.
You can't have that.
The reason I'm so mad is I really believe in the idea of representative government.
Acknowledging its imperfections.
But, like, I should have some say.
I live here.
I'm a citizen.
The fact that they would be tampering with American democracy is so outrageous to me, and I don't know, why is only Glenn Greenwald mad about it?
Now, that's what I say.
Why do I read every day?
Glenn Greenwald making claims about, you know, the elections and... not the elections, but just the government being a sort of an intelligence asset, basically.
And nobody really fact-checks them.
Have you noticed that?
Nobody fact-checks them.
Because it's true.
There's nothing to fact-check.
And he can do it all day long and we just act like it's just somebody talking.
Instead of the most important thing happening in the world.
Yeah, the Glenn Who.
I'll talk about the octopus in a second.
Then he says, blah, blah, blah, about Glenn Greenwald's claims about the CIA.
Tucker says, I mean, it's confirmed.
It's not like a fever dream.
That's what I keep saying.
We know it's true.
And he goes, it's real.
They played it in the last election domestically.
And I guess it shows how dumb I am, because they've been doing that for many years.
The guy who took out Mossadegh lived on my street.
I'm one of the results.
CIA officer, what?
I don't know what that means.
So, I mean, again, I grew up around this stuff, but I never really thought, I never reached the obvious conclusion, which is that, wait for it, here comes the obvious conclusion.
And see if this sounds familiar to you.
The obvious conclusion Which is that if the U.S.
government subverts democracy in other countries in the name of democracy, it will over time subvert democracy in my country.
Why wouldn't it?
Does that sound familiar?
That's what I've been saying for a while now.
If you create an entity who become really good at overthrowing countries, and they do it 80 times in a row successfully, I don't know how many in a row, but 80 times successfully, they're going to overthrow your country.
Because they can.
And they will come up with a justification because they can.
They came up with justifications for all the other countries.
You know, they don't do it without some kind of cover story.
So all they need is a cover story.
That's the easiest thing in the world.
Oh, the other one's a dictator.
Better overthrow the country.
Save democracy.
Yeah.
So I remember Do you remember when you first realized that we didn't live in a republic, and maybe we hadn't for a long time?
How many of you remember the moment you said, oh, this was never even real?
In my lifetime, I don't know if it was ever real.
Maybe when I was two.
Maybe.
Maybe during Eisenhower.
Maybe.
I don't know.
But I don't feel that I live in anything like a republic or a democratic republic.
How many of you feel like you're living in a republic?
Like it's actually the will of the people and, you know, it's imperfect, but it's basically good.
Yeah.
Now, I wonder if any Republicans feel they're living in a republic anymore.
I don't know.
Yeah.
It's weird that that could change.
Well, I started to watch, I haven't finished yet, the Netflix series, a new series called The Octopus Murders.
And I can't entirely summarize it for you because it's so complicated.
There are a lot of names involved.
But that's part of the story the octopus is all the names involved So the basic idea is that there was some guy that they think was CIA connected Who was doing all these ops around the world and one of them was he?
He sort of took over an Indian reservation and then he used it for selling illegal drugs and gambling to make some illegal money.
And then started inviting in the U.S., I guess some arms dealers that were working with the CIA so they could do illegal arms stuff to get, I don't know, they were gonna give the arms to the Contras or something.
So they used the Indian reservation, because it's not America, per se, To do illegal things that you couldn't do or you wouldn't want to get caught if you did it somewhere else.
What's that sound like?
That's Ukraine!
It's just creating a place where the CIA can operate with impunity to do all the dirty stuff they need to do, and it's not in the United States.
And so they're alleged that there are many murders that are associated with the CIA, and they're a murderous bunch of drug-dealing people.
But here are the things which, if this stuff is true, of course, who knows, I believe there was a suggestion that they wanted to use the Indian Reservation for a bioweapons lab.
Did I hear that right?
I was sort of half falling asleep.
So they're gonna use, does this sound familiar?
It's basically the Ukraine play, and then you can see that they've already tested it.
So it must be common operation to find the most lawless place, partner with the most dangerous people, sell drugs to make dirty money that you can use for whatever you're doing, It's all there.
So basically everything you assumed about the CIA, everything you ever assumed about Ukraine, it's all there modeled as not just, I'm not going to say that they practice there to do it in Ukraine, what I'm saying is it must be part of the toolbox of the trade to do exactly what Ukraine is, so it doesn't surprise you at all.
It's all there.
All right.
So when you see that the cartels seem to have freedom to bring drugs into this country and you say to yourself, I'm sure we could have done more to stop it.
It's because we're not stopping it.
You know, I don't believe that the Border Patrol is working with the CIA to lead drugs in the country.
That's not happening.
There's no evidence that.
I think the Border Patrol is trying to stop it.
And wondering why they don't have the right tools, and why nobody's helping them?
That's because somebody's probably making money on it.
So, you got that.
Another story, the University of Florida terminated all of its DEI people.
And now that's gonna be illegal.
It is illegal in Florida to teach DEI in their schools.
Now that still leaves the corporations.
So it's not like a gigantic win, but at least you got it out of the corporations.
Or you got it out of the schools.
Now, here's my question.
Imagine if you had taken up a job, a cubicle job, to be a DEI professional.
And then you hear that Florida decided that you, you, the person in that job, is too dangerous to even be allowed to operate in the state schools.
Because that's what happened.
They didn't say, let's get rid of DEI because it's not giving us benefit for the money.
They didn't say that.
They said it's dangerous.
That it makes things worse.
Imagine that's your job.
Your job as DEI.
You just found out one of our biggest states had a vote and decided it's just really bad for the state.
We've got to get it made illegal.
How many other things are illegal that basically are talking and teaching?
You know, DEI is a lot of talking and teaching.
It's kind of amazing.
And I was trying to think, what other jobs are illegal in some states but not others?
And I thought of two.
So you couldn't be an abortion doctor where abortion is illegal.
Right?
Abortionist.
And you couldn't have a weed dispensary.
Couldn't have a weed dispensary.
Is there anything else?
Yeah, not that they have anything in common, but Just imagine being in a job that some major state thought about it hard and said, you're bad for the world and we're going to make you illegal in our state.
Oh, prostitution.
There's another one.
Anyway, so here's my question.
Could Trump ban DEI in the country by executive order?
Could you ban DEI nationally in corporations, not just government entities, but corporations?
Could you ban it by executive order?
Now, my understanding of executive orders is very thin.
But what I think it means, usually, is there has to be some existing laws on the books, or it would have to be right within his job description somehow, I guess.
But he can only interpret existing things.
Is that right?
An executive order is not a new law.
It's a new way of interpreting some existing law.
Right?
So is there any existing law that would allow somebody to do an EEO EO, executive order that would ban it nationally.
What would be a, oh, a health emergency.
There we go.
Civil rights.
Civil rights.
I would think civil rights would be sufficient.
But I might have a better one coming up.
I'll make you wait for it.
Well, I won't make you wait for it.
Maybe I'll just skip right to it.
I asked Google, so you have to question it, whether you could sue somebody for brainwashing.
Is it illegal to brainwash somebody?
That's kind of interesting, because where's the dividing line between just influencing and brainwashing?
Well, I would say it's this.
If you're influencing somebody just to vote for your candidate, we accept that.
That's good.
If you influence somebody to buy your product, we're okay with that.
We don't call that brainwashing.
But suppose you influence somebody to do something that's clearly damaging to them, personally.
What would that be called?
Well, I would call that brainwashing.
And I would think that that would be illegal.
So if you're brainwashing somebody else for your own benefit, and there was no benefit to the brainwashed person, I would think that you're doing something illegal.
So I looked it up and, let's see, it did say that if you inflict emotional abuse on people, yeah, emotional abuse, Could be the trigger for the brainwashing being illegal.
If you just brainwash somebody but they're happy about it, you're fine.
But if you brainwash them and they're in great mental distress because of it, yeah, that feels like you actually attack them.
It's basically assault.
And here's what I'd like to see.
I'd love to see maybe Republicans Sue the DNC, the Democrats, and sue the Biden administration for brainwashing black Americans into thinking they're victims.
Now, here's the argument.
The argument is that we know very well that if you tell somebody they're a victim, they'll have a less good life.
Would you agree?
I think 100% of social science would agree that if you tell somebody they're a victim, you know, in the normal course of things, I'm not talking about somebody who's literally a slave.
You could tell them they're a victim.
Maybe that's better than not.
But in the normal course of, you know, people just living and thriving in our society, If you took one group of them and you brainwashed them into believing they were the victims, you would be doing tremendous damage to them.
Personally.
Psychologically.
Economically.
Socially.
You could actually decrease their ability to reproduce.
Literally.
Because, you know, let's say it causes them to have some separation from the people that they think are oppressing them.
And maybe some of them would have married some of those people in another world.
So you can actually reduce their ability to reproduce, their ability to thrive, their ability to have a good job.
Now, the whole point of DEI is if you complain enough, something good will happen.
And that would be maybe the defense.
Maybe that would be the defense.
Hey, something good will happen if we complain enough.
But I like to see the science.
I think the science would show you that the conservatives who are black in this country generally are happier.
I'll bet you can find that in a poll.
There's your science.
Do a poll of conservative black Americans versus liberal black Americans.
Who do you think would be happier?
Probably the ones who think they can take their own fate into their own hands, the Republicans, and make something out of themselves, even if there are difficulties.
Even if there is discrimination, that they can still thrive.
But, if you thought you couldn't thrive, Because all the discrimination, you would be at a great psychological, economic disadvantage.
And now, I don't have any illusion that somebody could win such a case, but it would be the greatest reframe of all time.
The greatest reframe of all time would be suing Democrats for brainwashing black Americans into the worst situation they could be in, because of the brainwashing.
All right?
And it has the odd political quality of being true, but the reframing of it would be amazing.
You could lose and win, right?
You could lose the court case, but you would win by simply making it a thing that people ought to talk about.
That there is a difference between persuading and brainwashing.
You know the difference when you see it.
TDS is a result of brainwashing.
TDS did not happen on its own.
That is your media brainwashing.
Now, there might also be, you know, a CIA or other intelligence agency involvement.
I don't know if you could make that case, but you wouldn't need to.
All right, if you haven't seen Trump mocking Fannie Willis in his latest rally, it's worth seeing.
He's pretty darn funny about it.
He does say emotion.
I'll paraphrase, but he was talking about the boyfriend, Wade.
So Trump said he was hired without the right kind of experience in law for the job he got from his girlfriend.
Trump says he had experience of something else, and then Trump does this hand motion of like, of the sexual hand motion.
Something no presidential candidate has ever done.
In the history of presidential candidates, nobody ever stood in front of a crowd and did a humping each other hand motion like.
How do you not love that?
Like, no matter what you think of his politics, how do you not love that?
Anyway, he was very funny about that.
All right, Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut says the crime surge for migrants is 100% made up.
It's a right-wing invention.
He says violent crime is way down.
And let me tell you, he's using all capital letters for WAY and DOWN.
So, it's a big difference.
Because if he didn't use the capitals, I would have read it this way.
VIOLENT CRIME IS WAY DOWN.
You wouldn't be impressed by that.
No.
But the way he's written with the capitals, the way I read it is, VIOLENT CRIME IS WAY DOWN!
And that's different.
Makes you feel completely different.
He says the drop in urban murders this year was the largest in the nation's history, and that the data shows that migrants commit crimes at lower rates than the people who were real already here.
At lower rates.
Is that true?
Well, it turns out you can prove anything with data.
That data has no value.
It really doesn't.
It's just blah, blah, blah, my data.
Can he make his case with data?
Do you think that, do you think that Chris Murphy, if he just had an argument with data, could he make his case?
Yes.
Yes.
The data is completely on his side.
But, is it therefore his narrative is correct?
No.
Because I'm pretty sure that one extra death is a little bit too much.
So his argument about the rate, I think is actually true, historically.
But you know what's not true?
That migration today looks like historical migration.
You can't use the old data to tell me what the new migrants are going to do.
Now, it might be the same, but the data won't tell you that.
Because the data is about a certain kind of migration from a certain set of countries, and those people really, really just wanted to work.
And they didn't want to get deported.
They didn't come here for crime.
And they actually, I believe, have a lower crime rate than the population in general, I think.
I could use a fact check on that.
But I think, historically, people really wanted to stay off of law enforcement's radar and just work.
So they actually did have a lower crime rate.
Yeah, so that could be true, but it could also be true that any extra deaths are too much.
It's just a different way of looking at the same data.
Now, are we bringing in the same kind of migrants or immigrants that we used to?
It looks like no.
There is certainly a suggestion that the Venezuelan criminals got out of jail and ran up here.
The very thing that Trump said might happen actually happened, it looks like.
Now, if they're entering the jails, I would imagine that there would be some locations where the crime goes up.
Maybe.
So, be careful of all the assumptions about data.
You can prove anything you want with the data, but I do want to give the immigrants who are already here a little bit of respect.
If you don't mind.
I've got a little bit of respect for the immigrants who are here and just want to work and just want to be Americans.
I'm seeing some of you saying, no, no respect.
Really?
No respect for somebody who loves their God and their family, and they're in a bad situation, and they're willing to do what they need to make it right, and even though it's illegal to come here, what they want is to just make a good legal life and contribute to the country.
You don't respect that?
Because they broke a law to do it?
Interesting.
I would argue that you've been deeply brainwashed for that opinion.
That's not a natural opinion.
That's a brainwashed opinion.
I hate to tell my own... We're all brainwashed, by the way.
Including me.
We're all brainwashed.
Maybe in slightly different ways.
But if you can't find it in yourself to respect someone who came from another country, wanted to be American, wanted to work, Wanted to obey all the laws after coming in illegally, perhaps.
You can't find a way to respect that?
Really?
You don't have to like it.
By the way, it's a different argument if you think we should close the border.
That's separate.
I'm just saying that if you're just looking at the people, the human beings, They're human beings, just trying to get along.
Now, I'm for very strong borders and very tough vetting, so we're only letting in people who can help us.
But that's a separate conversation.
You can still respect the people.
You're tough graders.
You're very tough graders.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Well, so part of it is I put myself in their situation.
And I say to myself, if I were in some country and I knew that if I took a risk, I could get here and I could, you know, make something of myself and I just want to follow the law.
There's just this one law I'm going to violate to get here.
Would I feel bad about myself?
I don't think I would.
I think I would respect my choice if it worked out and my second generation was completely legal and had a good life and went to school.
So is there anybody here who would think it would be more respectable to stay in your native country and starve versus breaking the law to try to get to a new place?
How many of you think it's more respectable to stay there and let your family starve?
I don't know.
Consider that we're all brainwashed.
By the way, that's a really good mental experiment.
Don't assume it's the other people.
The other people are definitely brainwashed.
No doubt about that.
But if your level of awareness is only the other people are getting brainwashed, I'm here to help you up to the next level.
Right?
I'm here to help.
I'm not from the government.
I'm here.
I'm actually here to help.
I would actually like you to understand when it happens to you.
If you only see it when it happens to somebody else, that's, you know, that's grade school.
That's easy.
I'm trying to take you up to at least junior college level where you can see it's happening to you as well.
If you can't see it happening to you, you're really going to be lost.
You have to know it's happening to you.
It's very, very important.
All right.
I know it's uncomfortable to have that thought in your head.
Biden's saying the border is insecure because of Trump.
Let's just talk about sort of the theme I was getting to, that the level of gaslighting during the election season is so off the chart.
And I don't know, I don't know if it's worse than ever.
It feels like it is, but maybe we think that all the time.
I don't know.
So, how much of a gaslight is it to say that Trump's the reason that the border is open?
I mean, that's just insane!
It's insane!
And the story that they've sold to, I don't know, at least half of their own people, is that if that bill had passed, the border would be closed.
How little would you have to know about this situation to think that that's true?
You would have to know almost nothing about the situation to buy that.
And the fact that Biden says it, and you know, it's the standard line now, really does suggest that they know how dumb their voters are.
They're really playing their voters for idiots.
Because there's lots you could say that would be not exactly what Trump says.
There's a whole bunch of things you could say, which is, Trump honestly says this, we honestly say this, we think our thing is better.
They can't do that.
All they can do is make up the most absurd lie that Trump's responsible for it.
Now, I do believe that Trump said it would be better for my election results if he don't pass the bill.
Do you believe that part?
Do you believe that Trump ever did say, you know, it'd be better off if we don't pass it?
I believe he said that, but not the way they're interpreting it.
It doesn't make sense to do a bad bill if it's also politically bad.
That's what I heard.
The bill's bad, but passing it would be twice as bad.
It's two bad things.
The bill itself, and then the politics of passing it, if they could claim it worked.
Or that it's going to work any day now.
So, yeah, I think Trump is completely.
It's completely normal thing to say this would be bad to pass this politically, but it's also just a bad bill, which we we observe.
All right, because it did really address the core problems.
Here's the funniest thing.
I really don't think the Democrats understand that replacement theory that they keep complaining about.
A lot of people on the right keep saying, hey, they're trying to replace us.
They're going to try to replace us.
And they're usually thinking, I guess, white Republicans or something.
They're trying to replace us.
Well, you know how the future is impossible to predict in anything?
Most things are just unpredictable.
Here's what I think might be happening.
The migrants might be replacing us, but only the Democrats.
I think the migrants are replacing the Democrats.
How many of the migrants have blue hair?
Have you seen the thousands and thousands of migrants?
I look for the blue-haired ones.
And I also, I'm wondering how many of them are trans.
Have you seen the numbers?
Are you saying that no trans people are coming across the border?
I feel like that group should be carved out for special protection.
No trans!
No blue hair, no trans.
And are they rejecting religion, the people coming in, or are they embracing it?
Just a guess.
Probably most of them, at least from Central and Latin America, are certainly religious in nature.
Do they like families?
Yes.
Do they expect and want to work hard to succeed?
Yes.
I don't think we've quite grasped the degree to which we've refreshed the country and we don't know it.
Now, again, let me say I'm completely against open immigration.
We've got to close the fricking border and vet people.
But within the vetting, I'm very much a Musk perspective, we probably need 50 million migrants just to survive.
Not a preference.
It might be a requirement.
An actual, existential requirement that we need 50 million.
Now, I know you don't like it, and I'm not crazy about it myself, unless they're vetted.
If we vet them, 50 million is gonna be really, really good for the country.
If we get the best people from other countries, et cetera.
But I don't think we can do that with DEI.
I think as long as DEI is in place, you're not going to get the best people coming to this country.
It's definitely going to be a little bit of a gating factor, I would think.
All right.
So just keep an eye on it.
And if I were the Republicans, here's what I would do.
I would create a document.
I might use AI.
That would give a very, maybe a three or four point explanation of what a Democrat is and what a Republican is.
And I would hand it out to every migrant I could find.
Now the news would pick it up and they'd say, look what these damn white supremacists are doing.
They're, they're giving out these little leaflets to everybody.
And it's telling you what's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat.
Oh, and then they would talk about it.
And then the other migrants would hear about it in the news.
I don't know if they're watching a lot of news, but let's say.
And it would just become a frame.
Because right now we're allowing the Democrats, you know, all of us collectively, we're allowing the Democrats to frame it as, of course there are Democrats.
And I do think that that might be persuading people coming in that they must be Democrats.
If the only thing they hear is Democrats saying, hey, we're the ones who let you in, be a Democrat.
I'd probably sign up.
If I didn't know anything else, except the Democrats want me here, and the Republicans are complaining, I'd be a Democrat, if it's all I knew.
And I'd probably sign a paper if they put it in front of me, et cetera.
Yeah, right, and the NGOs are probably saying bad things about Republicans even before they get here.
So suppose somebody gets here, and you hand them a document that says, if you're a Republican, you like God and families and no abortion, whatever you think would get the migrant people on your side.
But because you're the ones who decide how to frame the other side, you just frame them in the worst possible way.
And probably that's enough.
I mean, it would certainly change the equation in terms of how enthusiastic were the Democrats about bringing in new voters.
I think you'd get at least half of them to register Republican, with a little bit of work.
Yeah.
And then you use AI to translate it into as many languages as you need.
So if you keep the differences between Democrat and Republican to, let's say, four items, One will allow the government to transition your child to another gender without telling you.
Just simple stuff, right?
And if there's only, let's say, four bullet points on each one, you could, on one document, you could translate it into, you know, 80% of the languages they use.
Just use AI.
Wouldn't take you but a moment.
Jonathan Turley is talking about these so-called enhanced sentences.
So some of the January 6th people got enhanced, meaning longer sentences, because there was an argument there was something about it that made it extra bad, even within the field of crime that they were alleged to have committed.
But I didn't know this, that did you know that in a TV interview at some point, it wasn't recently, but Justice Official Michael Sherwin, he said, quote, our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe, meaning that the sentences were extra stiff.
Shock and awe.
It worked because we saw through the media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C.
because they're like, if we go there, we're going to get charged.
We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.
Does any of that sound like justice?
No.
No, that's not even close.
I can't even believe he said this out loud.
Can you believe somebody said that in public?
That we charged them, you know, to make an example of them, basically?
Well, that should be enough reason to let them all out.
Have you asked yourself what that day would look like?
Imagine a Trump victory.
Imagine he signs the whatever document to free them all.
And imagine you actually watch the video of all of them leaving jail.
Just hold that in your mind.
You just see them all just streaming out of jail.
Yeah.
I wouldn't care about anything else in this election but that.
That's the one thing you gotta get right, or I don't care about anything else.
Don't even wanna live here if they stay in jail.
I don't even wanna live in this country.
You gotta get that right.
Then we'll talk about taxes and immigration and wars and stuff.
Very important, but not as important as this.
Not as important as freeing those political prisoners.
That's my number one.
That's my number one.
And if you told me Trump is a rapist and he continues to rape people every day, I'd still support him.
Because of just that one thing.
There's nothing you can tell me about Trump, whether it's true or not true, that would make me not be willing to free those prisoners if he's the only one willing to do it.
If nobody else is willing to do it, he's your man, and I don't care what else you say.
Is he a felon?
Do you think I care?
Do you think I care if he gets convicted?
No, I care that he lets the January 6th people out of jail.
Do you think I care that he didn't do enough about fentanyl?
I do care, but it wouldn't make any difference to my vote because nobody else is doing anything either.
And I think it's obvious that we want that to happen.
We meaning whoever actually runs the country has decided that that's an acceptable expense of lives.
Yeah.
No, there's nothing you can tell me about Trump.
That would make any difference to my support of him, as long as the January Sixers are in jail.
Nothing else matters.
In fact, if I were running for president, I wouldn't even say anything else.
I'd just say, you know what?
You know what I'll do for president.
You've already seen it.
I'm going to let these guys out of jail.
Now, that would probably only work for the Republicans, right?
So it probably wouldn't let them get elected.
The Democrats would say, ah, you insurrectionists.
But yeah, if you're on the political right, And you put anything above that issue?
I don't know how you do it.
What is a higher issue than people who have your opinion being put in jail?
That's basically what's happening.
There's nothing higher than that.
Nothing.
All right.
You know, you thought that Fortran was an old computer language from the 70s?
Does anybody remember Fortran?
Well, now there's a new name for it.
End Wokeness is telling us about a family that has four children and they're all trans.
All four.
All four kids are trans.
Yeah.
Let's see, let's calculate the odds.
Odds of having one trans kid, one in 3,000, according to End Wokeness.
The odds of having four, all four, it's not just four, but it's all four, 100%.
Let's see, do the math.
3,000 to the fourth power.
That'd be one in 87 billion.
So there's this video of the very proud parents.
Oh my God, are they proud that they reversed the genders of all of their children.
All four of them.
And they're beaming with pride.
And they made a video because they're so proud.
They'd like you to share in their glory.
Yeah.
And that's legal.
Now let's show this story to the migrants and say, hey, if you vote Democrat, you can have this too.
We can reverse the genders of all of your children.
And here's the good part.
We don't even have to check in with you.
We can do it while they're at school.
Literally.
All right.
Over 73% of registered voters think Biden is too old, including 56% of Democrats.
And it's a new poll, but it's in line with other polls.
And I love the fact that the Democrats are still pretending there's nothing wrong.
We're getting closer and closer to that Monty Python skit, aren't we?
That parrot is dead.
No, it's not.
Now, why isn't that more of a meme?
Alright, I challenge you.
I want you to find the Monty Python dead parrot.
Sketch and I want you to use AI to replace the parrot's head with Joe Biden's head Can you do that for me?
It's all I asked today.
Just use AI and Do that skit but it's got to be Biden's head as the little parrot who's dead.
Well, he's dead.
No, he's not Now, here's the thing that I think Trump has figured out, which is things are so absurd that mockery is the only right answer.
Defending yourself would be stupid.
You should just mock how insanely stupid it is and how they're playing you for stupid.
Cause they're really playing you for stupid.
Seriously, playing you for stupid.
All right.
Uh, there's a New York Times Sienna poll that, uh, I think it was Molly Hemingway was or somebody was, I think it was Molly was pointing out that, uh, in the past it has been a little skewed pro Biden.
So you'd expect their poll to show Biden in the best possible light.
If they were acting the way they've acted before.
But instead, they're showing Trump would beat Biden 48 to 43, which is a pretty healthy margin.
Because at one point, you know, I think they had the same poll, you know, in prior election 2020.
They had Biden up by 14.
Now, of course, the final vote was nothing like that.
But at the final vote, they still had him up by nine.
Then I'm up by nine on election day.
All right.
So you know that they're seemingly, we don't know because we can't read minds, but seemingly they just seem to be a political poll that is in the bag for Biden.
But even they have given up, it looks like, a 19-point swing since that, you know, the biggest, biggest sport they ever showed for Biden.
A 19-point swing.
So...
How do you explain that he's still there?
Isn't it super obvious that he can't win under normal circumstances?
Now, here's what's really fun.
If it's true, as Tucker says, that the elections are all fake and they've been maybe fake for a long time, and that the CIA or whoever it is can control them any way they want, in a variety of ways.
They can change laws about the mail-in votes.
They can get Google to be more biased.
There are probably a million ways they can do things.
And maybe even directly with the vote, but we don't have any proof of that.
A lot of strong suspicions and an inability to check.
By the way, if there's ever a question and you're not allowed to check, Just assume that the election is rigged.
So my understanding is that there's now a still a room full of ballots that some people said were fake that the judge Simply just doesn't rule on it to rule whether they can open the door and look at them now in my opinion There were there's no way there's still a bunch of evidence in a room that hasn't been removed I don't think there's any chance that room has something in it, but the fact that they won't unlock it and
I would consider that proof that the election is rigged.
Would you?
What do you consider proof?
You know, you've got your scientific proof, but that doesn't really apply.
You've got your legal courtroom proof.
But it's not being handled by the court.
The court's ignoring it.
If the court had ruled and opened that door, in Georgia, I guess it is, and then we looked, you know, maybe there's something there, maybe there isn't.
But then we'd say, well, at least the court is doing its court thing.
But if the court refuses to let you look, just, yeah, your working assumption should be, oh, that's proof.
If they won't let you check, That's proof.
I think that should be the standard.
So likewise, on January 6, the fact there was so much resistance to simply taking a little time to make sure.
That's not scientific proof.
It's not legal proof, but on a working basis for a citizen trying to understand what's true, that's proof.
If your government won't show you something about an election, that's proof it was rigged.
I think that's a reasonable definition in the realm of elections as to what proof actually means.
What's the word mean?
Because remember, a scientific proof and a legal proof, they're not the same.
We use the word proof different.
A math proof is not the same as a science proof.
And a legal proof is not the same as a math proof or a science proof.
Three different proofs.
I believe there is also a political proof.
A political proof That's a political proof.
not going to show you, even though it's right here, it's right behind this door, but we're not going to open it for you.
And we're not going to give you a reason why we won't show you.
That's a political proof.
Anybody disagree?
Refusing to show you something that can be shown to you because it's not proprietary, that's a proof.
So if you say it's been proved, and you say this is how I define it, whenever there's a lack of transparency from the government, have I ever said this before?
Citizens are innocent until proven guilty.
You don't want to change that.
But governments are not citizens.
They're entities.
The entity is always guilty until they prove they're not.
Because all entities will be corrupt if you can't check.
Everybody knows that.
If there's any entity that you can't check what's going on, and there's money involved or power, of course they're corrupt.
It's only transparency.
It's only transparency that protects you.
There's nothing else.
Not a single other thing.
But transparency.
We don't have it for the election, and so it was rigged.
You don't have to wonder about it.
And by the way, I believe that that standard of what I'm calling proof, here I'm defining my own terms, I believe it's as rigorous as at least the scientific proof, it's certainly as rigorous As a political proof, I will not go so far as to say it's as rigorous as a math proof.
That's hard to beat.
But certainly, science and the courts are a little bit subjective, even if they try not to be.
So, yeah, you could be a little bit subjective and still make it a proof.
There's a standard for that.
All right, and of course, mail-in ballots is pretty much proof of rigging.
If there's a push for mail-in ballots that doesn't seem to fit the situation, like the need for it is not demonstrated, that's proof of fraud, in my opinion.
All right, the same poll, I think it was, that shows Trump winning Hispanics.
What?
There's a poll in the real world, the United States, in 2024, that has Trump handily ahead, 46 to 40, with Hispanic voters.
Now, actually, yeah, with voters.
It's not even just Hispanics, it's voters.
Is that possible?
Let me make a prediction.
I'm going to make the most radical prediction, but I'm not going to predict it as a certainty.
For the first time ever, and only because of the special situation with Biden falling apart and the border being open, under that weird special situation, Trump could win the black vote outright.
I'm not going to predict it, as in like a certainty.
But it is on the table.
Now, at the moment, it's not close.
At the moment, it's not close.
And by the way, he doesn't have any chance of winning black women.
So let me modify that.
I believe that Trump could win black men outright.
He doesn't have a chance with black women.
You're forgetting the election is already decided.
But let's say in the polling.
Right?
Let's just say in the polling.
I think you're right that the actual election is almost certainly certain to be rigged.
Because I think they always have been.
But I think the polling on Election Day could show that he's winning with black men.
I feel he's one story away.
You know, one good narrative away.
He's not there.
He doesn't have a narrative that could make that happen.
But you know what he does have?
What does he have this time that he never had before?
Yeah.
This time, he's got a Vivec.
This time he's got a Vivek.
And it's really sort of a messaging challenge, right?
So, he's got the best messaging person of all time.
And, you know, we laugh about the sneakers.
The sneakers is not nothing.
It's not nothing.
Yeah, it's funny that it was so on the nose.
It sounds like, you know, trying too hard or something.
But somehow he pulled it off.
He actually pulled it off.
And here's what I think you're missing.
When Trump introduces sneakers, the Democrats say, ah, he's pandering.
Is he?
Or is he showing he understands a segment of the world in a way that the Democrats missed?
I think it shows an understanding of black America on a level that we haven't seen.
And I don't mean, you know, I like sneakers, they like sneakers.
Not that simple.
I think there's a deeper thing with the status of footwear.
I've heard other people say, if you can't afford to have a mansion, you can have a little status in your footwear or your bag.
So, it's something like that.
And Hillary with the hot sauce, that felt like pandering.
But there's something about Trump and the Golden Snakers, and the fact that they were a huge success, that I'm not even sure I understand.
But I feel like there's something deeper than pandering that's going on there that feels like understanding some dynamic that maybe I don't understand.
Likewise, when Trump says his legal problems could help him with black voters, and then the Democrats say, you racist!
Are you saying that black people are defined by the legal system?
And of course, it's nothing like that.
It's just, do you believe the system is rigged against you?
If you feel like the system is just obviously, right in everybody's face, rigged against you, you're gonna have a little bit of Feeling of solidarity with somebody who's also feeling the system rigged against them.
Can you think of an example like that?
Yeah, you just saw one.
I just gave you one.
I just told you that my top political thing is freeing the January 6th people.
Do you think I would have been there?
Do you think I would have been there beating up a cop?
Destroying property?
Nope.
Nope.
No.
Am I relating to the January 6th people because, hey, I'm an insurrectionist and they're insurrectionists?
Nope.
Am I relating to them because it's obvious that they were targeted for being white, mostly?
Yes.
That's how I relate to them.
I relate to them as someone who's been targeted unfairly by the system.
And I relate to that.
Now let's say, let's change all their ethnicities.
It's mostly white people in January 6th jail.
Suppose they were all black.
How would I feel about it then?
Would I be able to relate?
I'd be like, eh, different problem in my situation.
Nope.
Same, same.
If thousands of black, let's say Republicans, had been locked up, It's still my number one topic, because I would still relate to it.
I would still relate to it.
The color of their skin, honestly, I don't think I thought once, until today, I don't think I thought once about the fact that the January Sixers were mostly white.
They're not all white.
They're not all white, but mostly.
It just wasn't, you know, that wasn't the point of comparison.
The point of comparison is living in a country where that can happen.
I don't want it to happen to them.
I don't want it to happen to anybody black, ever.
And I don't want it to happen to me.
So that's my point of, you know, if, you know, if it ever came down to like a physical revolution, I want on my side the people who think like me.
I don't need on my side the people who look like me.
I want them to think like me.
Right?
Then you're on my team.
You know, when things get dangerous.
All right.
So here's another thing we could mock.
So the Biden administration is limiting the natural gas production, I guess, in this country, but not so much the drilling of the oil, which is interesting.
I don't know how they explain it.
But the idea is that, you know, natural gas You could find some substitutes, say the green people.
But then the lesser green people say, gas is cleaner than whatever else you're using at the moment.
So why wouldn't you use the cleaner alternative?
Well, it turns out that that analysis is not very straightforward.
Because when you're looking at substitutions, you can never know exactly who substitutes what for what.
So, it's not entirely clear that limiting natural gas even helps you for CO2.
Because limiting that, people might substitute something worse, but they also might substitute something better.
And it might be different in a different country, right?
So somebody might try harder to do solar, but somebody else might just say, well, I better burn coal because I don't have time to build me a solar plant.
So economists can't really sort this one out.
I think it's an easy one.
I think you sell the natural gas until you've got a better idea.
To me, it seems straightforward, but I would take it from, let's say, a pure manager perspective.
If you knew at the moment it was better than the alternatives, I'd probably do it and try to figure out something later.
But here's my question.
Since you cannot use math and economics to support limiting natural gas, because it's a questionable proposition economically, and even CO2-wise, would you say that the Biden administration is following the science?
Their entire thing is follow the science.
So don't you think that they owe us an analysis, perhaps a model?
For climate change, they like to use models.
They should produce a model that shows here we are cutting the natural gas, and here you can see how this follows through to reducing this line on CO2.
If that's their argument, and their whole deal is you've got to be compatible with science, why don't we hold them to their own standard and make them compatible with science?
Well, it's because they've been gaslighting, and they've never been compatible with science.
Because you know what is not a science?
Models.
Everybody who thinks that a projection model is science has really been brainwashed.
It's closer to the opposite.
Yeah.
Do you think that I could create a model?
Or here's a challenge for you.
Would you bet a million dollars against my claim that I can create a model that will predict the GDP of America in 10 years?
So that's my claim.
I can create a prediction model that will hit the GDP of America 10 years from now on the same date.
Who would bet against me?
It's easy.
Do you want me to tell you how I can do it easily?
And I know you're thinking, hey, nobody can predict the future like that.
I could create a model that I would bet a million dollars will be right.
Do you know how I'd do it?
I would create a thousand models.
Every one of them would be, you know, off by a tenth of a percentage point.
And then I would give you all 1,000 models, and I'd say, in 10 years, I'm going to tell you which one of those was right.
And then I'm going to claim that I created a model that predicted it.
And you know what?
It would be true.
Because that would be the model.
You had it for 10 years.
I'm pointing to it.
It's the exact number that is the reality.
There you go.
Now you're saying, but Scott, that's not like climate change models.
No, it is.
That's how they do it.
You didn't know how they do it?
They have hundreds of models and they do something called hindcasting, which is making sure that it would have worked if it had existed in the past up to today.
Do you know how they do that?
They make so many models that some of them, by coincidence, will be in the range of what is reality.
And then they tell you, and here's the big scam, that therefore it can predict the future.
Nope.
Think about my thousand models about the GDP.
One of them was right.
Can it predict the future?
No.
It wasn't right because it was right.
It was right because there were a thousand of them.
And one of them was going to be pretty close.
I threw away everything that wasn't, you know, within that range of something it could have been.
How many of you did not know That you can make the model do anything, including match the past, it has no predictive value.
None.
Some of you do it.
But if you don't do this for a living, or you don't listen to somebody like me who did it for a living, which is projecting the future, as funny as that is, you would never know.
If you're an ordinary person, you don't know that a meta-analysis is usually fake.
You don't know that an observational study shouldn't be trusted at all.
You wouldn't know that peer-reviewed means coin flip.
It doesn't mean anything.
It's just a coin flip.
Yeah, yes, no, about 50%.
So, anyway.
Here's another funny thing.
Axios is treating the weather the way they treat Trump.
They're treating the weather, the reporting on the weather, the same way as Trump.
So you know how the left-leaning people are covering Trump?
What they're not saying is that his policies from his first term were bad.
Have you noticed that?
Which of his first-term policies are they railing against?
Oh, we don't want to do that again.
None.
There's not even a single policy that they oppose.
Which of his new proposed policies are they saying are a bad idea?
I can't think of any.
Well, you know, but abortion is settled.
It's going to the states.
That's not even a Trump issue, in my opinion.
You know, you could federalize it, but nobody's going to do it.
I don't think it's going to get federalized.
So, instead, what did they do about Trump?
Well, first of all, they're trying to gaslight you that he's the one with dementia.
I love that one.
Right, yeah, he's the one with dementia.
Do you know how many names I forget when I'm just doing my podcast here?
How many times have you heard me try to remember, like, the name of the speaker of the house or something?
Like, really easy names.
And I'll be like, what?
What's that name?
And then you'll say it in the comments, and I'll go, oh yeah, AOC.
And I'll just, like, forget names.
It's very common.
When you're talking about politics, do you know how many names That Trump has had to remember in his life?
The people he's met?
It's like an insane number of people to remember.
Not hundreds, it's thousands.
It's way over hundreds.
Probably the number of people he would need to remember would be, I don't know, eight to ten thousand or something.
Just crazy numbers.
But here's what Axios says about the weather.
February's extreme weather event did some bad things.
What do they call Trump?
Extreme MAGA.
Because there's nothing wrong with the MAGA.
So you call it extreme.
What was wrong with the weather?
Well, apparently the cold weather doesn't really match the whole global warming thing.
You know, even though I know climate change could be extremes in either direction, but it doesn't fit the narrative so well.
So they just say it's extreme.
They're actually insulting the weather the same way they're insulting Trump, because they don't have a better thing to say.
Extreme.
If they start saying that the weather is chaotic, We're possibly white supremacists.
I guess that's where we're heading.
That weather, have you noticed that the snow?
Always white.
Yeah, yeah.
The snow is too white and too extreme.
Yep, they only have one set of things to say.
And I have a prediction.
My prediction is, if it rains hard on election day, Axios will report it as a coup.
All right.
That's my joke of the day.
They'll report it as a coup.
Because they can't tell the difference between the weather and Trump.
Because they're both extreme.
All right.
I have a challenge and a question for you.
So our debt is approaching $35 trillion.
We're adding a trillion every 100 days or so.
And how do we survive that?
I don't know.
Because the problem's been around long enough where people would at least be mentioning potential solutions.
Because I've never seen one.
And here's my challenge.
I want to see Jamie Dimond or Bill Ackman, and I pick them because they're credible.
I would call them reasonably centrist, but Democrat.
I think they're both Democrat, but reasonably centrist.
And experts at finance.
And I want them to explain to the rest of us how, in any scenario, we're not doomed.
In any scenario.
Because I'm not aware of one.
I honestly can't think of any way.
We're not doomed.
So, have you ever seen Jamie Dimon say, look, there is a way out.
You'd have to, let's say, cut government 20%.
You'd have to get GDP up to 6%, which would be crazy.
At the same time, you'd have to manage inflation So maybe you'd want more than usual, but that cuts into your debt a little bit.
So if you do these three things, you might be able to, you know, reduce the rate of growth enough that we can survive.
Don't you want to see that?
How about Warren Buffett?
Can Warren Buffett explain to the public, oh yeah, there is a way out.
It would be very, very hard.
But if we do the hard things, we can actually do it.
I don't think there's a hard path.
I believe there's none.
I believe there's none.
And the smartest people, even the ones who are on the same team, you know, in theory, as the administration, even they can't tell you any kind of scenario in which we survive.
Which makes me wonder if there's a secret plan.
Do you think there's a secret plan?
Because I'm trying to think of what would be big enough to pay off our natural debt.
Well, how about if we put Russia out of the energy business?
And then we took their market share.
You got really quiet, didn't you?
What if the Ukraine war is the only way we can pay off our debt?
In other words, there's no way that the normal growth of the economy will pay it off.
If we just owned energy, and we just owned it, you know, you could even buy energy unless you're buying it from us, you know, maybe other people too, but you definitely have to get it from us too.
There just isn't enough.
If we owned Russia, and we owned their gas station, we could probably pay off the debt with GDP growth.
You know, we would be robbing Russia to do it.
I mean, literally, we'd be robbing them.
But you'd need a lot of money.
And actually, I'm not even sure if Russia has enough.
Would that even be enough?
If Russia stopped spending money on itself and just gave it all to us, I don't think it's enough.
How about the growth of the robot economy?
Will we go to a super cycle in which the robot growth is so big it's bigger than cars, bigger than computers, bigger than the internet?
Maybe.
Might.
But would that be enough to get us out of debt?
I don't know.
Again, can Elon Musk explain to us, in the best case scenario, if we mine an asteroid and robots are big and AI is big, is that enough?
I think not.
Probably not.
And I wonder that the real play is that the government knows that money is going to go away.
I wonder if the real play is that the people who really know what's going on think that our money will just go away, and there'll just be crypto or something else, or we don't need money, or the government gives us a coupon or something.
I don't know.
But I'd certainly like to know the answer to that.
All right.
Gaza's a mess.
And the U.S.
is helping out.
We dropped 66 bundles, airdropped 38,000 meals.
We're dropped into Gaza on the beach there.
38,000 meals.
There are over a million people starving.
And they probably need more than one meal a day to be healthy.
Is this just, are we just trying to make it look like we're doing something?
I mean, I'm glad we're doing something, but... And then I also don't understand, why would you give them food in Gaza?
How does that even make sense?
Isn't the entire thing that Israel is trying to accomplish is to drain out all the citizens so they can kill whatever's left, and then someday people can go back?
Shouldn't you put 100% of the food just out of the city limits and say, free food?
You just have to come here to get it and then do what they need to when everybody's out of the city.
So, I don't know.
War is terrible.
There's, you know, everybody's bad.
That's my, everybody's bad.
I'll just keep it at that.
Well, the number that the Hamas puts out for the death toll is at 30,000.
We should not believe numbers like that because it's coming from a sketchy source.
But I remind you that all numbers come from sketchy sources, all of them.
And we do come to believe some, even if they're not true.
So, I think this 30,000 number, as non-credible as it is, is going to enter our consciousness as the narrative.
And they're pushing hard, and I think they can push it hard enough to enter it as the narrative.
At 30,000, if it becomes a narrative, again, not the truth, but simply what people imagine is the truth, that will completely destroy the reputation of Israel for generations. that will completely destroy the reputation of Israel for generations.
And I think the rest of the world will call it genocide.
What do you think?
Again, I'm not giving you my opinion.
I'm saying that under this situation, That that number of people, in that short a time, on that size of a population, for these conditions, you know, this situation, I believe that most of the world, the majority, will come to see this death toll as the real one, even if it isn't.
And because of that, they will come to see it as a genocide.
I don't think there's anything worse that could happen for Israel's reputation, so I'm not sure how they navigate it.
I'm just pointing out that their most important asset, which is the goodwill of other countries, is largely gone.
And it makes you wonder how that's going to work out.
Now, again, that's not my opinion.
You know, I'm not I'm not criticizing Israel because my take on it is you could criticize them all day long, but they're going to do what they're going to do.
And you don't have to love it, but you're not going to stop it.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is my fantastic Fun Day Sunday show.
And, whoa, ran long.
I didn't even know that.
Thanks for joining on the X-Platform, and on Rumble, and on the Racist YouTube channel.
