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, AI Robot Security Concern, Candace Owens, Brigitte Macron, President Macron, Lara Trump, Scott Presler, Judge Napolitano, Classified JFK Files, Russian Voting System Hacked, Gender Change Persuasion, TikTok Ban Bill, Fani Willis Ruling, President Biden, Don Lemon Fake News, Poison Food Supply, 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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that you can hardly understand, all you need for that... Hold on.
Oh, audio is good.
All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker chalazestine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to entertain the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Well, that's pretty good.
Pretty good.
All right.
What do we got?
We got people on Rumble and YouTube and streaming in the locals.
What a show.
Happy Saturday.
Really?
I'm just looking at the complaints to see if I'm going to turn off the stream.
Is it just complaints today?
All right, let's not do that.
Well, Bill Maher is in the news because he learned something.
How would you like to be trending in the news every Saturday morning because you found out something that was true that everybody else already knew?
That's what it's like to be Bill Maher.
So he's trending because he made a comment that Trump had been found guilty of rape, and Nancy Mace had to inform him.
That never happened.
It just didn't happen.
And Bill Maher's on live TV in front of his own audience, finding out that a core assumption of all liberals never happened.
In the real world, it just never happened.
So here's a batshit crazy woman update.
Turns out that in a whole bunch of countries, for young people, there's a huge difference between the young women who are increasingly liberal and the young men who are increasingly conservative.
There seems to be a difference in Australia, but that might have more to do with their definition of liberal and conservative there.
But apparently it's not just America.
There's this huge divide.
What do you think causes the divide?
Well, I think it's the news.
The news is doing it.
That's some of it.
But I think it's also that when things are dangerous, people tend to go to gender roles.
Do you think that's true?
When everything's fine, You can talk about, you know, I'm not sure I'm the right gender.
But if you're in danger, the men do the dangerous stuff, typically, and the women do, you know, make sure the food is good and everybody's happy.
So people do retreat to gender roles.
Of course, every single person is different.
There's no generalization that applies to all people.
But we're going to see a little bit more of that in the news today.
Motley Crue drummer Tommy Lee is in the news for threatening Trump supporters.
He said, we're going to pay you back so effing hard for all this S. What exactly did the Trump supporters do?
Why is he going to pay us back?
For what?
Do you wonder that there's this whole other world that you don't know anything about?
Is there some world in which I've done something wrong?
What did I do wrong?
I'm not aware.
Yesterday, I got a message from a young man who said I had completely changed his life.
Like, really, fundamentally.
And in that case, it was actually, there was a slash medical slash mental situation.
Now, did I hurt somebody?
Because I hear all the time from people I helped, literally every day.
Somebody will contact me and say, oh, this made a difference to me, or this helped me, or I'm successful because I used your trick, or I'm healthier, or I quit drinking.
Who are the Trump supporters hurting?
Is there something I don't know about?
Is there somebody out there doing some bad stuff?
What's the payback for?
I have no idea.
I really don't.
I just, no idea.
Anyway.
Um, what's going to happen when you've got a robot in your house and you commit a crime?
Are they going to be able to subpoena your robot?
And will the robot actually just testify?
Like actually get on the stand and say, yes, I was standing in the kitchen when I saw him do the crime.
I feel like there should be a law that says your robot can't testify against you, and you can't read its mind, meaning you can't download its memories.
And don't you think that's a good law?
Your robot should not be able to testify against you.
Otherwise, I'm not going to let it in the house.
Right?
Because the robot is going to remember your past interactions.
That's what makes it useful.
If it didn't remember what you did, it wouldn't be a great robot.
So if I've got something in my house that's recording all of my activities, I'm not going to let that thing in the house.
Would you?
Would you let something into your house that recorded all of your activities and it could be subpoenaed?
That's the worst idea in the world.
So I think that Tesla and the other robot makers need to get together and agree that robots can't testify against their owners.
Also, what happens when the government and the CIA say they need a backdoor to your robot?
So that the CIA is not just downloading the robot's memories after the fact, they're actually watching you in real time.
Because once they control the robot from the backdoor, they can make the robot go look through your stuff.
Couldn't they?
If you're not home, could our intelligence people take over your robot, And then tell it to search through your drawers and find all your crimes, look through your computer.
You could tell it to steal the password from the owner, couldn't you?
Because the robot could just observe the password being typed in, maybe hear it, might be able to detect it from the difference of the keystrokes.
Your robot is going to be the biggest security problem you've ever had in your life.
There will be nothing as insecure as your robot.
Unless there are some real laws that prevent it.
I don't know if you could prevent the CIA from getting in, but it'd be nice.
It'd be good.
All right.
It's going to be hard for you to keep these in order.
So you probably have a problem like I do with the 91 counts against Trump.
And these several venues and lawyers and how many Soros black prosecutors are trying to take him down.
Does the stories all seem to seem the same in your head?
Well, this is happening with all the airplane stories.
So I see a story today that says, just in United Airlines, Boeing 737 blah, blah, blah, loses a panel.
And I say to myself, is that the story I just read?
Or is that a second version, or is that the third panel that fell off?
How many airplanes have fallen apart in the sky in the last two weeks?
I can't tell, because I think I'm reading the same story sometimes, but sometimes it's a different story.
Well, once again, I would suggest to United, because it seems to be United has a lot of planes in the news.
That they changed their slogan from Fly United to Fly Mostly United, but sometimes things fall off on the way.
Mostly United, but sometimes things fall off on the way.
That'd be a little more fair.
All right, it looks like the National Association of Realtors has some kind of settlement in which the 6% House Commission will no longer be automatic.
So you get to negotiate.
To which I said, you couldn't negotiate before.
What?
What do you mean you couldn't negotiate?
I've negotiated that.
Was I not supposed to?
Was that illegal when I negotiated my... I thought that was legal.
So I first learned about this commission problem when I was trying to build my house, now, back in 2008.
And I tried to hire an architect.
Has anybody tried to do this?
Hire an architect?
And I talked to the architect and they seemed qualified and good and I'd say, all right, so what do you charge to design my house?
And they'd say, well, it's X percentage of the cost of your house.
And I said, wait, what?
It's based on a percentage of the cost of your house.
The cost to build your house.
And I said, now let me see if I get this straight.
The cost for you to design a room that's 15 by 15 is going to be less than the cost of you to design a room that's 20 by 20.
So just the fact that it's larger, I've got to pay $100,000 more.
What?
Because I'm sure that those are just numbers you're putting on a page.
You're not working harder.
He was just putting a different number on there.
Now, you know, you could argue there's more rooms and stuff like that.
But the point is that when a house cost $100,000, architects were getting a percentage of the $100,000, which was probably a reasonable number.
When the architect was doing exactly the same work, but the cost of the average house became $2 million, depending where you live, They would still get a percentage.
And nobody thought to change that.
So I just, you know, I just rejected everybody who gave me that business model and hired somebody who did it for a flat fee.
So I just negotiated it, basically, and made it go away.
Now, it's the same thing if you're buying or selling a house.
If you weren't already negotiating the broker's fee, you could have.
I don't even know why this is law.
You could have.
All right, there's a very funny story about Francis Macron.
Now, I didn't know this was happening.
I guess I missed the beginning of the story, but Candace Owens said in public now that she would bet her career that French President Emmanuel Macron's wife, Bridget, is a man.
God, I love to wake up to a story like that.
First of all, it has no importance in my world.
Like, you can't hurt me if it's true or if it's false.
Doesn't really matter.
And I'm going to say, it seems unlikely this is true.
But nothing's impossible.
I mean, the actual story that we're supposed to believe is pretty weird.
You know, that he was 15 years old and met his teacher when she was 39 or something.
Is that the story?
So it's not stranger than that, but I don't think it's true.
I'd bet against it, but I also haven't looked into it.
So Candace says she's looked into it, and I guess there's some alleged evidence of it.
So I won't say that she's wrong, because she looked into it and I didn't.
So that has to be said.
But on the surface, it seems pretty unlikely.
On the surface, it seems really unlikely.
All right.
But she would... Candace would bet her entire professional reputation on the fact.
You know, that's not nothing.
At least she's committing.
I love Candace Owens, even when I disagree with her on certain topics.
She's just a wonderful energy.
I just like everything she does.
Anyway.
Let's see.
So actually, Jake Tapper had to ask McCrone during an interview about the allegations that his wife is a man.
Now, here's the funny part.
He didn't ask that question specifically.
He didn't say, you know, there's an allegation your wife is a man.
What he said was there's an allegation that some of the Mar-a-Lago files included some information about Macron's sex life.
And that Trump said at one point that he had some, you know, shocking information about Macron's sex life.
Now, do you think that the shocking allegations are that his wife is a man?
I don't think so.
He's a French leader with an elderly wife.
He's a young French leader with an elderly wife.
What do you think the most likely rumors about his sex life are?
Most likely has something to do with somebody other than his wife.
I mean, that would be the French sort of thing.
I will not rule out the Candace Owens hypothesis, because as she said, she looked into it, and saying that you would stake your entire professional reputation on it is quite a thing to say.
So I'm going to say maybe.
I'm going to give it a maybe.
But probably not.
Probably not.
All right.
However, I will say that when Jake Tapper asked Macron about information about his, explosive information about his sex life, that Macron looked really, really worried, in my opinion.
Now, my opinion of how worried somebody looks is not exactly important, but in my opinion, he looked pretty panicked by the allegation.
Now, I imagine he'd be panicked if it was just something like an affair, so that doesn't mean his wife's a man.
But maybe.
I just love the fact that it's possible.
It's within the range of possibility.
All right, the Postmillennium and others are reporting that Laura Trump, who's now the co-chair of the RNC, or is it chair?
I'm not sure, is going to hire Scott Pressler.
To lead its legal ballot harvesting.
Now, how happy, if you're a Trump supporter, how happy are you about that?
The Trump supporters have been asking for that, specifically by name, for a long time.
And Laura Trump's gonna make it happen.
So here's what I think you're gonna, well, I'll tell you it's already forming.
Is in my imagination, Or is it obvious in a whole bunch of different ways that Trump really learned how to do this stuff?
It doesn't seem like Trump learned a lot from the first go-round.
Because replacing the, you know, the head of the DNC with Lara, although, you know, you get the nepotism charges, etc., she's already done the new CEO move.
You know the new CEO move?
I talked about that a lot in the first election.
The new CEO move is when you go in and you immediately do a popular or dramatic thing that becomes your brand for the rest of the time you're in the job.
The first thing you do is what people will remember you for if it's big.
And so the first thing she did was do a very crowd-pleasing and smart Thing because Scott Pressler has definitely shown that he's got all the skills and the energy and he knows how to do this.
So excellent.
And I think that, uh, Republicans especially were panicked that the, the Republicans were not going to do their own legal, legal ballot harvesting.
So that's a big confidence builder as a crowd pleaser.
It gives you confidence that Trump picked the right person, even though she's a family member, and it gives you confidence that she knows what she's doing, because she did this quickly and correctly.
Real good.
Everything about this I like.
You don't get to tell those stories a lot where everything about it is good, but look for more signs that the Trump campaign and just his whole game is just a whole bunch better than it used to be, because he's learned.
All right, here's a scary story.
Judge Napolitano said that, let's see, right before Trump left office in 2021, Judge Napolitano said, he asked Trump about releasing the JFK assassination files, and Trump said, quote, this is a reported quote, so we don't know if this is an exact quote, but reportedly he said,
Judge, if they showed you what they showed me, you wouldn't have released it either.
And I said, who's they?
And what did they show you?
And I guess that got murky.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Trump saw the JFK assassination files and said, Oh God, now I know why you didn't show it to anybody.
Do you think that really happened?
I don't know.
I can imagine it happened.
Now that makes you speculate, what is it that the public would not be able to see so many years later?
And I would say the obvious answer is that it was an inside job.
Isn't that the obvious answer?
Because if it was an inside job then, it suggests that nothing's changed and they could take out the president anytime they wanted.
So I'm going to say that the lack of producing it probably means exactly what you think it means.
Probably means exactly what you think it means.
It might implicate some famous people from our past in a way that we couldn't survive.
This might actually be an existential threat.
It could reduce the trust in the system.
I don't know why anybody trusts the system at this point, but there are people who do.
And that could be like the final blow to the antitrust in the system.
That'd be bad.
Now here's the weirdest story in the world.
Apparently there's a Russia election and Russia's new electronic voting system, the very same system that Putin himself voted on, got massively hacked.
They say.
So over 90,000 cyber attacks reportedly.
Trace back to Ukraine and North America.
Huh, North America.
Surprise!
It's almost as if America tries to interfere in elections in other countries.
Now here's some questions you might ask.
Why did Russia introduce electronic voting machines that are connected to the Internet and therefore could be hacked?
Russia has electronic voting machines Attached to the internet.
Why?
Is it because electronic voting machines attached to the internet saves you money?
Big cost saver?
I've never heard of that.
Is it because it reduces costs for ongoing maintenance?
Probably not.
Is it because you get faster results when you have machines?
Um, no indication of that.
Is it because you can reduce cheating with machines?
Um, opposite.
So what would be the reason that Russia has machines and, interestingly, attached to the internet?
Can you think of any other reason other than to make it easier for Putin to cheat and guarantee you won?
What would be the other reason?
I mean, I'm open to another reason.
You can't conclude something from lack of reasons.
I'm just saying that there is an interesting lack of reasons.
And I wonder if there's anything we can learn from the Russia situation that would apply to us.
I wonder.
Well, here's a story about the moms and dads taking charge when the government fails.
There's a group called momsacrossamerica.org.
And apparently somebody said they do good work and do their homework, etc.
But they say Dunkin' Donuts contains way too much of this thing called glyphosate, which I believe is a weed killer.
Is that true?
Is glyphosate a weed killer?
I think it is.
But they're saying that Dunkin Donuts has too much.
Now, again, that's just a claim by this group.
I can't know what's true.
And they say it's like way more dangerous than other foods.
You shouldn't start your day with a bunch of glyphosate, they say.
Now, regardless of whether this is technically accurate or dangerous or not, that's those are questions I can't answer.
I'm interested that there's a group called Moms Across America.
And they're going out and doing something that you would very much want your mom to do, which is make sure your food was safe.
Isn't that the most mom thing you could ever do?
Make sure the kids are eating safe food.
So I love that.
At the same time, you're seeing a lot of internet dads trying to close the border.
So that's sort of a dad job, security.
And you see David Sachs and other internet dads, I'll call them, Trying to end the Ukraine war.
Trying to talk that out of existence.
And that's a dad job.
And my earlier comment was, when there's danger, people retreat to gender roles.
Because that's their greatest truth.
Right?
You know, you can have the luxury of playing around with stuff when you're not in danger, but as soon as there's danger, people just go right to gender roles.
Now again, like everything I say that's a generality, it does not apply to every single person, because every person is infinitely unique, but there are some generalities which are worth noting.
So here's a perfect example.
The moms are going after the quality of the food, as they should.
The dads are going after, let's stop this war and close the border, as they should.
So at least that part's working out.
At least, even if politics is broken, you know it's not broken?
Mom and Dad.
Mom and Dad's still not broken.
I would argue that now Mom and Dad is the most important force in the country, because they're the ones holding it together, against all odds.
Well, Elliot Page, You know Elliot Page?
Actor Elliot Page, who was once an actress, but I think I'm dead naming her old job or something by saying actress, is now an actor named Elliot Page.
And NBC News reports that Elliot is taking aim at the notion that queer films only have a small audience, saying that 30% of young people identify as LGBTQ.
So Elliot says, so I'm sorry, but this is not a niche.
30% of young people identify as LGBTQ.
What do you think caused that?
What do you think caused that?
Was it the chemicals in the water that are making the frogs gay?
Was it that?
Was it, oh, I don't know, watching too many Disney movies?
Was it TikTok?
Probably TikTok.
Probably TikTok more than anything else.
You want to make a bet?
I'll make you a bet that the percentage of this 30% who claim to be part of LGBT, I'll bet you nearly 100% of them use TikTok.
And I'll bet you that in the group that has more or less a baseline traditional percentage that I'll bet they don't use TikTok as much.
You want to bet?
Anybody want to put a bet on that?
Easy to test.
I think you'd find a strong correlation between how much TikTok you watch and maybe has more to do with what content you're consuming.
But yeah, TikTok is probably changing.
20% of young people is changing their sexual preference.
Now, if you had never studied persuasion or hypnosis, you'd say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, you can't use persuasion to turn somebody gay.
Or you can't use persuasion to change somebody's complete gender identity.
Can you?
Yeah, you can.
It's pretty easy.
Yep.
In fact, the younger you go down in age, the easier it is.
By the time you got to kindergarten, you could change all of them.
You could change every one of them.
Give me a kindergarten class.
Well, this sounds terrible.
So don't make this me.
Let's take some good persuader.
Give him a kindergarten class and one year.
It could change all the genders of the kindergartners in their minds.
They would all think they were the different gender.
Does anybody think that couldn't be done?
To change 100% of the genders in a kindergarten class if you had a year to work on it.
Yes.
Yes, you could actually do 100%.
Now you move it up to high school.
Move it up to high school.
How many of their genders and sexual preferences could you change with just persuasion?
Well, it's harder.
About 30%.
At least 30%.
So that's just about right.
How about when you get to become a senior citizen?
How many senior citizens have changed their genders, even if there's a lot of persuasion?
Almost none.
Almost none.
Right?
It'd be 1%.
So, yeah, TikTok and teenagers is a really, really bad combination.
And I would say there's probably a direct line between TikTok and the increase.
Now, have you noticed nobody studied that?
Isn't that like a really obvious thing to do a study on?
Hey, the percentage of LGBTQ is going through the roof, and TikTok seems to be where they get most of their news.
It seems pretty obvious, right?
Now, I would also say it could be in the food.
It absolutely could be in the food supply.
There could be some damn thing that we don't know, like microplastics and glyphosate and who knows what, that is actually changing people's chemistry, and that might actually change your opinion of your sexuality.
So it could be something like that, but I would certainly be studying TikTok because it's the most obvious.
All right.
Here's how you know that the TikTok banning bill is a fake Trojan horse.
First of all, it is a TikTok-specific ban.
And when the representatives say, but you don't understand, it's TikTok-specific.
It's not going to apply to other places.
It does say TikTok by name, but there is a place where it says that It could apply to some other unnamed platform in the future if it was also influenced by an adversary, foreign adversary.
But anybody with IQ over 80 can see that that's really opening the door for the government to say, oh, Elon, it looks like because you sell a lot of electric cars and you depend on Chinese manufacturing for your batteries or whatnot, It looks like they're influencing you.
No, they're not.
There's no evidence that they're influencing me.
Well, yes, there is.
Let's do a survey of your outcomes on X. Oh, look!
There's a whole bunch of accounts that seem to be pushing Chinese propaganda.
And I'll bet you knew about it, and you could have done more to stop them.
Now, it doesn't mean he knew about them.
It doesn't mean he could have stopped them.
It doesn't even mean the data's real.
But do you see how easy it would be for the government to put X out of business if this becomes law?
Just trivially easy.
Now, I know what you're going to say, but the lawyers and smart people have looked at that language and they've said, no, that language couldn't be abused.
Take it out.
Just take it out.
There's your tell.
The fact that that language is a problem and it would be as easy as lining it out with a pencil To get rid of the problematic part?
Because if you just make it about TikTok, you've got wide agreement.
If you throw in that Trojan horse part, you don't.
So why won't they take it out?
There's only one reason it's in there.
It's either intentionally to kill the bill.
In other words, it's a poison pill.
Or, if it got approved, it would be a way to take out X. Do you know why this got bipartisan support?
Let me tell you.
Because the Republicans are apparently fucking stupid.
Sorry.
And the Democrats are trying to sneak one past the Keeper.
That's what it looks like to me.
So the Democrats said yes, because they know it's a trick.
And the Republicans said yes, because they don't know it's a trick.
I think that's the story.
Because you can see the Republicans talking about it like they don't know it's a trick.
That's what it looks like.
So I can't think of any other reason you can get 100% bipartisan support unless one side knew it was a trick.
That's the only way you can do it.
And sure enough.
Here's the other... So the two tells that this is not genuine is one that they put that they put any language in there that would apply to another American company down the road.
The fact that that's in there at all tells you something, doesn't it?
And then the second part is that the people talking about the bill pretend it's not in there.
They just pretend it's not there.
What?
That's Republicans.
They're pretending it's not there.
So they're either in on it, or they haven't read it, or they're working with the intelligence people to get control of the platform.
Uh, everything the Republicans who are for it and against it are saying doesn't appear to be true or smart or typical to their own past.
In other words, we're seeing very clearly, very smart people doing things that are either sound uninformed or dumb.
Way more on this topic than I've ever seen on any other topic.
So yeah, there's something dicey about this.
So I'd say that, uh, TikTok is bad, but it could also be true that the bill to ban TikTok is just as bad, just in a different way.
And it could be also bad that Congress is worse than TikTok and worse than the bill.
Now, let me ask you a question to check your internet memories.
And this might blow you away a little bit, so you might want to put a C-build on your brain.
To the best of your knowledge, who was the first public figure, doesn't have to be a politician, but a public figure, to call for the ban on TikTok?
In the comments.
Who's the first public figure to call for a ban on TikTok?
Well, some of you are probably going through your search engines to look for it.
And if you Googled it, or used Grok, or used Gemini, or ChatGPT, Do you know what it would tell you?
It would tell you that the first person who talked about it, banning it, was Donald Trump, or Josh Hawley.
Do you know what the real answer is?
The real answer is me, in December of 2020.
So that's when I started talking about it, and continued talking about it since then.
So if you can find the source before February of 2020, then I'll say, oh, I guess somebody got there first.
But if you can't find that source, and it's really hard to find it, by the way, it took a team of people, and thank you, Owen, for finally finding that, to confirm.
So here's what's happening.
I'm not telling you this So I can get your credit.
Although that's cool too.
I like credit.
I do like to be recognized for getting something right.
We all do.
So that's, that's not often, but there's a bigger point to this.
You're watching history being rewritten wrong in your lifetime.
Think about the nature of this story.
This story is being told completely wrong.
And those of you who live through it are completely aware of it.
And it's being recorded as a complete fake history while you're alive and while you're watching it in real time.
And do, you know, I've noticed this with other searches.
I did one this morning that was very clearly showed that these search engines have become useless.
So, There are probably other examples, and you could come up with them, in which you're watching in real time as the history of the world is completely fake and it's going into the history books.
It's not like the first time.
There's a lot of them, right?
And I posted this on X yesterday.
Do you remember it used to be a generally accepted statement that winners write history?
You all believe that's true, right?
The winners get to write history?
Because if there's a big war or you take over the country or something, you get to write your own history.
Somewhere along the line that stopped.
We now have a situation where only losers write history.
Like, actually, the biggest losers in society are reporters and the history teachers who believe that the reporters were true.
So we actually have a complete reversal.
We have a situation where the losers are writing history, and it's no more true than when the winners write it.
When the winners write history, it's fake.
But when the losers write it, it's just fake a different way.
But still all fake.
So all of our history is fake.
That's confirmed.
I saw that Elon, you know, boosted my message that history is fake.
Anyway.
Fannie Willis.
So there's a result there.
I guess the judge said, after all the testimony about Fannie hiring her boyfriend, Wade, to prosecute Trump, that that was too much of an appearance of conflict of interest.
And so either she had to get off the case, said the judge, or the boyfriend had to be fired.
So the boyfriend quit.
So they didn't have to go through the indignity of being fired.
But we I think we assume he had to be fired, so quitting just saved him some ego.
But, so I guess Fonny will still be on the case.
So the evil lying bigot remains, and Wade who, the poor Wade who was just maybe over his head in the job, probably was just trying to do his job, I'm guessing.
But anyway, I'm very happy about this result.
Now, it's bad for Trump, obviously.
But I love the fact that we don't have to guess if the legal system is rigged.
Leaving her on the case is just such a glaring, obvious confirmation that the legal system isn't even trying.
This is not even trying.
Come on, people.
So I think even Democrats can start to notice when you leave her on the case.
I think they noticed.
I also love that the Democrats keep trotting Biden out and telling us that he's perfectly fine.
Now that's funny.
It's become completely Monty Python-esque.
We're about three months away from Biden literally being a piece of driftwood that won't be able to talk or move.
And they're going to point to him and say, he looks fine to me.
And you'll say, but he can't even talk or move.
And then they'll say, he looks good to me.
What are you, some mega kind of crazy person?
Perfectly fine.
No, he can't speak.
He's wetting his pants right now.
No, he's not.
And besides, Trump does twice as bad things.
No, but Okay, now I think he's dead.
He's not breathing.
He's breathing.
He's breathing fine.
He breathes twice as much as any of us.
We can't even keep up with his breathing.
I swear that's rigor mortis.
I'm seeing rigor mortis set in right in front of me.
We checked his pulse.
He is very, very dead.
He is dead?
Are you kidding me?
Have you seen Trump lately?
Oh my god.
Everything with you MAGA people is about Biden, Biden, Biden.
But look at your guy.
Look at your guy.
He forgot a name once.
I know he forgot some names sometimes.
We all do that.
But he's literally dead.
He's literally in rigor mortis.
We can smell him now.
His bowels have emptied.
You're crazy.
You MAGA people.
He is more capable than anybody on the staff.
In fact, we just can't keep up with him.
Now, I enjoy that show.
If you're going to go full Monty Python, I'm down for that.
Let's do more of that.
Yep, let's pretend everything that is ridiculous is true.
All right, here's my favorite fake story of the day.
There's a fake story that I think is in the New York Post.
That Don Lemon demanded from Elon the Cybertruck to be on the X platform and some kind of a, you know, arrangement.
They report that Don Lemon demanded a Cybertruck, $5 million signing bonus, $8 million salary, a $15 million marketing budget, private jet flights, pay for his massages in Vegas, executive insistence, and equity in X. Oh, and also control over news policy on X. Now, do you know what the source for that is?
For a story like that, you'd want a pretty solid source, wouldn't you?
You know what the source is?
The New York Post has learned.
So you're good?
Are you happy with that source?
The New York Post has learned.
No, none of this is true.
None of this is true.
How many of you believe this story?
Do any of you believe this?
They say a document that they haven't showed you?
Well, the agent said that 100% of it is false.
Let me give you a tip about liars.
Liars don't talk that way.
The agent knows the truth, because the agent would be negotiated.
If the agent had said, don't believe everything you read, I would say, oh, must be a lot of that's true.
If the agent had said, um, there's only one source for that, I would have said, oh, but you didn't say it's false.
If they had said, uh, it was a first draft, I would have said, oh, so it's a little bit true you're saying.
There are a million things that the agent could have said, or I would have said, hmm, I'm not sure that's quite the denial it needs to be.
But here's what a real denial looks like.
It's 100% false, every part of it.
That's a good denial.
If I could ever teach you to deny, deny 100% of it.
Otherwise, it's a little bit true.
So between the fact that the source is bullshit, Don Lemon has a lot of enemies, The claim itself is honest.
You know, honest face is ridiculous.
That didn't happen.
And the agent says it's 100% false.
I'm backing Don Lemon on this story 100%.
I could be wrong.
Yeah, I could be wrong because we're doing a little mind reading here.
But everything about this story says fake.
But we want to believe it, don't we?
Don't you want to believe it?
Come on, you want to believe it.
That's why it's so good.
If it's a prank, which it looks like, it's a really good one.
A good prank, the key to a good prank is not just that they fooled you.
That's not a prank.
Fooling you is not a prank.
A good prank is when they fool you in the thing that you were ready to believe, you were already primed to believe it.
Do you see how perfect this is as a prank?
You were primed to believe That Don Lemon is crazy and asking for stuff that's ridiculous.
Now he might have asked for a lot, that's how negotiations work.
But no, none of this sounds real to me.
All right, there's another report that there's some kind of Nervous system problems have become the biggest health problem, even bigger than heart disease.
So there's something we don't know that's suddenly affecting nervous systems.
Something.
There's something that happened a few years ago that apparently is having a huge impact on the population in general.
Something.
And it's causing strokes and migraines and dementia.
And those problems have surged past heart disease.
To become the leading cause of illness, not death, but illness.
So that's bad.
Now, all of you, of course, are ahead of me and you're saying, well, what has changed recently?
Well, that pandemic and those vaccinations.
So many of you have automatically gone to the belief that the vaccinations are the problem.
And I ask you this question.
Have you ever seen a Study that compared the baseline health of vaccinated people who never got COVID, vaccinated, I'm sorry, vaccinated people to unvaccinated people.
Have you ever seen that?
Why haven't you seen that?
Now, what you're going to say is, Scott, here's the thing that shows that the vaccinated got more, got more COVID.
Okay, fine.
But what about the excess deaths?
Does it seem unusual to you that the single most important question, as far as I know, there's no study to it?
I've never seen one.
The obvious thing to study is people who have never been vaccinated compared to the past and see if they never vaccinated have a higher baseline of deaths.
Now, are you blown away by the fact that you're not aware of any study of that?
Do you know what they study instead?
They'll do, you know, who got COVID, was vaccinated or unvaccinated.
They'll also show you the baseline compared to now, which includes the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
You really need to separate that out.
Now, how many of you are having a moment here where you're saying, wait a minute, that is the most obvious thing to do.
Look at unvaccinated people who never got COVID because the COVID itself could be part of the long-term problems.
You don't know.
Unvaccinated, never got COVID.
Give me their baseline.
If their baseline is flat and there's no excess mortality, well, it's the shots.
Am I right?
Like, what else would it be?
It's the shots.
If it's the only group that didn't see a difference in their baseline mortality, and nobody studied that.
Just hold that in your mind, that you're not aware of any study of the only thing that would tell you the answer.
Why's that?
Can't get it funded, probably.
I'm guessing, or nobody wants to know.
All right.
But until you have that study that would be very useful, as opposed to the other studies that I consider muddy or terrible, I would say that we also have to look at the food supply.
I have a hypothesis without facts, but my hypothesis is this.
When the pandemic hit, it caused a lot of people to start using substitutes to get done what they needed to do.
They find different suppliers for this or that.
Do you think there's any chance that farmers changed out the chemistry that they're using for their products because there was a shortage?
In other words, did they have to use a different fertilizer during the pandemic and maybe kept doing it?
Did they have to use a different weed killer or more of it because of the pandemic?
Was there anything that changed In the chemistry of our food supply because of the pandemic.
And the answer is, who studied that?
I've never heard anybody look into it.
But we should certainly isolate for the shot by looking at unvaccinated, which we haven't done.
And if we found that if everybody had the same baseline problems, It's probably the food supply, or a form of pollution, or microplastics, or something.
Maybe even lifestyle, because a lot of people had a lifestyle change after the pandemic.
So, I wonder if loneliness could get you there all by itself.
I'm pretty sure if you studied lonely people, they would have a much higher sickness rate.
Would you agree?
And that becoming lonely It hurts your entire biology so much that I think it would give you a higher mortality rate, and it would be pretty direct.
So one of the things to study would be loneliness, because the pandemic did cause a real big difference in how we interact with other people.
There are far fewer people who are, you know, finding satisfying relationships and such.
So it could be loneliness, could be the food supply, could be something in the environment like microplastics, but it could be the shots.
What we know for sure is that the thing we call science is not trying to answer that question too hard, is it?
No, it's not!
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this is the conclusion of my planned remarks.
Is there any story I missed?
And when we're done, I'm going to go privately to talk to the folks on Locals.
To give them an after show.
I might have to close this stream if you're on Locals right now.
If I close it, I'll open up an after show stream.
It'll take me about 60 seconds to open up a new one.
More Roundup being used, somebody says.
No, but the fertilizer is generic, but anything that we get from China would have possibly been suspect.
So ask somebody in farming, was there any big change in how farmers farmed?
Have you ever seen anybody ask that question?
I think there was, because there were big changes in the way everybody did everything.
Why would farming be different?
They must have had some shortages of something and substitutions.
