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 Gemini AI, Google Ngram Viewer, AI Mind-Reading, Mind AI, Brigitte Macron, Candace Owens, Anti-White Movie Bloodbath, American Republic End, Ron Paul, JFK Assassination, Allen Dulles, Free Speech Myth, Democrat Self-Harm, Climate Alarm, Political Prisoner Peter Navarro, RBG 8th Amendment, Trump Excessive Fines, Leticia James Karma, Michael Harriot, Squatter Rights, Ted Lieu, Dominion Allegations, 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
Well, welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of human civilization and the best thing that ever happened to you.
I always forget to turn down my sound, listen to myself.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that even Google's Gemini can't even imagine, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, a sty, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah, good.
Delightful.
I think we're ready now.
If you're not already subscribing to see the Dilbert cartoon that has continued on, it's now called Dilbert Reborn and it's spicier, what you would be missing, and by the way you can only subscribe on X, see my profile, and on the Locals platform where you get the comic plus another comic called Robots Read News and a bunch more, but what you're missing if you're not subscribing to that is a
DEI is being extended to the robots in Dilbert's company.
So Dilbert is running about two years ahead of reality.
Probably we're two years from having an AI co-worker, an actual embodied walking, talking co-worker.
And it's only a matter of time before DEI catches up and discrimination against robots becomes a thing.
And in the comic that you don't get to see today unless you're a subscriber, the robot is complaining about people calling him derogatory names like Skylink.
Hey Skylink!
Anyway, so that's what you're missing.
NVIDIA has announced a new GPU, a new chip.
Do you call it a chip?
It's more than a chip.
It's got 208 billion transistors.
Now, I don't even know how to process that.
My brain can't even hold that.
How do you make anything with 208?
How could you possibly manufacture anything that has 208 billion physical anythings?
How is that even possible?
I get that it's small, but 208 billion transistors?
There's some fun stuff about to happen, and it's pretty small too.
So I guess you can fit in one rack You know, the things that practically were an entire data center not too long ago.
Well, here's an interesting thing happening.
Bri.ai took some of my online shows, this show, and tried to use AI to predict what the next show would be.
So it takes my patterns and characteristics and turned it into a video Of me actually doing the show today before I do the show today.
And so it was taking some logical guesses about what I'd be talking about.
It was pretty good.
Yeah, I mean, it didn't hit exactly the prediction, but it was sort of amazing that it could do an imitation of me doing the show.
And apparently there's an entity, party.ai, that is taking all of my materials and building some kind of an engine Where you can reproduce me.
This raises many questions about IP, because I have publicly said that if AI wants to copy me, that I'm giving a public approval to that.
But how deep does that go?
Would that include, does that automatically give permission to use all of my books?
I don't know.
We're in weird territory where maybe writing books won't make any sense anymore, because they just get stolen by AI.
So speaking of that, you know the book The Fourth Turning?
A lot of you have heard of it.
I said to myself, you know, I'd like to know what's in that book, but I certainly don't want to read it.
So I asked Chet GPT to summarize it, and then I got to ask questions.
You know, I ask more detailed questions.
Well, what about this?
Or what's to say about this?
And what's the prediction?
And what's the basis for it?
And in five minutes, you could query pretty much all the important stuff in the book.
Now, I haven't read the book, but a lot of people have been asking me, what do you think about that fourth turning book?
It's predicting the future and it doesn't look good.
So I listened to at least the summary of it by Chad GPT and I've come to the following conclusion.
It looks like total bullshit to me.
How many of you think that's real?
It's the most bullshit I've ever heard in my life.
None of that looks even a little bit convincing.
But that's just me.
Now, some of you are going to say, as somebody said this morning, but Scott, look at these very specific predictions that it got right.
And I look at the very specific predictions and every one of them you could have done without that book.
Well, was it hard to predict there might be a pandemic someday?
Not so hard.
Was it hard to predict that our Congress would keep spending until there's an emergency?
No, no, I didn't really need to read a book to know that, but those are some of the predictions.
So beware of generic predictions because they're pretty easy to do.
There's a new study that says using computers can give you erectile dysfunction and you will be far less likely to produce sperm and be a functioning human.
So what could cause that?
Huh?
The more time you spend looking at your screen, the less your penis works.
Could it be porn is better than people?
Here's something I've been warning about, and I didn't have to read that fourth turning book.
It is inevitable that because humans don't change that fast, we don't evolve very quickly, but technology improves very quickly, it was inevitable that porn would Catch up to and surpass human to human sex.
Now you're saying to yourself, Scott, that's crazy.
I clearly prefer human sex.
I know you do, but most people don't even have access to it.
And if they have access to it, it's not very often.
It's not as often as I want it.
So, uh, yeah, this makes perfect sense that people are just seeing something that looks like the ideal, the ideal thing that turns them on.
And then as soon as they turn off their computer, they turn around and the partner that they could earn, you know, the partner that's the best they can do, may not be really competitive with that thing that was on the screen.
So when people say these men are not producing their erections and sperm like they used to be, maybe it's because humans got worse when technology got better.
I think that's the whole explanation.
People got worse, technology got better.
All right, at Cambridge University in Great Britain, 12% of the undergrads identify as homosexual.
Not too different than it sounds, roughly, the average.
But almost 30% identifies as bisexual.
So 30% of Cambridge is bisexual.
Do you think that happened on its own?
Do you think people just thought it through and things are changing and, you know, attitudes are changing and they just said to themselves, you know what?
I think I want to be a little, little bisexual.
Well, maybe it's some of it is that it's, uh, you know, less ostracized.
That probably makes a difference.
You know, incentives always matter.
Um, But don't you think that this is literally programmed?
See, I want to see the study that shows me the TikTok users versus the non-TikTok users.
And you'd have to see if people identified as gay or bisexual or any part of the LGBTQ, see if they identified before they started using TikTok.
I think you're going to see a direct link.
I think you'll see a very direct correlation between using TikTok and changing your gender or your sex preference.
So anyway, people are going to act like it's a big old surprise when the entire world catches up.
One of the things about being a hypnotist is you really can see the future.
It just takes a while for people to realize what's going on.
But if you're alert to how strong persuasion is, it's pretty obvious that TikTok is changing people's sexual preference.
But if you're a normie, you say, well, that can't be a thing.
I can't change my whole sexual preference by watching something on a screen.
Yes, you can.
It's not even hard.
I can rewire almost every one of you if I had enough time.
I know you don't believe it.
You're all thinking, well, not me.
I mean, you're so whatever you are that you could never change.
Nope.
Nope.
Any good hypnotist could change your sexual preference and you would think it was your own idea.
It would just take some time.
It couldn't be done in one setting.
Like you couldn't do it in an hour, but you could do it over time.
Yeah, pretty reliably.
And that's what TikTok does, I think.
There's a story about Google's AI.
This is in the free press.
So there's a bunch of ex-Google employees are basically saying that it's no surprise that Gemini AI that came out of Google was so woke that it was useless.
Basically, it was just a huge racist because it was so woke.
And the people who work there say, you know, they're not surprised because everything about working there had to be DEI.
So apparently, even if you made a slight patch to the software, a small software upgrade to something, just make it a little better, you had to write an impact statement about how it helped to DEI.
Seriously.
If you made a software patch, you had to state how it was good for DEI.
Or bad, I guess.
So that was a real thing.
So the thing that you have to understand is that this is not fixable.
There isn't any way to fix the technology, because the technology was never broken.
The technology did exactly what they wanted it to do.
It's just that when you see it, it's so outlandish that you can't believe it.
But no, it was designed to do exactly what it did.
So I assume other people have made the same prediction, but here's a prediction.
Google may never be in the AI business in the way other companies might be able to, because it won't be able to fix it.
It's not fixable unless I got rid of all the employees.
And so maybe that's going to happen someday.
Nope, not going to fix that.
But there's another product that might be might be deleted too.
Let's see who's going to find.
So Eric Weinstein was saying So there's a Google product called Ngram Viewer.
I'd never heard of that before, but I think it used to be called something else maybe.
But what you could do is you could put in a search term and you could find out when it took off.
So you know how there are some search terms that had zero interest until one day.
Now that sudden interest in a search term, Can be really revealing about how the media is hypnotizing and brainwashing the public.
So if something was never mentioned for decades and then suddenly it's all in the news and it's the only thing you're talking about, it could be organic, but that would be unusual.
Far more likely it's an op, that somebody is trying to make it a thing and you think it's happening naturally, but it's not.
It's the mainstream media working with sometimes our own intelligence people to make something trend.
So here's an interesting prediction by Eric Weinstein.
He says, prediction, Google Ngram viewer will be shut down one day for public access.
It is simply too subversive.
And at first I looked at it and I thought, well, you're not going to shut it down just because the, you know, the answers are a little inconvenient.
But the more I thought about it, I'm going to back his prediction.
I think he's right.
I think that it reveals when an op starts, and it makes it very obvious that it isn't some kind of a brainwashing operation.
You can just see it in the graph.
Boom!
Everybody's talking about this now.
So I think he's right, which is a hell of a prediction.
Good prediction.
All right.
There's a, you probably know there's a mind reading ability of AI that it can actually, if you put some sensors on your head, the right kind of sensors, it can look at brain wave patterns and it can tell what you're thinking and draw a picture of it.
So that's a real thing.
So, you know, you can think of a giraffe and the AI through its sensors will draw a giraffe because it can tell you're thinking about it.
Now, apparently there's some big breakthrough in that.
I saw this on a Rowan Cheung thread about AI.
He was a good follow for all the AI stuff.
And researchers at Stability AI in Princeton, they've got this new thing called MindEye 2.
And it's some big leap in restructuring, reconstructing images from brain activity.
Now, how much do you want your government not to have that?
That's the ultimate thing you don't want anybody to have.
I can't think of any technology that would be worse for humankind than being able to read your mind.
That's your last freedom.
Your last freedom is to be able to think your own thoughts privately and have nobody know it.
That's right on the verge of going away.
Now, do you think your government can't force you to wear the sensors?
Of course they can.
Do you think they'll use it to solve crime?
Yup.
As soon as it gets good enough, they're going to say, uh, think about where you were Tuesday, and it's going to draw a picture of the crime.
And you'll, you'll be like, you'll be trying to beat it like a lie detector test.
You'd be like, Oh, squeeze my sphincter or whatever the trick is to beat the lie detector test.
You'll be like, Oh, think of sex.
Don't think of my crime.
But yeah, if they can read your mind, they're going to be reading your mind.
There's no chance that this gets used only for innocent fun.
Oh, the government will be reading your mind.
That's coming.
Well, the best story of the day is the theory that President Macron of France, his wife was born a man and is still a man.
And I guess Candace Owens is having fun with this.
And as she says, it would be easy to disprove that he married a man who represents as a woman now.
All you'd have to do is show a picture of her when she's young.
Anytime in the first 30 years of her life.
And apparently, nobody can find a picture of Macron's wife below the age of 30.
Now, don't you think it would be pretty easy?
To prove that you were born a woman and you've always been a woman if you were born a woman and you've always been a woman?
As Candace says, just one photograph.
That's all it takes.
Do you know anybody who doesn't have any photographs of themselves before the age of 30?
Now, she's not claiming she doesn't have any photographs, but it seems like the easiest, the easiest rumor to debunk.
And then just to make it fun, there's some videos on the internet that you shouldn't trust at all.
That makes it look like she has a male bulge in some of her pantsuits and dresses.
Now I don't trust the bulge in the pants thing at all.
Do you remember a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode with Larry David?
Where he was wearing a kind of pair of pants that when he sat down, it would sort of pillow up like he was excited. And then people would think he was excited. He's like, no, no, it's just the pants. The pants just fold this way. Anyway, so I think that's probably what's going on. But the fact that they can't produce a picture and then further the theory goes
that there are pictures of Macron's wife's brother as a young person that matches what she looks like fairly perfectly. But that alone doesn't mean anything because they would be siblings.
But apparently her brother disappeared.
So the alleged brother.
Bye.
I don't know, somehow he disappeared.
He's just not with us.
And no explanation.
So, if you told me, well, I did hear the story the other day.
When I heard the story the other day, I immediately dismissed it as, you know, just internet fun and couldn't possibly be true.
But the further you dig into it, the more fun it gets.
I'm going to stop short of saying I believe it.
But the fact that it's so easily disproved, but yet not disproved, is very entertaining.
All right.
So whatever happens with this story, I am entertained.
And by the way, why do I care?
I mean, I don't really care what their relationship is.
It's not my business.
But it is funny.
It's very funny.
All right.
So there's a movie called The American Society of Magical Negroes that opened up.
And in its first weekend, it only made $1 million in the entire US.
Yeah, or as...
Or as the End Wokeness account said, it was a box office bloodbath.
It's just a totally anti-white movie.
So basically, that's what it is.
It's just an anti-white movie.
And the public decided, nope, they didn't want to see it.
Now, were any of you tempted to see the anti-white movie?
So I saw something online before I saw this story.
I saw something online that the reviews were excellent.
Did everybody see that?
So the critical reviews were just like really good.
I think probably before it was released, maybe they were saying that.
So I thought to myself, you know, this might be, because I think it was supposed to be funny or something.
I thought I might actually watch this movie.
And then I heard it was just an anti-white movie.
And I said, Oh, well, I'm not going to watch that movie.
It makes me wonder if this is, you know, you're always looking for the changing points.
Like, is this the inflection point?
Well, probably not.
But it's good to know that an anti-white movie didn't make money.
So, that's good.
Did you notice, I posted yesterday, I asked people when they think the republic ended in the United States.
Now, when I was born, I was under the oppression, in most of my childhood and even adulthood, that we were some kind of a democratic, federal republic.
And that we voted for people, and they were in charge, and they ran the country.
Well, I've since become convinced by 100% of all evidence that the Republic ended sometime in the past, but I was curious when, because clearly whoever's pulling the strings is not our elected officials, that's pretty obvious.
And so my own theory was probably about the time that Kennedy was assassinated.
That was sort of the obvious point where the intelligence people were running the show.
If they could just kill the elected leader and get away with it, which apparently is what happened.
Apparently.
I wasn't there, but it does look very much like the CIA killed Kennedy and that they got away with it.
So coincidentally, Ron Paul was interviewed by Tucker.
And the same day I was asking about the Republic, you know, when do you think it ended?
Ron Paul said, the date I say it was concrete that there was a coup and we lost our government was November 22nd, the assassination of JFK.
So Ron Paul is saying that was the day that we lost the government.
Now others say it was earlier or something about the Federal Reserve and bankers and And I don't understand any of that.
I'm not discounting it.
I just don't understand the topic.
So I'll, I'll dig into that a little bit, but you know, there's some theory about the Titanic went down and a bunch of bankers were on it and that allowed the Fed to be created.
And that was a way to rip people off.
And I don't quite understand how that works, but I'll look into it.
Cause I know you're going to ask me about it.
So I will, I'll look into it.
Anyway, here's something that Ron Paul said about that, about the assassination of JFK.
He said, I find it astonishing and despicable that the director of the CIA at the time, Alan Dulles, was appointed to the Warren Commission, which was tasked with investigating it.
So then Tucker says, so the guy who was responsible for the murder was investigating the murder?
Yes, yes.
And by the way, Dulles wasn't just a member of the Warren Commission, he was probably the only one that mattered.
Probably the only one that mattered.
There were other members, but, you know, if one of them is the head of the CIA, the head of the CIA probably picked the other members.
Do you know how John Brennan does it?
Do you know how he can get 50 people to say the laptop thing is Russian information?
Russian disinformation?
He gets to personally pick who he talks to.
That's how it's done.
If you're the one who picks the people, you can get any answer you want.
You just pick the people who owe you something, or already agree with you.
Not too hard.
So yes, in my lifetime, this really happened.
That the CIA apparently killed the President, In conjunction with somebody else, probably.
And then assigned themselves to look into who killed them.
Very much like O.J.
looking for the real killer.
So, before O.J.
said he'd find the real killer, in the real world that actually happened.
That the CIA was helping to find the real killer.
Now, I don't have proof that the CIA killed him, but I'd say all evidence suggests.
Is that fair?
Would you go with that?
That I don't have proof, but all evidence suggests.
It seems pretty obvious at this point.
Do you know the story about the Zapruder film?
You know, the film we've all seen?
Now, there's a subsidiary story that says it was altered.
But beyond that, Did you know that it took years before anybody saw that video?
Are you aware of that?
That many years went by between the assassination and then the time we first saw the video?
Now, don't you think that the person who took the video was aware that he had the video?
Do you think he wasn't aware that it was 1977 that the video comes out that was, what, 12 years after the assassination?
something like that. And, and anyway, I guess I don't have to finish that point.
So yeah, the fact that the video didn't come out for 12 years is almost dead certain it's fake.
Does anybody disagree with that?
If you had the most valuable video in the entire world, and you sat on it for 12 years, That guarantees it was fake.
Because there's no human behavior you've ever seen that would match what allegedly that person did.
Sat on the most important story of the whole hundred years, basically.
And I just thought, I don't know if anybody would be interested in this.
Come on.
It's obviously fake.
It's quite obviously fake.
I never thought that before.
Do you know what convinced me?
That took 12 years.
I'm not sure I ever heard that before.
But as soon as I heard that, I was like, oh, obviously fake.
They just had to wait until Star Wars came out and they had the right technology to fake it.
So that's what it was.
Anyway, in case you wondered.
Let's talk about, so that's when the republic was lost, at least.
Some people say much earlier, but at the very minimum, by the time Kennedy was assassinated, it was obvious that we don't have a regular republic.
But when did we lose free speech?
I think it was around, we started losing it around 2016.
And, you know, the Twitter files revealed that the government had been leaning on the social media to censor things.
So now that's all known, right?
There's no speculation involved.
The government was censoring people like wild for years.
Now, 2020 might have been the zenith, but it didn't start then.
But yeah, the Twitter files told us that free speech went away a while ago, and I don't know if it'll ever come back, but it's gone.
A country that's like a republic.
You know, we're a little bit closer to the Iran-China-Russia model than I was ever aware of.
And certainly free speech is only if you say things that nobody cares about.
So free speech, that you can say anything that nobody cares about, is opposite of free speech.
Everybody gets that right.
So is there anybody here who thinks we have free speech in this country?
Does anybody believe we have free speech?
Because I know somebody's going to say something like, but Scott, look at the things you're saying right now.
No, the only reason I can say them is that I've already been siloed into such a little bubble that I'm only talking to the people who already think it's true.
I don't talk to anybody who doesn't agree with me.
You know, I posted something yesterday, I forget what it was, and it brought in a whole trainload of trolls.
You know, the ones that all act the same, they just act like trolls.
And I swear they had never seen any of my material before.
They didn't know who I was, nothing about any of my posts.
And they were really mad because they think that if Elon Musk comments on one of my comments, which is what brought them in, No, we don't have anything like free speech.
All right, so Elon has been on this point about the public doesn't understand what this immigration is really all about.
to see this guy's comments sometimes. Can't stand it. No, we don't have anything like free speech. All right. So Elon has been on this point about the public doesn't understand what this immigration is really all about. So far, the illegal migration has created so many new people in the country that it would represent the 13 congressional districts.
In other words, we would add 13 people to our government just because of the illegal migration.
And the idea is that the Democrats will lavish them with free stuff and make sure that they come in knowing that the Democrats will help them get this better life.
And then of course the political leaders on the left want the extra power that the extra congressional districts gives them.
And that would allow them to essentially control the country forever if they just get enough migrants in the places where there was too much political power with the Republicans.
So they're doing a play to, it's basically a Hail Mary play.
So I feel like the immigrant thing is such an aggressive swing from the fence, you know, all or nothing play.
And it really is all or nothing, because if it doesn't work, and they don't get the people in fast enough to take control of the government in the way that they want to, then it will implode.
It'll go the other way.
So there's this real close timing thing where you've got two teams that are swinging for the fence.
Here's what I mean.
If the Democrats do succeed in gaming the system by getting more districts and that's enough for them to take power of the Congress and the presidency, then they will just change the rules until nobody can ever compete with them.
Because we've seen the pattern that they like to change the rules to stay in power.
So there'd be more gerrymandering and things.
And by the way, Republicans do similar, you know, sketchy things.
But if the Democrats were in power, they would be the ones doing it.
Now at the same time, interestingly, you've got Donald Trump running for president.
Now what would happen if the Republicans sweep?
Which is very possible.
It's very possible that the Republicans will sweep.
And it would be because of immigration.
So immigration is this really aggressive play for the Democrats to take over everything.
Except that, in the short run, it's such an overreach, and it's so alarming to the public, it might cause the Republicans to win everything.
So we've got this weird all-or-nothing that's been set up by both teams.
And the Democrat Party will either own everything forever after this election, or after they get enough immigrants to control everything, whereas the Republicans will own everything if they get in before that happens.
So it's literally just like a timing thing of who's going to own the government completely.
So, that's fun to watch.
Do you think that Elon's filter on this is correct?
That the real play is to get democratic power forever?
Do you think that's the major incentive?
Well, here's what's complicated.
These things never have one reason.
And as soon as you tell yourself, well, there's this one reason, everything gets confusing.
With a lot of people involved, there are different people of different reasons.
So I would say the following reasons certainly apply.
The people at the top probably are trying to figure out a way to stay there.
So yes, the people at the top are probably doing exactly what Elon Musk is saying.
They're trying to beef up their congressional population so they can control everything.
However, how does that explain how ordinary people are supporting it?
Like, why would ordinary people support so much migration?
Do you think the ordinary Democrat is saying, I'm part of the plan?
I'm helping the migrants come in because I agree with my leadership, we can get all power.
Do you think that's what's happening?
Well, maybe some.
Maybe some.
I would suggest that there's a bigger effect, which is the impulse towards self-harm.
I think that the Democrats are driven, at least at the voter level, maybe a third to a half of their entire political party is obsessed with self-harm.
Now the self-harm grows out of the white guilt, I suppose.
The guilt that they got too much and it's because of the legacy of slavery and the systemic racism and they got to do something to, you know, fix it.
So I think that's why... So I think self-harm is actually driving most of immigration, at the voter level.
And at the senior level, it's a plan to have more control.
Will you buy that?
That the individual voters are not nearly as complicated, they're just trying to ease their guilt.
And they're doing it by self-harm, which is the way people do it.
They harm themselves to get rid of their guilt.
Yeah.
So if you look at, and by the way, this idea of self-harm being the primary motivating factor of at least a third of the Democrat Party is starting to catch on.
I don't know if you've seen it anywhere else.
Has anybody seen, anybody else mentioned the self-harm theme?
Have you seen it yet?
You might.
You might see a little more of it, because it's so obvious.
Once you hear it, you're like, oh, yeah, it's obvious.
Everything they do has that same quality that it's bad for the people doing it.
I've never seen that before.
It's a very specific white guilt thing.
I don't know if it's a Christian thing or what it is.
I don't know where it comes from, actually.
Anyway, there's a new climate alarm.
Now, as you know, the climate topic has two completely different worlds.
In one world, Every new piece of information proves that the temperature is not going up, and that the climate alarm is fake, the ice is not melting, and the oceans are not rising.
And the people who make those claims will point to data, and you'll look at it, and you'll say, hmm, they make a good point.
And then you'll see something like today's report, That the, uh, the earth has endured its hottest year since blah, blah, blah.
And it's all heating up and everything's hot and we're all going to die.
So that's coming from the UN.
Now, how do they support that?
Well, they point to studies and things that are completely opposite from what the people who say nothing's happening are looking at.
Two different worlds.
Which one's right?
Well, let me tell you this.
The people who are telling you that the climate is going to kill you are the same scientists who didn't know if masks would work, and they don't know if your child is male or female.
They don't know anything about nutrition, and I think most of what they say about physics is completely made up.
I'm not so sure string theory is quite what they think it is.
Just saying.
So scientists have gone from the most credible members of society to, in my opinion, the least credible.
They didn't just go from, oh, you're not nearly as awesome as before.
I think science is just a way to launder lies.
Science, the way it's currently organized and reported in the press, is just a laundering operation for lies.
You just find the science that agrees with you and see if you can push it into the public's consciousness.
Now, that doesn't mean that real science doesn't happen.
It's just we're not watching it.
You know, the real science is probably, you know, somebody in a laboratory inventing a thing that makes communication faster or chip faster, and we never hear about that.
All we hear is, Oh, if you walk outside, you're going to be melted from all the climate.
And maybe it's true.
How would I know?
All I know is that the people telling me this have no credibility whatsoever.
Scientists, they have no credibility on climate change.
And the funniest, the funniest response to that I like to use is the same people who think the news is real.
You know, I laugh when I think, talking to somebody who still thinks the news is real, it's just impossible.
There's just no common ground.
They'll just tell you that they saw something in the news and so you're wrong.
And then you say, but you know the news is all made up.
And then they'll tell you another thing they heard in the news to prove why it's not all made up.
And I think, okay, you're not hearing me.
It's all made up, the important stuff, right?
If they say a hurricane's coming, it's probably true.
But if they say so-and-so did something because of something, that's never true.
That's never true.
All right, so I don't know what's true, I don't know which data is true, but I'll tell you, if scientists are my source to know that I should be alarmed about the climate, and they also claim that they can measure the temperature of the Earth really, really precisely over decades, and if not hundreds of years, that's so obviously not true.
Like, anybody who's lived in the real world, You know you can't measure the temperature of the Earth and get a consistent reading.
There are way too many things to go wrong that you wouldn't know or you wouldn't admit because you don't want anybody to know you did it wrong.
So no, there's no practical way to measure the temperature of the frickin' Earth.
And you'd have to be very inexperienced or very young to imagine that's even a doable thing.
Now people often say, but Scott, doesn't that make you a science denier?
No, I'm not talking about any science.
I'm talking about there's somebody whose job it is to sell a thermometer, there's somebody's job it is to put it somewhere, and there's somebody's job to read it, and somebody's job to like add it up and find out the averages and stuff.
That's not science.
That's just a job.
And the guy who created the Dilbert comic strip, I know what people do when they have jobs.
They cover up their mistakes.
They fudge things.
They falsify documents.
They don't mention that it's near an airport.
You know, a million things.
So it's a purely human endeavor to go read these measurements and decide whether the machine is accurate.
And then you decide, oh, this one seems out of whack because it's too close to some concrete.
So maybe I'll change it, but I don't have the budget to change it.
So I'll just write down the number.
That's the real world.
Oh, this thermometer looks wrong to me because it's giving me an anomalous reading.
But it's not my job to replace thermometers.
I'm just the reader.
My job is just to go out there and write down that number.
And I think to myself, all right, if I report this, it's going to be a whole bunch of paperwork.
And I'm not really paid for all that extra.
I'm paid to just write down this number.
That doesn't look right, but I can make my day a lot easier if I just write it down and go to the next one.
Now, of course, I'm making up an imaginary situation.
I don't know if anybody's writing down anything, but the point is there's a whole human process that has nothing to do with science when you're just measuring the temperature in a thousand different places.
Peter Navarro is in prison.
And I was watching CNN do a show about it, and I ask you this, would Peter Navarro be in prison if we had a legitimate news entity?
If the news industry were not completely fake, would Peter Navarro be in prison?
That's a not a real question.
I'm going to give you the answer.
No, there's not a chance.
It requires the illegitimate press To give cover to the illegitimate Department of Justice.
So you've got something that is very clearly and unambiguously inappropriate for the Department of Justice.
If you don't believe me, you should believe Ellen Dershowitz, who will tell you that, you know, a lot of this stuff against Trump is just crazy town.
The lawfare.
By the way, Dershowitz is the one who invented the word lawfare.
Did you know that?
Alan Dershowitz, he invented that word, lawfare.
And he certainly sees it happening to Trump.
But whatever's happening to Navarro is just an extension of the lawfare against Trump.
And I believe that there is no way that Navarro would be in jail if both the left and the right-leaning media called bullshit.
What do you think?
If both the left and the right said this is illegitimate, he would not be in jail.
Because I don't think that the system can survive doing things that both the left and the right say, well this is obviously wrong.
It requires at least the left, because they control most of the media, to bless it.
Which they did.
And they blessed it.
Imagine being part of the media that allowed him to go to jail knowing that that wouldn't have happened except for your actions.
It would only take one entity, let's say CNN or MSNBC, it would only take one of them to say, OK, this is too far.
This is too far.
We can't be putting Peter Navarro's in jail for what he did.
It would only take one.
So every person who's on CNN and MSNBC, you lying motherfuckers, you're putting a man in jail for no good reason.
And how do you feel about that when you go home?
Seriously, how do you fucking feel about that when you go home?
Do you say to yourself?
Oh, it's not me.
It's not me because I'm just one person.
No, it's you.
It's you.
If you're on the air, on a news entity, and you let Peter Navarro go to jail right in front of you when you know it's bullshit, and you're not saying anything about it, you're fucking putting him in jail.
That's on you.
So go sleep with that.
New York Times, Steve McGuire was posting about this.
The New York Times, in what you can only imagine is once again the ridiculous merging with reality.
Thank you.
The New York Times did a story extolling the virtues of the deep state.
When we hear deep state, instead of recoiling, we should rally.
Because it's the deep state that's protecting you from Trump.
That's actually in the news!
The New York Times is telling you that the deep state is really important and valuable because it can, you know, protect you from people like Trump.
How in the world?
I mean, how do you not be embarrassed working for that company?
Anyway, on another topic, this is changing quickly, but if you're not caught up, at first, Texas was going to start arresting people and deporting them, and then the court said, no, you can't do that.
You know, the states can't deport people.
And then, I guess on an appeal, it was reversed.
And then, before I started the show, the reversal was reversed.
Am I up to speed yet?
So at the moment, I believe, and that could change in five minutes apparently, Texas cannot deport people back to Mexico.
Is that true?
Can you give me an update on that?
Or there's another hearing today?
Oh, maybe there's just a hearing today.
Anyway, so it's up in the air a little bit.
But here's my plan.
As you know, Central, South America, they're sending a lot of criminals up here, and some say they're emptying their jails, which would be a smart play on their behalf.
And my plan is to wait until all of the criminals from Central and South America and Mexico have been shipped into the United States, and then wait for it.
I'm going to move to Central America.
It's going to be like a paradise down there.
All the criminals are going to be in the United States.
I'm just going to go down there.
I'm like, Hey, how's the crime right here?
And the locals will say crime.
We haven't had any crimes since 19 or 2024.
We haven't seen a single criminal act in two years.
And I'll be like, yeah, coming at you.
All right, that's my plan.
So did you know that, Newsmax was reporting this, that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she had a ruling when she was alive back in 2019, And apparently she was one of the people who laid out how the Eighth Amendment of our Constitution prohibited an excessive fine.
So there was a case that got to the Supreme Court and somebody, some, just some individual was fined way more than what the crime would suggest would make sense.
And so you've got this situation where the, uh, is it the Eighth Amendment?
Yeah, the Eighth Amendment.
Guarantees the right against unusual punishments, you know, cruel and unusual, but also against excessive fines.
Were you aware that the Constitution of the United States has, in direct language, that you can't give somebody excessive fines?
And poor Trump, poor Trump, is trying to pay over 400 million dollars For a victimless crime that is, as everybody explained who's in the industry, business as usual.
Business as usual.
And he's got to pay $454 million.
Now, by anybody's estimation, that is an excessive fine.
Do you think you would find any normal human being who would think that's anything but a ridiculous fine?
No.
And the fact that he's being forced to maybe sell assets in a short time period when his assets are mostly physical, so he'd have to lose, I mean, he might lose another $200 million by selling things at a fire sale price because he has to.
Now, who in the world thinks that that's any kind of justice?
Nobody.
Now, I assume the Supreme Court will reverse it, and apparently they can even take action when the states are involved in violating the Eighth Amendment.
So you don't have to worry about the thing that it's a state action.
The Supreme Court can jump in if you're violating the Eighth Amendment, and clearly they are.
Obviously.
There's no doubt about that, right?
It's just right in front of you.
It could not be more obvious that they're abusing the Constitution.
And can we agree that none of those fines would have happened if Trump were not running for president?
Is it fair to say he would not have been prosecuted except running for president?
Now, the fact that Letitia James said she was going to go after him, but didn't know what she was going after him for, and then they searched until they found something.
How is that not illegal?
There's no law against that?
There's no law against saying, I'm going after somebody, and then going and looking for a crime, and then finding a victimless crime, and taking his whole business away from him?
Maybe putting him in jail?
How in the world is that not illegal?
So I'm going to make a prediction that karma is going to be quite a bitch for Letitia James.
Here's what I think's going to happen.
I think that there'll be enough enemies of hers that they will put enormous resources into looking into any crimes she may have committed.
And that they will do to her what she did to Trump.
And God, I hope so.
Because you need mutually assured destruction.
When you watch somebody destroying somebody because they're white, that's really what it is.
If Trump were black, none of this would be happening.
He's being destroyed primarily for being white and Republican, I guess.
And I think That the perfect response would be in a perfectly legal way, not anything illegal, that people should start turning over every rock and talking to everybody she's ever worked with until they find a crime.
Do you think you couldn't find a crime with pretty much anybody if you look hard enough?
Of course you can.
You'd find like a process crime or some exaggeration you could call a lie.
Yeah, you could find something.
So my prediction is that a year from now, there's a good chance that Trump will be president and Letitia James will be in prison.
Unless she's appealing it.
But I think the odds of her never having... Well, let me put it this way.
We've all seen how she acts in public.
Right?
We've seen her dance with glee about the mounting problems for Trump.
We saw her target him for purely political and personal reasons, and then follow up on it and destroy somebody that many of you would like to be president.
We're trying.
Now, given what she's done in public, that you can observe with your own eyes, is there any question in your mind that she's a criminal?
In other ways.
I've never seen anybody who acts like she acts, the parts we can see, who didn't also have a criminal background.
I've never seen that.
Honest people don't act anything like the way she's acting.
So, if you tell me, oh no, there was just this one time when she decided to ignore the Constitution and the laws of our country and, you know, spit on everything that's good.
No.
No.
There's a really high chance she's got a whole bunch of crimes in her past and you just have to look for them.
And I would imagine that a tremendous amount of money has already been allocated to pay people to look for it.
And if the Republicans are not doing that, I'd be pretty disappointed.
But they probably are.
All right.
And as Dershowitz warns, if Trump is kept from running, or maybe he loses because of lawfare, that will not be deemed a credible outcome.
Certainly, I would not say that was a fair election, if the law fair takes him out.
All right, Democrats, as I've often said, what passes as a disagreement is often Democrats not knowing how anything works.
Have you noticed that?
It looks like it's a disagreement, like some philosophical thing, but it's not.
It's just Democrats literally don't have the background and experience in many cases to understand how anything works.
Republicans tend to be business people who succeeded in business and maybe became a senator later.
You know, they ran some kind of a serious enterprise and then maybe ran for office.
But there are a lot of Democrats who never had any kind of business experience.
Let me give you some real world examples.
I saw a user, an ex-Michael Harriot, who was explaining why DEI, well, here's what he says.
He says, well, here's the thing.
While most people think DEI policies have something to do with increasing minorities, most DEI policies focus on recruiting and retention.
And he says, instead of lowering your standards, you can increase diversity by inviting more diverse students to apply.
Now that's somebody who doesn't, it looks like somebody who has no experience in the real world.
That's like stupid, isn't it?
How does he not understand that the problem is there's not enough supply?
It's true that any one company can improve their diversity if they do better than the other companies at attracting, you know, a higher percentage of supply.
But it's not true that they can all do it.
There's too low a supply.
The only way you can fix the number of adults, you know, being enough to have a diverse workplace, the only way to fix that is to fix that childhood.
You're going to have to fix the pipeline.
You're going to have to get them really early, like first grade, kindergarten, and train them so that eventually there's enough people to do every job diversely.
But how can you possibly be an adult And not understand that the problem is a supply problem and not a how you do it problem.
There's no way to do it.
To create the supply.
Once you're an adult, you got to start with 30 years earlier, forget it.
So we should.
And so I looked at Michael's profile, and he's a writer and some kind of a race profiteer kind of guy.
He does some kind of race grifty stuff.
Everything about race is grifty, so I don't know his details.
But are you surprised that somebody who's a writer And obsessed with race-related things can't do even counting and knowing how supply and demand works?
No, it's very ordinary.
Very ordinary.
Okay, here's another one.
Apparently the law in New York and some other places, maybe California too, allows a gang member to buy a firearm.
An illegal migrant can buy a firearm legally, These are the Democrat laws.
So they can come in, they'll actually be helped to bring in, and then they can find an empty rental property, or even your own house, and just move into it when you're on vacation.
And it would be illegal for you to move them out.
You have to let them stay.
And if they stay for a certain amount of time, it becomes their property.
So basically, MS-13 knows they can just find an empty house and move in and it's theirs.
They get to keep it.
That's real.
I'm not making that up.
MS-13 can come here illegally, but we've made it legal to be here illegally.
They can go to the store and buy a firearm, or they can possess one, and they can move into your house while you're on vacation and keep it.
That's our current laws.
Is there anybody here who didn't know that?
Because this is new.
It's not every state, but I'm sure California and New York, the squatter has the rights, not the owner.
Now, do you think that people who understand how anything works were behind these rules?
No, of course not.
Nobody who had any business experience or experience with the real world would allow that to happen, because it's pretty obvious what's going to happen.
Obviously, MS-13 is going to take over every house they can get.
Why wouldn't they?
It's free houses.
California and New York are giving away free houses to MS-13 members.
And I'm not even making that up.
That's like a real thing.
Now, they don't say it that way.
It's just that they've created laws that guarantee it.
Now, this is my second example, where there's something wrong with not just the philosophy of Democrats, They seem unable, or unable, to think through really basic stuff.
How incentives work, how any system is designed.
Really basic.
Want another example?
I'll give you two from Ted Lieu.
He's one of the California Congress people.
And there's a video of him, it's not a new one, but not too long ago, a couple years ago.
He was on MSNBC.
And he was telling the viewers that the best way to combat fake news is for people to watch MSNBC because they report real news all the time.
He actually said, real news all the time.
I didn't, I didn't even add the all the time part.
Those were his exact words.
He looked at the camera and said, without any, any tinge of sarcasm, That the way to combat fake news is for people to watch MSNBC because they report real news all the time.
Now, you might say to yourself, Scott, that might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard an elected official say.
Do you think he's unaware?
Do you think he's unaware that MSNBC is all fake?
Because he might be.
That would even be more frightening.
It would be one thing to imagine You know, he's just lying and he wants a job there someday.
So he's just buttering him up.
I mean, that's not terrible.
You know, it's bad to lie, but it's not the worst thing.
But the worst thing would be if he actually thought it was true.
What if he thinks it's true?
Have you ever considered that?
What if the Democrats believe what they're saying?
Because I always assume they don't believe it, because it's so weird and stupid.
How can you possibly believe it?
It's just something you say to win.
But he might actually believe that.
You want another one?
Here's another Ted Lieu.
He said that on a post, he said, Trump claims he is a billionaire, but he can't pay 464 million judgment.
That means he is lying.
How do I know?
Math.
Wow.
Wow.
Do you know who had to school him in public?
That Donald Trump is not to blame for not having the cash?
Mark Cuban, who couldn't even stand watching his own teammate, you know, somebody who would be anti-Trump, he couldn't stand watching the stupidity coming from his own side.
So he had to do an extended thread to explain how in an atmosphere of low interest rates, somebody like Trump would put all of their cash into assets because the assets could grow, but cash isn't worth much in zero interest rate times.
So, Mark Cuban had to explain the difference between cash and assets to somebody we elected to make laws.
So, Ted Lieu thinks MSNBC tells the truth all the time, and he doesn't understand how money works.
Like, really basic stuff.
So, yeah.
I contend that the Democratic Party can be explained by not understanding how business works in general, So they get everything wrong in terms of incentives every time, and also being obsessed with self-harm.
So between self-harm and not understanding business, you get the Democrats.
At least a third of them, I'd say.
Well, there's some new evidence that happiness is changing for some countries.
America and Germany fell out of the top 20 happiest countries.
Huh, I wonder when that happened.
Kind of a sudden drop in the last several years.
Do you think that wokeness might be part of it?
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
Yeah.
Wokeness makes you unhappy.
Why?
Because it's the act of focusing on yourself and how the external world is victimizing you.
Do you know what makes a person unhappy?
Focusing on yourself And believing that the external world is after you.
And the reason you can't succeed is because something somebody else is doing.
It's all that discrimination.
Yeah.
So wokeness bias design will make you unhappy.
That's not all it will do.
It will also destroy your whole country.
But in the short term, it'll make you unhappy because it shifts your mindset to, Oh, I'd be doing better if it were for all these white supremacists and stuff.
So of course that's a problem.
Meanwhile, Helsinki, Finland is looking good.
Israel, well, their numbers were before the October 7th thing, so I'm not sure that'll tell you anything.
Meanwhile, in a separate survey by Wallet Hub, they looked at the 10 happiest cities in America.
So this is a survey, so you know it's scientific.
It must be completely true.
So here are the cities that they found the happiest in America.
I'll just read them quickly.
Scottsdale, Arizona, Columbia, Maryland, Pearl City, Hawaii, San Francisco, California, Honolulu, Hawaii, Irvine, California, Madison, Wisconsin, San Jose, California, Overland Park, Kansas, and Fremont, California.
So we've got out of the top 10, San Francisco, Irvine, San Jose, and Fremont.
Four of the top 10 are California cities.
Do you know why?
Well, first of all, I doubt the question about San Francisco.
I'm not sure that that's accurate.
But it's the weather.
It's the weather.
The weather just really, really makes a difference.
If you have a choice, go where the weather's good.
So these are just four places in California where the weather's real good.
Los Angeles isn't on the list.
I'm surprised San Francisco's on there.
Anyway.
Do you remember Christine Blasey Ford?
Blasey Ford, she's the one who said that Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her or something.
And Molly Hemingway posts 20 things that would strongly suggest she lied about the whole thing.
Now, I don't have to go through the whole list, but just know that there are 20 really strong indications that they never met and she made up the whole thing.
But somehow that story has emerged again.
There's a lawyer who was just sued in Great Britain for saying that only women could have periods.
So they got some pretty bad hate speech rules over there.
That would be considered hate speech to say that only women can have periods.
I call them vagina-having people.
So that's how I get away.
They're just vagina-having people.
All right.
Rasmussen is reporting some poll results on voters that suggest the Republicans are going to gain seats in the upcoming election.
So here's the details from Rasmussen.
All right, so if the elections for Congress were held today, 47% would vote for Republican candidates, while 41% would vote for Democrat.
So that's a six-point spread.
It's been higher.
It's been as high as nine recently, in January.
But two years ago, in March 22, Republicans had an 11-point lead, around now, but in the final polling before Election Day, Republicans had a five-point lead, And that five-point lead, compare that to today's six-point lead, got them a net gain of nine seats.
So, and they captured the house.
So, net gain.
Now, the immigrants coming in who are going to boost the number of congressional seats, that won't kick in until after the next census, I guess.
So, it's a long-term play.
But do you think this will hold?
Do you think that this indication does tell you that Republicans will do well?
Well, there's going to be so much that happens between now and then.
Yeah, that lead will evaporate between now and then.
All right, if you're not watching the ongoing story about the Dominion machines, there's allegations from a sheriff in Michigan that he's seen documentation to suggest that Serbians accessed the machines, the voting machines, while votes were being counted.
That's quite an allegation.
So the allegation, which I'm not saying is true, I'm just reporting the allegation, is that the sheriff says there were at least two Serbians nationals who were accessing the machines in real time while they were watching, while the votes were being counted.
Now the access they had presumably would give them the ability to change things.
Doesn't mean they did.
Dominion's comment on this is that it is flatly false.
Flatly false.
Didn't happen.
Now, here's what we're waiting for.
Flatly false is sort of lacky in details.
Here's what a real denial would sound like.
That is flatly false, followed by the reason.
And the reason would sound like, I'll just make this one up, but it would sound like something like this.
You're looking at records that are from the wrong day.
I'm not saying that's true.
I'm just saying that's the sort of thing you'd expect.
Or they'd say, yes, the Serbians worked for us.
They were contractors.
They did have access.
But we walled off their thing and we can check the records to see if they did anything.
So it was fine.
Don't worry about it.
Now, I didn't hear that.
And maybe that will come later.
But what you expect for a real denial is some acknowledgment that the evidence exists But your version of it is that it's not saying what you think it's saying.
When there's a flat denial that doesn't acknowledge that the people making the allegation are looking at a piece of paper with writing on it, that it exists, to not mention what the real story is about whatever it is they're looking at, is sort of a dog that's not barking really loudly.
So keep an eye on this one.
I remind you that 95 to 100% of every claim about the 2020 election is highly likely to be wrong, even if the election was rigged.
But any specific claim, and this would be a specific claim, is unlikely to be true.
However, this one is getting a little bit more attention than most of them, and there does seem to be a document, and there are some questions.
Doesn't mean that anything happened that was illegal or that it was rigged.
It just means that if you ever thought our system was auditable, do you feel stupid now?
Is there anybody here who ever believed we could audit our election system and find out if it was proper?
Who ever believed that?
Here again, I think Democrats believe it if they have not worked and lived in the real world.
Now, I have worked and lived in the real world, and a lot of the times it was my job to fund and put together, you know, technology packages, complicated things.
I would often be collecting data from different sources to do an analysis.
If you've done that kind of business, you know what any complicated environment looks like.
So the election system is a complicated environment.
I don't need to have direct evidence or direct experience with that domain to make the following claim.
There's no way you can audit that thing.
It's just like my statement about you can't measure the temperature of the earth, you know, correctly and over time and show the change.
You can't do those things in the real world.
In the real world, you can't increase diversity without discriminating, because there just aren't enough candidates.
Not in the real world.
And 100% of people with real-world experience know that.
Some might lie because their team is lying, but we all know it.
Everybody who has lived in the real world knows that you can't Keep those measuring devices accurate over time, the maintenance problems, the concrete problems, the fact that they measure the high and the lows instead of just the average.
There are all kinds of problems.
Plus the number of places that aren't measured, the fact that heat can go hide in different places in the planet for a while and then move around.
And you don't have measurements everywhere, so you can't capture that.
And then they tell us that the election is auditable.
No.
Nobody who's ever spent a minute in the real world could look at anything that complicated with so many different players involved, and you just ask yourself, Scott, can you track your own vote to make sure it got to its destination and was counted?
No.
That's all you need to know.
That's the end of the story.
If I can't track my own vote, no, it's not auditable.
Who would ever think that?
Who would think that you could check every part of an automated system and that nobody could get in there and put a little bug in there or a worm or something?
And that the company producing it has every right to keep their software proprietary.
So do you think there's somebody who is just an independent observer who has access to Dominion's software?
Like to actually look at the source code?
I don't know.
I would think that they would keep that to themselves in the real world.
In the real world, they're not going to let anybody see it, which means you don't know what it's doing.
Right?
In the real world, if you design a system and it's not giving you what you want, year after year after year, same problems.
If you don't change it or talk loudly about your desire to change it, then it's, The problem is that you designed it to do what it's doing.
Design shows you intention over time.
On day one, something might not do what you hoped it would do.
But over time, if we keep having these results that the public isn't completely trusting, and they're not getting the results quickly, and there's a lot of credibility questions, if you don't fix that, It's because you want it not to be fixed.
So, again, if you have any real world experience, and look at the difference of opinions from the people with real world experience versus those who don't.
And it's a waste of time to have an argument with somebody who doesn't have real world business experience.
If I get in a conversation with somebody who has no real world business experience, they're going to say, of course we can improve diversity everywhere at the same time.
No, you can't.
That's stupid.
Nobody with experience thinks that.
And that you can audit the elections.
Nobody with any technical experience believes that.
Show me anybody who's ever written a functional piece of code, and you tell me that they'll honestly think you can audit the entire election system.
Nobody.
Not a single person.
With experience.
People with experience who think you can measure the planet Earth?
None.
These are really clean examples of things that are lies.
We know those are not doable things.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the conclusion of the best live stream you're going to see today.
Do you want some optimism to close down?
Who wants some optimism?
All right, here's some.
Everything's trending in the right direction.
Except debt.
But I think we'll figure that out too.
Everything's trending in the right direction.
So there are terrible problems.
Which in real time are being reframed.
And the big difference between this year and prior years is the growth of the independent media.
So independent media, you know, the Glenn Greenwald's, the Matt Taibbi's, Michael Schellenberger's, and people like me, we get to say what the mainstream corporate media can say.
And it really is making a difference.
Now, you're already seeing the power of the Internet dads, and I'll say Internet moms as well.
Have you seen it?
Have you seen any situation where the, let's say, the responsible people who know how things work have put a damper on things?
Yeah, that whole bloodbath thing?
The bloodbath thing was turned into a joke by the independents, by people like me.
We turned it into a joke, and it completely disabled the Democrats, because every time they said it, we would laugh at them and make fun of it and get content.
And the more they said it, the more we laughed and the funnier it was, and they finally just sort of slunk away.
Because I don't think they're talking about it today, are they?
And it got crazier when they brought in their smartest people.
All right, we really screwed up on this.
Make some kind of weird lawyerly argument where the bloodbath thing starts to make sense again.
So then they started to say, well, okay, granted, He wasn't talking about it like that, it was just about the car business, but that's what he does.
So it really must be seen in the context of our other hoaxes.
So we hoaxed you about the fine people, we hoaxed you about whipping immigrants, if you believe that, well obviously.
And so once it got to the point where they were using their other hoaxes to prop up the new hoax, and all the independent people could see it, And we talked about it and we thought it was funny.
It kind of made it go away.
So, there's going to be more of that.
Things are very different this time, and I think we're going to be watching for any fuckery in the election.
In my opinion, there's no chance that they won't attempt to rig the election.
That's my view.
I see no chance, none at all, that the Democrats will just play fair.
I think they'll try to rig it in legal means, you know, if they can change some rules in ways that help, but definitely in illegal means too, because that's the world we're in.
I can't believe for a minute they would allow Trump to become president if they could stop it.
Because they've all been convinced he's like the second coming of Hitler, so of course they're going to try to stop him.
Of course.
But I think that between the independent media, which makes a big difference, X and Elon, which makes a big difference in our free speech, I do think that the corrective forces are lining up.
I think that it's starting to look to me like Trump will get through all of his lawfare.
Now, I'm not sure I would have said that two months ago, but the way things are shaping up, that even if he can't pay his fine to Letitia James, I shouldn't admit this, but I'm going to, there's part of me that hopes he can't pay the fine.
Is anybody having that same feeling?
Because I feel this needs to be pushed to the breaking point.
I want to see Trump say, I can't pay it.
We're going to review it.
And you can't make me pay it before it's appealed.
You're going to have to put me in jail.
Now, I think what they try to do is close his businesses.
In other words, I think that Letitia and her goons would show up with, you know, police tape, like tape up his building and say, we own it now.
Imagine that.
Do you think they have the guts to do that?
Do you think that New Yorkers would allow them to take over the building right in front of them?
Well, a lot of them would, but a lot of them wouldn't.
A lot of them wouldn't.
So there's part of me that says, let's push this, but I don't want to risk Trump actually being in jail, you know, cause they can very easily Peter Navarro him too.
But I don't feel like nibbling around the edges on this is working.
It's just going to cost them a billion dollars.
I think he needs to go right at it and just say, you know what?
Every person in the whole fucking country can see what's happening.
He should stand in front of his building, on the deadline, and say, here I am.
Here I am.
But do it in front of everybody.
Now, I can't recommend that Trump do that, because he'd probably end up in jail, and that's not cool.
But there's part of me that fantasizes he just pushes it until it breaks.
You know, you know, you know, if you have that loose tooth, you've ever lost a tooth when you were a kid and you can't stop pushing it with your tongue because it's loose.
And you just, at some point, even though it hurts, you just want to rip that thing out.
That's how I'm feeling.
Let's just pull that mole around and see what happens.
Anyway, I'm going to talk to the people on Locals after I say goodbye to the rest of you on this platform.
They get the special after show because they're so special.
And thanks for joining on X and Locals and YouTube and Rumble 2.
