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, DEI American Shipbuilding, NYT Best Sellers List, The Holdover, President Trump, TikTok Ban Bill, Jeff Yass, Club of Growth, Kellyanne Conway, Rand Paul, Dan Crenshaw, Hoax-Based Presidential Campaigns, RFK Jr., Haiti Crisis Refugees, Leticia James, Hunting NYC Firefighters, Anti-Abortion Republicans, Migrant Rapists Math, Cartel Migrant Wristbands, Fake Government Reporting, Assumption Laundering, 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 Civilizations.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adamson.
It's the best thing that ever happened to you.
And if you'd like to enjoy this experience at levels that nobody can even understand... Oh, I'm gonna have to turn off this monitor.
I'm watching two monitors and I'm delayed on one.
Do you know how hard it is to talk when you're watching yourself do something that you're not actually doing?
I'm talking and I'm watching myself on the other monitor doing the paper tap thing.
Anyway, that's not ideal, but if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard shells, a stand, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of edikai, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope beans of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Hmm.
Pretty good.
Pretty good.
So how many of you are exhausted from losing that hour of sleep last night?
I am.
I am totally exhausted.
Yep.
That didn't work out at all for me.
So we'll see if we can limp through this.
The update on my internet connection is the internet providers coming out this afternoon, they detected a problem in their network.
So it might not be on my end.
Um, if you're reading Dilbert Reborn, or if you're a subscriber, either on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com, or on the X profile, um, then, uh, you would know that, uh, Dilbert's company is having trouble because China stole their source code.
I don't want to give away too much, but when China stole the source code of Dilbert's company, it didn't go well for China.
Yeah, that's a little preview.
You may have noticed I lost my blue check mark on X because I think I knew this, but I forgot.
I changed my profile picture and they take your blue check away.
Now, it's supposedly supposed to come back after they verify you or something, but it's been days.
I don't know if it's coming back or not.
I'm not even sure if I'm monetized anymore.
It's like the worst thing.
If I could make one suggestion, before you are allowed to change your profile, before then, it should tell you you're going to lose your check mark.
Not after.
No, not after.
Because I wouldn't have changed it if I'd known I'd lose my check mark.
I don't even know if it's coming back.
Well, did you know that Biden made a bunch of money available to Move American chip production over to the USA, but that's not working out at all.
Guess why?
Turns out nobody wants to manufacture chips when you need a skilled workforce and you also have DEI requirements.
People are deciding, oh, we can't do this in America because we can't do those two things.
We can't get enough skilled employees if we also have to serve a different master of hitting some requirements for DEI.
So there are companies that could be building American chip production in America that are looking for other countries.
So we have people who are perfectly willing and able Well, there's a brand new building material that can warm you when it's cold and make you cooler when it's warm.
Reminds me of that old thermos joke.
we'll go to a third world country.
We'll be safer.
Well, there's a brand new building material that can warm you when it's cold and make you cooler when it's warm.
Reminds me of that old thermos joke.
You know, you put hot water in your thermos and it stays hot.
You put cold water in your thermos and it stays cold.
How does it know?
It's an old joke.
I don't know who said it first.
But apparently there's a material that knows how to absorb when it wants to make the building warmer.
And it knows how to automatically reflect when it needs to keep it cooler.
And it's not automated.
It's just built into the material.
So you don't have to have any electronics or anything.
It just does it.
So that's pretty cool.
Something coming out of Chinese research in Wuhan.
What?
It's from the Wuhan University of Technology.
Well, nothing bad has ever come out of Wuhan, so I think we're fine about that.
All right.
There's a new study that I'm going to tell you in advance before I tell you the content.
It is the most accurate Incredible, completely reliable study I've ever seen in my life.
You know how to interpret that, right?
It agrees with what I wanted to hear.
And that's what I call science.
And the study says that, quote, another unexpected benefit from consuming cannabis Especially when it's recreational, is that participants who only use cannabis recreationally has significantly lower risk of subjective cognitive decline, as much as 96% less risk compared to non-users.
Did you hear the 96 part?
96% less risk of being impaired if you smoke marijuana regularly.
So this is all part of my plan to run for president when I'm 90 years old, because let me tell you, I haven't done any double blind placebo controlled randomized controlled trials.
But I feel like I'm getting smarter every day.
I feel like that's happening.
All right, there's an update on Mitch McConnell's sister-in-law, who tragically drove her Tesla into a lake and drowned.
Remember, we all had some conspiracy theories about, it must have been murder.
Somehow, they got her.
Turns out, we know fairly substantially With credibility that it wasn't murder.
It was an accident, but worse than you imagined, because apparently she was able to make a cell phone call from her submerged car.
Now, if that's the only thing you know about this story, it's about as horrible as anything I can even imagine.
So, I guess they didn't have divers when the emergency crews got there.
They couldn't get around.
She couldn't open the door.
They didn't have anything that would tow her out.
And so, I guess it was one woman who dove in and tried to do something, but that was impossible.
So, but the, I don't want to call it good news.
It's definitely not good news, but, uh, it's news that it was just an accident.
One of the worst ones I've ever heard in my life, honestly.
So she drove her car into a lake.
Well, speaking of Laken, uh, Laken Rally.
Um, she's still in the news because, you know, she was tragically murdered by an undocumented, some say illegal, immigrant.
And the issue is that Biden had referred to the killer as illegal, but had to walk it back because all the Democrats said, you can't call that murderer illegal.
You must say undocumented.
And, you know, Personal point of privilege.
I'd like to make the news more about me because that's what is missing.
A lot of the news would be stories that don't involve me.
And I feel that's just wrong.
So I'd like to make this about me somehow.
And I'd like to say that if I ever get murdered by somebody who came from another country, I hope they're undocumented because I feel that wouldn't hurt as much as an illegal.
Am I wrong about that?
If you get murdered by an undocumented person, I don't think it hurts as much.
So that's what I'm hoping for.
Setting my sights low.
Well, as Balaji Sreenivasan was pointing out, that the New York Times bestseller list, did you know that's always been fake?
How many of you are aware of that?
That the New York Times bestseller list is not based on who sells the most books.
Did you know that?
It's editorial.
They get to decide what's on the list and what's not.
I first learned that when I had the number one bestselling book in the country, but not according to the New York Times bestselling list.
Now keep in mind that if you're an author and you're working with a big publisher, they have access to the actual sales reports.
They know what book is number one.
The publishers do.
And then they look at the New York Times and it's different.
Now, as a publisher, no, I'm sorry, as an author, I've known that for 25 years, something like that.
And that was one of my first wake-up calls, that nothing is real.
Just nothing is real.
If the New York Times bestseller list is not really based on who's selling the most books, do you think the news is real?
Do you think anything in that newspaper is real?
What could be easier than just saying who sold the most books?
It doesn't get much easier than that.
It's automated.
Everybody's looking at the same data.
I think it only is from the big companies, but that tells you who sells the most.
That is the book selling data is only from the larger booksellers.
It's not from every bookseller, but that gets 85% of them All right But although the New York Times best-selling list is fake One thing we can feel good about and I think you'd all join me in this is at least the climate models are real Yeah, just what are you feeling like?
Oh is everything made up and fake?
At least those climate models are completely real.
Everything else is fake.
Moving on.
There's an Oscar-nominated film called The Holdovers that I never heard of because I don't watch movies anymore because they're all garbage.
Apparently the writer of the script is accused of plagiarism.
So the claim is that there was some script that never got made into a movie that a lot of people saw.
And the person who wrote this movie saw it and they know there's some information that they know the writer saw it.
And so it's an Oscar-nominated film, but it might be plagiarized.
That's the claim.
Wow.
If you can't trust the Oscars, who can you trust?
So I guess I can't trust the New York Times bestseller list.
I can't really trust that the Oscar-nominated film is not plagiarized.
But at least climate models are real.
I mean, we still have that.
We still have that, people.
We still have that.
All right.
Trump continues to be the president who swears better than any president has ever sweared, at least in public.
At his rally, he said, and I quote, everything Joe Biden touches turns to shit.
Everything.
Now, here's a lesson in cursing.
Cursing is generally a bad idea, and it's especially bad when women do it.
Now you're going to say to me, what?
That's kind of sexist.
I'm just saying that when women curse, there's a substantial number of men who go, pass.
Now, I'm not one of them.
I don't mind when women curse at all, but it's a bad play.
If you're, if you're single, there's a pretty substantial percentage of men who have a problem with it.
I don't know what the percentage is, maybe 20%, something like that, but I don't, I don't think it works the same for men.
I don't think women are judging men the same way.
It could be wrong.
But Trump really knows how to use it as just the right accent.
If he swore more than he does, it would be too much and it would just be gross.
If he never swore, we wouldn't get this cool story.
He swears exactly the right amount and exactly the right way.
Like, because it turns into a quotable, you know, moment.
And here I am talking about it.
So persuasion-wise, Trump is on target with that.
There will be more stories about Trump coming up.
I have a theory that there's no complicated political story that ever matters to voters.
People like me, and many of you watching this, don't you think that we're kind of weird?
Like how many people could describe the, you know, the Steele document and where that all went and, you know, was Manafort really doing anything that could be called collusion or was he doing his own thing?
You know, what's up with the lawfare with Trump?
What's up with Biden's Ukraine stuff and Hunter Biden?
I feel maybe 5% of the country.
Could even describe what those things are.
I mean, they sort of generally know who it's good for and who it's bad for, but they don't really know.
And I've got a feeling that if you don't really understand it, it doesn't change your vote.
You could be aware it's out there, and if somebody asked, you'd say, oh, that's bad.
But I don't think it changes your vote if it's complicated.
So I think that's why, that's one of the reasons, not the only reason.
I think it's one of the reasons the law fair doesn't work against Trump.
Is that we can't really hold it in our heads.
There are too many cases, too many details.
I don't know.
Is he winning this week?
Is he losing?
Do I care?
Are there any victims?
I'm not really sure.
So it doesn't really change my vote.
Likewise, all the Hunter Biden, Ukraine, Chinese money, lost diamonds stuff.
It all sounds pretty bad.
But, you know, I follow this stuff every day, or try to, and I'm not sure I could do a great job of explaining it all.
You know, I could get the highlights, lost diamonds, selling influence, but I'm not sure I could get, you know, most of the nuance of it.
So that's going to be my theme, is that just keep in mind that the more complexity to a story, the less compelling it is, No matter how bad it is.
Let me say that again, because that's an important point.
No matter how bad the story should be, because of what we know about it, it just doesn't affect people.
Because they can't handle that level of complexity enough to make it an operating part of their decision making.
So, let's talk about TikTok.
As you know, there was a bipartisan 50 to 0 Vote to ban it out of committee.
Now, the committee doesn't get to decide.
The whole Congress gets to decide.
And you might say to yourself, wait a minute, if it's bipartisan, and it's 50 people, and it's 50 to zero, that's very predictive that it's going to get banned, wouldn't you say?
In a normal world, in a normal world, that would be very predictive.
In our world, not so much.
So, surprisingly, Trump, who used to be in favor of the ban when he was president, and even tried to get it banned, is now in favor of it staying unbanned.
And Vivek is also, he's said this before, but he uses it, he used it during his campaign, and he says, free speech, you know, let it stand.
And Rand Paul.
Rand Paul also said, yes, keep TikTok.
Kind of surprised some of you, probably.
Did any of those names surprise you?
You thought, what?
I thought they'd be for the ban.
But no, Rand says, freedom of speech.
And Thomas Massey also.
Now, what do those four people have in common, besides being Republicans?
What do they all have in common?
Well, they're some of the smartest people in politics.
Right?
I mean, the thing that jumps out is like, oh, that's a little list of the smartest people in politics right there.
And they're all on the same side.
So they're on the same side of keeping it.
But here's the interesting thing.
When they talk about it, they talk about it like they don't understand the topic.
Now, how do you reconcile that?
When I say they don't understand the topic, they'll say things like First Amendment, freedom of speech, but they have to know that doesn't apply to a Chinese propaganda company.
Of course they do.
And they talk about data security, but they don't talk about the persuasion risk, which is the biggest one, by far.
I mean, not even close.
So why would such smart people, when they talk about it, Talk about it in such a weak way that's nonsensical, frankly.
Well, if you follow the news, you might know that there's a Republican rich guy, billionaire, who funds a lot of the Republicans.
His last name is Yas, Y-A-S-S.
And he's some billionaire who owns, he's an American guy who owns 15% of ByteDance, which owns TikTok.
So I would imagine 15% of TikTok would be worth, I don't know, 100 billion, 200 billion, something in that range.
So he's got, you know, and his money is locked up because the Chinese government Disallowed ByteDance from doing an IPO.
If they'd gone public, that'd be a liquidity event eventually, and he'd be able to sell a stake.
Maybe not right away, but eventually.
But there's no liquidity event, so he's kind of trapped until there is one, unless he could sell it privately, I suppose.
And then the other thing we know is that said billionaire met with Trump And it looks like they're getting along.
They didn't get along until recently.
And now they're getting along and it looks like Trump will be benefiting from some funding from this big funder.
Other people who are reportedly funded by the same entity.
I guess he owns the entity called, what's it called?
It's called Congress, I'm sorry, it's called the Club of Growth.
So the billionaire seems to be associated with, I guess it's a PAC, so it funds an entity which funds a bunch of Republicans.
And Kellyanne Conway is reportedly lobbying Congress.
To keep TikTok and she's doing it on behalf of the Club of Growth.
So she would be a key advisor to Trump and is working for the billionaire who owns some of TikTok.
Now, and there's a report that that Club of Growth also helps fund Rand Paul.
I'd heard also that Vivek and Thomas Massey probably get some benefit from that funding as well.
So, So what do you think happened here?
What it looks like is that Trump wanted to ban it and maybe some of the others did at some point as well.
There's no evidence of that.
But they would be sort of in trouble if they did because they've got funding.
Now what makes this interesting is that the reason that Trump might be a little bit more interested in funding than normal Is because the lawfare from the Democrats squeezed his cash flow so aggressively.
So it kind of put Trump in a situation where money would be more important than it normally would just because the timing and having to come up with huge amounts of cash for his bonds and stuff like that.
But let me give you an idea of what the argument looks like.
So here's a Here's what Rand Paul said on the X platform.
He said, if Congress bans TikTok, they'll be acting just like the Chinese communists who have also banned TikTok.
Why not just defend the First Amendment?
Dan Crenshaw, who I'm guessing either never got money from that billionaire or doesn't plan to get any, says this in response to Rand Paul.
Now keep in mind, Yeah, these are two people who are in the Republican world, and they're not on the same team.
So Crenshaw says to anyone defending TikTok, he said, you're not defending the First Amendment.
Our First Amendment doesn't apply to the Chinese Communist Party.
They use TikTok to collect data and can weaponize that into the greatest propaganda machine against Americans we have ever seen.
Sorry, you're getting complaints from Gen Z, but get over it and do us right.
And stop lying, the legislation doesn't ban TikTok, it just says it can't be controlled by our adversaries.
Well, let me add a nuance to that.
The Chinese Communist Party says that they won't sell it, which is probably a bluff.
If they had no choice, they might.
There's not exactly a plan that it would still exist if it were banned.
So that would require something that's unlikely to happen, them selling it to an American entity.
Now compare these two arguments.
Rand Paul, one of the smartest people in the Congress, he says it's a First Amendment issue.
And then Dan Crenshaw, by the way, doesn't mention the persuasion risk at all.
And then Dan Crenshaw does mention the persuasion risk.
So he accurately has identified the top problem and says it's the top problem.
So now Crenshaw is right on, he's right on the money.
And then he says the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda.
Now, which of those arguments makes perfect sense and which one doesn't?
All right, so I'm leading the witness here.
But Crenshaw is 100%, and Rand Paul got a zero.
He got a zero on an easy question.
So how do you explain somebody getting a zero, like you're just getting everything wrong, and so obviously wrong, on an easy question, when you're one of the smart ones?
So as I was posting the other day, something is amiss.
Something is amiss.
So whatever it is we thought we knew about the situation, no.
I was speculating that it was maybe our intelligence people had already penetrated it.
So maybe we had some internal benefit we didn't know about.
In other words, you know, maybe TikTok has some terrorists on it and, you know, it's better to keep it the way it is and the terrorists don't know that we can see them.
You know, I was thinking there may be some argument For keeping it that's security-related, that's non-obvious, you know, maybe opposite of what it looks like, sort of thing.
But then I find out that the people who are uncharacteristically acting like they're idiots, when we know they're not, have a gigantic financial benefit.
At least two of the four, and the other two are suspected.
So it looks like it's exactly what it looks like.
It looks like for money, they have picked a position which would be bad for American children.
Now the press is making a pretty big deal about it, so we'll see.
We'll see if this becomes news.
Now remember my theme.
My theme was that the public doesn't change their vote because of anything complicated.
This is complicated.
Because you'd have to understand, you know, the whole TikTok nature, the business model, what would happen if they sold it?
Could they sell it?
Would the Chinese government sell it?
What's really different from, you know, Facebook compared to this?
Is it really just First Amendment?
So you'd have to know the Constitution.
You'd have to know business models.
You'd have to be following the story.
You'd have to know, you know, how politics works.
So, let's talk about this from the... I guess I don't have to make a moral or ethical argument about anything.
You're all perfectly capable of doing that, right?
So you don't need to know what I think of this, given that... Let me tell you, I conflate in my mind TikTok and fentanyl.
Now, you might not.
And I don't mean just because sometimes we say TikTok is digital fentanyl, which it is.
The reason I conflate them is that the Chinese Communist Party provides the fentanyl precursors and famously you know that my stepson died from a fentanyl overdose in 2018.
So I have a personal grudge against China, and when I see them sending another form of fentanyl, in this case digital fentanyl, I just conflate them.
So in my just personal world, you know what I think about it.
I don't need to detail it, do I?
So here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to talk about these four individuals going forward, just calling balls and strikes.
I'm just going to say when they do something that's, let's say, persuasive and when it's not.
And I'll talk about the interesting stories, but I'm not going to endorse anybody for president.
You okay with that?
From an ethical and moral standpoint, I can't endorse Trump because of this.
Now, let's talk about the strategy of it, though.
The political strategy of it might be brilliant.
Let's talk about that.
Number one, just because it came out of a bipartisan committee 50 to 0, does that mean it was ever going to pass the Congress?
Because that matters.
If it was never going to pass, then all Trump did was pick up free money.
You see what I'm saying?
If he was sure it wasn't going to pass because it didn't have the votes, and maybe it wouldn't have the votes because this Republican billionaire wouldn't make sure it didn't have the votes.
So suppose Trump knew it couldn't pass.
In that situation, if he made a deal that said, all right, I'll say I'm for keeping TikTok if you'll fund my campaign.
It's just free money, because it was going to do what it was going to do, no matter what Trump did.
Trump doesn't have a vote.
He doesn't have a veto, being out of office.
And you could argue, oh, he could persuade his Republicans.
No, he couldn't.
No, he couldn't.
He probably can't.
He's not so persuasive.
He can just make them vote for something that's against their best interest.
So in their best interest would be keeping a big donor on their side.
So it could be that Trump is just playing it like a poker game.
And he's saying, if I'm in favor of the ban, I get no money and I get no ban.
You're following me?
If he had agreed to continue saying, let's ban it, you would get no funding.
And he also wouldn't get a ban.
You get nothing.
If he says, all right, you know, inexplicably, I'm going to change my mind.
Let's keep this TikTok stuff.
Then he gets funding.
He could become president.
And once president in the second term, guess what?
He's not beholden to anybody after that.
So it's entirely possible that he's Willie Browning this situation.
You know Willie Brown?
He was a big San Francisco, well, California politician.
And he accepted money from some tobacco company for his campaign.
At the same time that there was some legislation about banning smoking indoors, I guess.
And somebody said, how could you possibly be objective You know, if you're taking money from the company, you're voting on their product.
And Willie Brown famously said, if you can't take money from somebody and then turn around and stab them in the back, you're in the wrong business.
Now, that was the moment that I loved Willie Brown.
Like, yeah, that's the most honest thing I've ever heard a politician ever say.
And, and indeed, indeed, the law went against the tobacco companies.
So not only was it true, He proved it.
He took the money and then he screwed him.
And he did it publicly and right in front of us.
Okay.
I'm all right with that.
So, if it turned out that, let's say this billionaire got his liquidity event sometime during the second term of Trump, do you think that Trump might have a change of heart after his friend got his money out?
Maybe.
So he might get both.
He might get the money and he might also ban it.
That's a possibility.
But it's not going to happen as long as that billionaire's got money in the company.
That's my guess.
And I think that politically, if Trump looks like the one who... The funny thing is that now Biden wants to ban it.
You know, they have to be on opposite sides.
Now Biden's strength is the young voters.
Who love them some TikTok.
So now Biden is opposed to TikTok.
And Trump is in favor of keeping it.
And what is the depth of analysis that the young people will put into this?
Allow me to demonstrate.
TikTok, yes.
Or TikTok, no.
That's it.
That's it.
They are not going to be thinking about the geopolitical implications of the Chinese Communist Party influencing United States politics.
They're going to be, where's my reels?
What do they call them?
Where's my TikToks?
So, it could be that Trump wins simply by being, looking like he's pro-free speech, looking like he's pro-TikTok, even though what's really happening is that there's nothing he could do either way about it, so he might as well take the free money.
And he would certainly be playing to win, you know?
You know, one of the things that people say about the Republicans, even Republicans say about it, is why do they play to lose?
Have you noticed that?
It's like Republicans sometimes will do things maybe out of principle, but they're like, well, this principle is so important, we're going to lose the election.
I don't think Trump makes that mistake.
Well, one of the things you can hate about him and love about him at the same time is he's playing to win.
I think this is a clear example that he does need the money and it would help him win.
And it's going to be expensive.
So I'm not going to endorse.
I think that's a line I'm not going to cross.
I think TikTok is dangerous to the youth.
But if it turns out Trump has taken the free money and then he bans it later, I'll change my opinion.
All right.
Coincidentally, Trump made the $92 billion Oh, well, Trump's got some money now.
All right.
Trump's also got some legal bills.
He tried to sue the Christopher Steele organization, I guess, that had pushed the so-called Russia collusion hoax.
Uh, he lost that, so now he has to pay the legal fees of the other side, and the reason he lost it is that I guess the judge ruled that even though the dossier was a bunch of defamation and BS, they quote, never intended to make the dossier public.
Never intended to make it public.
That was its only purpose, which we know because of legal proceedings in this country.
So this happened in, I guess, England.
But now, do you think you've learned enough about how the legal system works?
As long as you can shop for a location, You can convict anybody.
You can have any civil suit outcome.
You just have to pick the right place for the case.
It has nothing to do with the evidence, apparently.
So, evidence doesn't matter.
Looks like RFK Jr.
is possibly going to look at joining the Libertarian Party, primarily because the Libertarian Party has ballot access in, I guess, most or all the states.
And RFK Jr., on his own, is doing great getting ballot access, but isn't getting them all.
Might be a problem getting them all.
So that's a possibility.
I'd like to make a Conditional prediction, more a statistical prediction.
Why are we assuming that the president has to be one of the two people, Trump or Biden, just because they're going to be the party nominees, probably?
Isn't that a dangerous assumption?
So I would like to add to the mix that there's at least a 30% chance that neither Trump nor Biden will be president.
Biden has an obvious, you know, mental health and health risk, and even the Democrats might want to keep him out of office if it gets a little bit worse, even more than they want to keep him out now.
And Trump has the lawfare risk, plus, you know, God knows what opposition research, plus God knows what kind of, I don't know, who knows what kind of hoaxes they're going to pull on him.
If you look at the history of hoaxes, the 2016 election was the Russia Collusion Hoax, the 2020 election was the Fine People Hoax, and the 2024 election is the January 6th Insurrection Hoax combined with the Dictator for a Day Hoax.
For three elections in a row, the Democrats have run primarily on a hoax.
Now, why am I the only person who says that out loud?
Shouldn't that be sort of the framing of every newscast from now on?
Well, the Democrats, who have a unbroken string of hoax-related campaigns, here's their new one.
Don't you think the fact that if you only run on hoaxes, that ought to be something that the news mentions on a fairly regular basis when you're talking about them?
You know, I'm sure John Dillinger, has done, did legal things as well as his vast, you know, repertoire of crime.
So if you're going to talk about John Dillinger, you wouldn't talk about that time he did the legal thing.
I feel like it would be completely important that every time John Dillinger comes up, that you make sure that the people know you're talking about a major criminal.
Right?
It seems the same.
The Democrat Party is really just a criminal organization.
If you run three presidential campaigns on known obvious hoaxes, you are a criminal organization.
To imagine that that's just politics.
Now, I get that all politicians lie, and the fact checks, and the hyperbole, but three completely made-up hoaxes?
No, that's criminal organization.
I can't call that politics.
All right.
So it's entirely possible that RFK Jr.
will be the last standing major politician.
So I would say that RFK Jr.' 's chances of being president are almost the same as Trump and Biden.
Because Biden has a good chance of not making it to the finish line, and the bad people are going to try everything to stop Trump.
So even if Trump doesn't shoot himself in the foot, we don't know how far they're willing to go.
They could be cranking up the lawfare, they could be cheating on the election, they could be planning an assassination.
There's almost no limit to what could happen.
Anyway, so I would say that given that the two major candidates have a real tough hurdle to even be there on election day, I think it's a three-way race, and it doesn't look that way because nobody's going to say they'll vote for RFK Jr.
if one of the other candidates is in there that they like.
But if you imagine neither of them are there, what's it look like?
Let me say it again.
If you imagine that neither Trump nor Biden make it to the end, and then you imagine that RFK Jr.
is on every ticket, But he might be running against somebody else in both cases.
He might be running against somebody else.
Could he win?
If both parties have to do a last minute substitution, who's that going to be?
Who's it going to be?
I don't know.
So maybe they're VP choices?
I don't know.
So I guess the Haiti is a basket case and the jails have been emptied by the criminals themselves.
And yet a federal judge here has ruled that 30,000 would-be asylum seekers from four countries, but Haiti is one of them, can enter the U.S.
and continue to do it.
So the government is flying in extra migrants Well, here's what we can conclude.
Parents, or adults in general, you are on your own for the following topics because your government has basically taken a pass.
You are on your own for fentanyl.
There's nobody coming to help.
Nobody's coming to help.
If you have a kid, only you can stop it.
Their friends won't stop them from doing fentanyl, the dealers won't stop them, the government won't stop them.
Neither government.
Not Republican, not Democrat.
It's not gonna happen.
So you're on your own.
Don't wait for the government.
And if you have addiction in the family, a kid, if you have a kid who's addicted, I don't know if all of you know this, the government won't do anything.
There is no service.
You have to have an addict in your house and you can't kick him out.
Do you know what it's like to have a drug addict in your house that you can't kick out?
It's really bad.
It's really, really bad.
So you're on your own for Fentanyl.
You're on your own for TikTok, apparently.
I don't think there's any chance the ban will get passed.
You're on your own for the failing schools.
So maybe if you can get them homeschooled or something.
But you're on your own, because the government basically has given up on school.
And you're on your own for the border crisis, meaning that obviously you can't personally guard the border.
But as Bill Ackman said, his neighbor, you assume Bill Ackman lives in a good neighborhood.
He's a billionaire.
He just tweeted or posted that his neighbor got burgled.
Oh, I've been cautioned not to call it burglary.
It's an undocumented visitor who has your stuff.
It's very different.
Very different.
So yeah, you should probably arm yourself.
Two of my neighbor's houses have been hit by the migrant bans.
And when I say my neighbors, I mean really close neighbors.
I'm not talking in my zip code.
I'm talking like in the end of with a rock.
Two of them unburgled.
So, you know, we are, of course, locally hardening our defenses.
So my neighborhood is organized into practically a paramilitary organization.
That's true.
My neighborhood has only one entry and one exit.
You know, there's not a second way to get out.
We're going full paramilitary.
Now, we don't talk about weapons because we're connected digitally, so nobody talks about weapons.
Smartly, right?
So, no mention of weapons.
But our organization for spotting people who don't belong is really tight.
I'll tell you.
If you park your truck on our street and somebody doesn't recognize it, because we don't really have a street parking here except visitors, you're gonna get, you're gonna get surrounded pretty quickly.
So my neighborhood has just decided to go screw the government, screw the police, we're on our own.
And I think you're gonna see a lot of that.
So the government isn't coming to help on any of those things.
Fentanyl, TikTok, failing schools, or the border crisis.
So you better harden your home defense.
In other news, the Fire Department in New York was some event in which Letitia James, the Attorney General, attended as a speaker and she was booed.
Booed by a number of firefighters.
And what will happen, as End Wokeness reports on X, the firefighters are asked to turn themselves in or risk being hunted down.
That's right, more Republicans are being hunted.
For having a free speech opinion that the Attorney General is a horrible, horrible criminal and should be in jail.
So you can't have that opinion.
Apparently you'll lose your job and you'll be hunted down.
So one of my best predictions, unfortunately correct, that Republicans are being hunted every day.
All right, here's my advice for the Republicans if they want to win everything.
If you want to lose everything, just keep doing what you're doing on abortion and IVF.
But it would be real easy not to.
So let me make a suggestion, just in case Republicans want to win everything forever.
Because it's really right there for them to take.
Now, I know you're not going to do it, and I know from prior conversations that I'm just going to get screamed at in the comments.
The Republicans would win everything if they simply say abortion should be decided by women.
Not just in the moment, you know, that's if it's legal, you know, with their doctor, but what the law should be.
Now I know what you're saying, Scott, it's murder.
Everybody has an interest in murder.
Yes, you do.
And your interest is exactly the same as the women's.
There are women Republicans and there are women Democrats.
And your opinions aren't that different than the women in your party.
But, if you can just allow the Democrat women, who are primarily running the Democrat party, to feel that you've at least given them that women should be the primary decision makers about what happens to women's bodies.
Now you say to yourself, no, no, we all must be involved because it's murdering children.
It's still murdering children, no matter who's talking.
It's still the same argument.
You don't need to be in it.
You're not so special.
Your little voice about this topic probably doesn't make any difference to anybody.
Just like mine doesn't and shouldn't.
So if the only thing you're adding is killing the chances of your political party to win, Why are you doing it?
Do you think that your opinion will change anything?
Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't vote.
You can vote any way you want.
But when you're talking about it, the only way you can talk about it and be both morally and ethically pure, but also maybe win, is to say, you know, you have an opinion, but you're going to defer to the women in your party because they say the same thing you do.
But it's more credible coming from them.
So you might say, I'm not going to back down one inch.
And you certainly have that right.
And I wouldn't try to talk you out of it.
So yeah, let me make this clear.
I'm not suggesting what you should do.
It probably sounded like that, didn't it?
It's not a recommendation.
It's not a recommendation.
Because I know you won't do it.
I'm just saying that the Republican Party is a millimeter away from winning everything.
Presidency and both sides of Congress and already have a dominant position in the courts.
So if the Republicans wanted to win everything and then fix everything they could fix, there's a way to do it.
Just let the women take the lead, the Republican women, and as men say, we're going to support the women, but let them do the speaking and just pipe down.
Just pipe down because your point of view will be completely better expressed by people who are in a better position to express it.
Right?
So if you think that you being quiet and taking a, you know, taking a step back and letting women take the lead, if you think that gets you to a worse place, what's wrong with you?
You think women are not good at advocating for what they want?
In what world is that a problem?
Women are really, really good at advocating for what they want.
Like really, really, really good.
So why do you think you would be damaged in any way just because your own opinion wasn't in the public sphere, you know?
So I think you have to worry about, not worry, but consider whether your need to have an opinion on this topic Is based on your best assessment of your risks and your rewards.
If you're, if you're coming at it purely from a moral standpoint, I do respect it.
Yeah.
I completely respect a moral only position.
Just know that the trade off is that you don't get to win everything and you could, you're, you're a millimeter away.
From owning the government.
But you've put up an obstacle to yourself that I think is pretty hard to get past.
All right.
I don't want to hear arguments about men are responsible too, because that's off point.
I don't want to hear that men have good opinions too, because that has nothing to do with my point.
You all have good opinions.
That's not the question.
It's just, do you want to win?
That's it.
If you want to win, there's an easy way to do it.
And you don't give up anything in the process.
All right.
Here's some numbers I put on migrant crime.
Might be useful.
20% of American women, and that's probably a low number, have experienced an attempted or completed rape.
In your experience, isn't that number low?
Maybe rape is too specific and it should be all the sexual attacks.
I feel like the number of women who have had some kind of sex crime against them would be well over half, isn't it?
Isn't it well over half?
Am I so wrong about that?
And I'm just saying observationally and anecdotally.
Anecdotally, If I were to, you know, just randomly pick ten women, do you think only two of the ten I randomly picked would say they'd ever had kind of a sexual attack?
I feel like it'd be half.
Is your experience different?
I'm looking at your comments.
I feel half have had some kind of sex crime against them that they didn't necessarily report.
All right, but let's use the lower number.
Let's say that the 20% is more of a, you know, definitely that was rape kind of a number, or attempted rape.
What happens if you double the number of men in your zip code, but not the number of women?
Hypothetically.
If you just magically doubled the number of men, but no extra women.
Wouldn't it, if the number, if the people coming in, the extra men, Had the same rate of rape, which is about 1%.
1% of men admit being rapists, which also sounds low, frankly.
It feels like it's higher than 1%.
But let's say it's 1%.
If you brought in 10 million migrants, and that's probably a low number because, you know, there's a lot that we just can't count because they get away.
But let's say that the number who are just men were 10 million.
There are women and children, but let's just say the adult men were most of it and 10 million, just for back of the envelope calculations.
And you could tweak these as you want.
But 1% of 10 million would be 100,000 extra rapists.
And if a lot of men came into your neighborhood, your rate of rape, could it go from 20% of women to 40%?
Because you doubled the number of men, but not the double number of women?
Am I doing the math right?
Now, I know it's not as straightforward as that, but is the generally, directionally, do I have the math right?
Not technically, but directionally?
Does that sound right to you?
If you double the number of men, if those men have the same average rate percentage as all the other men who are already here, you know, which is another conversation, then wouldn't it Double your odds of rape?
How would it not?
I mean, how could it not do that?
Now again, but you know, you're not going to double the number of men in any zip code, so you adjust that as well.
But, you know, I'm not going to get into the argument about whether the migrants have a higher rape rate, right?
Because whether that's true or not, You can make the entire argument just by number of men.
If you add the number of men, your rape should go up.
So, I would say 100,000 extra rapists, and a lot of rapists are serial rapists.
So, of the 100,000, that doesn't mean 100,000 extra rapes.
Because, you know, maybe 5% of them are the multiples.
They're doing twice as much.
So, 100,000 rapists might be You know, 200,000 extra rapes per year.
Now, Biden has to justify 200,000 extra rapes for the benefit that we're being kind to the immigrants, because we're an immigrant country, and that's not nothing.
You know, the reason that so many of us have mixed opinions is that immigration is not only a positive if you do it right, it's an essential.
It's way beyond optional.
It's essential.
We really couldn't have a country with our birthright unless we had some robust.
And, you know, look at the number of immigrants from the past who are now CEOs of major unicorn companies.
I mean, we're way better off because of past migration.
But the part that you do right, right?
You want to do it right.
So here's how, that's how I'd argue it.
And if I were, uh, if I were trying to make this case about the danger coming in, I would make sure I use both percentages and, um, numbers.
What do I say when people only use percentages?
That's how you lie.
You leave out the raw number.
What do I say when people only use the raw number?
That's how you lie because you're leaving out the percentage.
So if you're going to use this argument, don't use one or the other.
Don't use just the number.
And don't use just the percentage.
Put them together.
And that's a real argument.
Now, people can reject it.
There might be Democrat women who say, you know what?
200,000 extra rapes to protect 10 million extra people who are in a bad way?
I'll take that deal.
But they need to say it out loud.
Just make the case.
Because, you know, we're adults.
We get to argue the real world.
The real world is this is a trade-off.
And it's not the only trade-off.
It's one trade-off.
So let people say, you know, put the Democrats on the, let's say on the, I don't want to say defensive, but make them explain why this is what they want.
Do you think you could get the Democrat women to say, yes, I understand there will be 200,000 extra rapes per year, probably per year.
But I'm OK with that because the benefit is even greater.
Now, that's that is the balance.
You don't get to say that it's all benefit, no cost.
You have to say, I understand the costs, I understand the benefits, and I choose this one.
Because I do.
Like, if I were to analyze the cost of closing the border completely, I would throw in the fact that it would really screw a lot of companies that depend on that labor.
That's a cost.
It's real.
It's big.
So just make sure you're doing all the costs and all the benefits, and then make them defend it.
Ted Cruz went ballistic in a hearing.
He went ballistic on Mayorkas.
I think it's a current new video, but Well, I guess Ted Cruz was showing the wristbands that the migrants are getting from the cartels.
The cartels are so organized that they have wristbands with different colors to indicate what kind of migrant you are so that the cartels themselves can sort them out on either end.
And apparently Mayorkas, if I understood this right, was not aware of the wristband program.
And Ted Cruz just went nuts on him for being, well, for being Mayorkas and not even understanding how deep this problem is.
Because part of these wristbands, I only saw a summary of the story but maybe you can give me a confirmation, was Ted Cruz saying, so this is a question not a statement, was Ted Cruz saying That some of those wristbands were worn by people who were intended to be sexually trafficked?
The children?
Do I have that right?
Because I don't know if I have that right.
I need a confirmation of that.
Did he say that some of them, because there were different kinds of wristbands, were some of them literally for sex trafficking?
I'm not entirely sure if that was, but well, I'm seeing some yeses.
I do think that's what it was.
Now, I think that's the attack vector.
That's the strongest attack vector.
Well, so Zero Hedge is mocking the jobs reports.
Um, you know, the old thing where the jobs reports come out and Biden says, my God, it's the best jobs report ever reelect me.
And then a month later it gets lowered.
And then the month after it gets lowered a little bit again, and then nobody notices the lowering, even though people scream about it.
You know, nobody, it's never a news story.
And apparently according to zero hedge.
Uh, they do it for everything, you know, jobs, something called jolts.
I don't even know what that is.
New home sales, housing starts, industrial production, PC and core PC, uh, price, consumer price stuff.
So apparently all of our data that comes from the government is fake.
It's knowingly fake.
It's knowingly fake.
And a lot of it is, um, like the jobs report.
A lot of it is, uh, Migrants getting jobs and part-time jobs that aren't as good and government jobs that we wish we were not increasing the number of.
So, it's true that our jobs report and all our economic data is fake.
It's true that the New York Times bestseller list is fake.
It's true that the reasons for banning or not wanting to ban TikTok are fake.
But you know what's lucky?
Thank God our climate models are dependable.
Am I right?
Because with everything else being fake, you know, it's just so lucky that the climate models are real.
No, ladies and gentlemen, I'm being sarcastic.
Climate models have one and only one purpose.
The purpose of a climate model is to launder your assumptions.
You do not use a climate model to tell you what's going to happen in the future, because I'm going to have to do a Biden whisper on this.
Permission to do a Biden whisper?
All right, I'm going to do a Biden whisper.
The reason you use climate models is not because climate models can predict the future, it's Because nothing can.
Nothing can predict the future.
Why did anybody ever believe that?
If you could predict the future of the climate, You can predict anything.
That's the hardest one.
If you can get that one right, everything else is easy.
No.
The purpose of climate models is to launder your assumptions that other people would just say, I don't think that's true.
Here's an assumption.
Glaciers are going to melt, all the polar bears are going to die, your sea level will rise.
You're all going to be underwater.
Well, can you prove it?
Well, I can't prove the future.
Well, then why would I believe anything you say?
Have you seen my climate models?
And then they convince you that the models are something like science?
The models are not science.
Those are just your assumptions that you laundered through this complicated thing so that people think there's some science to it.
That's what that is.
All right, here's an update on Rafah, the southern city in Gaza, that Israel wants to, you know, clean it out and go in there, but they're holding off and trying to get the residents out.
I guess the residents are not willing to leave, or enough of them.
And there's talk about hostage exchange, but none of that's going to happen.
And there's talk about the U.S.
building a pier so that we can drop off lots of food to the Palestinians.
Does that sound like a good idea to you?
You know that the Palestinians are not lacking for food?
What they're lacking for is a way to not have it stolen by Hamas.
But there's food!
So, the United States is not solving the right problem.
Apparently, we didn't have a lack of food to give them.
There was enough food in the area.
It's just that they can't get it in.
You know, if the residents would leave the area, then they could all be fed.
But, you know, they're sticking with it, I guess.
Anyway, so Biden has said that if Israel, the military goes into Rafah, while those civilians are mostly still there, he says it's a red line.
Now what is a red line?
Is a red line you're going to do something to Israel?
So if they cross that red line, like that's the definition of a red line in politics, right?
A red line is if somebody crosses it, oh, you're in trouble.
You're in trouble if you cross that red line.
So what's going to happen?
Biden says, it is a red line, but I'm never going to leave Israel.
The defense of Israel is still critical.
So there is no red line.
Oh, so there is no red line, I'm going to cut off all weapons, so they don't have the Iron Dome to protect them.
So basically, it's a red line, but not one that has any consequences.
That would be called the opposite of a red line.
That would be like a nothing.
All right.
Now I'm not saying, you know, that he should have consequences.
I'm just saying he's talking nonsense.
He wants to have it both ways.
There's a red line, but there's no penalty for crossing the red line.
That's like not a red line.
Anyway, um, part of that story is that Biden said he didn't want to see another 30,000 people killed in Gaza.
Do you see the problem with that?
Tell me the problem.
Biden says he doesn't want to see another 30,000 killed in Gaza.
There is a problem with that.
Oh yeah.
30,000 is Hamas's estimate, which Israel will tell you, not so reliable.
Which means that Biden has embraced the number that is repeated the most, the Hamas number.
Now, Israel can't counter that, because they don't produce their own number.
So they can't say, no, no, the real number is whatever, because probably the real number is too big as well, right?
If it turned out the real number is 20,000, is that going to fundamentally change how you feel about the situation?
You know, the big numbers, we don't register so differently.
So the Hamas propaganda has worked.
The Hamas propaganda that it was 30,000 so far, which we have no idea how accurate or not that is, Biden has now referred to it as though that's the metric to refer to.
Hamas wins.
Propaganda victory.
So, ladies and gentlemen, amazingly, somehow I completed this using nothing but LTE on my phone.
Later this afternoon, my internet company says they'll come out and fix the problem they say is on their end, and then maybe we'll have solutions.
All right?
And that's all I got for today.
Is there anything I forgot?
Any story I forgot to mention?
I'm just seeing lots of insults of Biden.
Lots of Biden insults.
Do you think I should reissue my book, Win Bigly, for this election season?
Because it's all about Trump's persuasion powers, and everything I said seems doubly true now.
Yeah, we're all suffering from the daylight savings time issue. - Thank you.
