My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Retirement, Inflation Rate, US Budget Death Spiral, Politico Mental Health, Persuasion Mapped Censorship, Prime Influencers, Information Superspreaders, NPR Editor's Confession, Uri Berliner, Heidi Briones, True Crime Fans, Sunny Hostin, Climate Change Solar Eclipse, Kraft Lunchables, Angela Merkel, German Energy Production, Defining Genocide, 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
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, shelves, or a steiner, 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 is called the simultaneous sip.
If it happens now, go.
Oh God, that's good.
Sublime.
Let's jump right into the news.
Well, according to the article in the BBC, retiring in your 60s is becoming an impossible thing and 75 is a new 65 and people are going to work longer.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
You tell me.
Suppose people start retiring at 75 instead of 65.
Good for the world or bad for the world?
I say good.
I say good because there are several things behind that.
Number one, uh, everybody knows that people retire and do nothing and tend to die.
And if your brain is inactive, you get your Alzheimer's faster and basically it's really unhealthy for people to retire.
Now, when I say retire, I think retirement means a different thing than it used to.
Because I consider myself retired right now.
I work 65 hours a week or something, but I consider myself retired because close to 100% of what I do is my choice.
I don't have to do any of it.
So if you're doing what you want to do, it's a completely different experience.
Work is not work when you want to be there.
So, if you can manage to build up at least enough assets so that when you're over 60, you're doing something that you like instead of something you can't stand, then I'd say working is better than not working.
I mean, I'm the perfect example.
I have every ability to completely retire and sit on the beach.
And when I think about it, I think, oh, imagine myself on the beach.
I'm in Maui and the sun is warm and I've got the sand in my toes.
And has it been five minutes?
Cause I'm really bored.
I can't just sit in the sun on a pile of dirt all afternoon.
I have to do something useful or I'm not going to feel good by the time I go to bed.
So much rather be doing this than being on the beach, frankly.
Well, Justin, the U.S.
inflation rates are not as good as we expected.
It's being called hot.
The inflation rate is hot.
It's hot!
It doesn't look that much worse.
Increased to 3.8 compared to a forecast of 3.7.
U.S.
CPI annual inflation rate is 3.5, above expectation is 3.4.
I mean, directionally it's the wrong direction, but it's not like a catastrophe.
Here's another question for you.
Are we better off with more inflation or less?
It seems obvious you want less inflation, right?
But is it?
If you have a crushing national debt, How are you going to get rid of it without inflating it away?
Inflation is the only possibility of survival.
If we didn't have inflation, we could not survive.
The math just doesn't work.
Now here's a question I ask about our budget death spiral.
Can anybody answer this question off the top of your head?
And if you can't, ask yourself why?
I'm going to say, do you know the most important number in the whole world?
And you're not going to know the answer.
I'll bet nobody knows.
The number one most important number to understand if we will survive as a species.
Hypothetically, what percentage would America need to reduce its annual budget to have a chance of surviving the debt?
What percentage?
percentage? 3% or 40%? People are saying 40%.
3%?
You act like you know it.
I'm seeing the number 42 go by a lot.
Now remember, you don't have to get to the point where the debt is zero, and you don't have to get to the point where the debt doesn't grow.
You do have to get to the point where the economy is growing faster.
A lot of people are saying 40%.
If it's 40%, we don't have a chance of survival.
You know that, right?
If the only way we could survive is by cutting the budget of 40%, we're already dead.
That's not recoverable.
That's way too much.
But you're probably doing the math wrong.
Here's what I think you're doing.
I think you're saying we're spending way more than we bring in in taxes in a given year.
That's not exactly what you need to measure.
What you need to measure is the growth rate or reduction rate of the total debt.
That's the thing you got to look at.
So, if you can reduce the total debt with, let's say, a 4% inflation, and then you've also got more growth, that reduces how much you have to reduce your budget, right?
So, if your budget just stayed flat, But you were inflating away the, well, you'd be inflating away your budget as well as your debt, but you would also maybe not adding so much.
So the math of it is actually confusing.
It's not straightforward at all.
So probably, I'm just going to give you my eyeball sense of things.
Just a sense of it.
Probably something like every part of the budget has to be cut by 10%.
Something like that.
Now you'd say to yourself, but Scott, that's not nearly enough.
To which I'd say, you have to consider all the other effects, and then you might be getting close to at least keeping it flat.
If you keep it flat, you could probably survive it.
So I'd love to know that number.
Because if the number really is 40, that you would have to reduce the budget 40% to survive, we're not going to do that.
We're not going to do that.
But if the answer is, if you cut everything by 10%, and maybe 1% a year after that for a while or something like that. You could make that work.
It would take robots and all kinds of GDP growth, but you can make it work.
I think it's in that range, 10%, but I don't know.
Well, there's another study of mental health in kids. I think Politico was talking about this.
Talk to a bunch of, Politico was reporting, talk to a bunch of mental health experts to figure out what it is that's causing young people to have mental health issues.
Here's what the expert said.
They think it's social media, social isolation, external events such as school shootings, climate change, war, and political instability.
And they also said, uh, lack of independent skills, missing developmental milestones because the pandemic and pressure to be perfect and family instability.
That's what the experts said.
That's what the experts said.
Can you name anything on that list that the experts said that wasn't obvious to you?
Is there even one thing that they said that you didn't already know?
It's crazy.
These are our experts.
They got nothing for us?
Nothing?
Yeah, and they left out food.
Right.
So basically the non-expert who said in the comments, what about food, gave a better answer than the experts.
If you leave food out of this equation, What kind of expert are you?
Food is like, right?
It's got to be in the top five.
You know, it might be top one.
We don't know.
I mean, I think social media is number one, or phones in general.
Pandemic's probably number two, but food has got to be right up there.
I mean, every indication is that your mental health is directly related to your diet.
More on that later.
Well, apparently there's an effort to figure out who the big persuaders are in the social media landscape.
Now, you probably know, if you listen to me, that Mike Benz has reported how the intelligence people and their entities that are non-governmental figured out some kind of big censorship map.
Where they could figure out who's connected to who, so they could figure out if somebody like, say, Alex Jones is saying something, they could map where that message is going to go, and then from there, where it would go.
So it's sort of a multi-jump map of how messaging works on the internet.
And the idea was that they would use it for censorship.
So they would know who was having the biggest impact.
And then they would just say, well, conveniently, we think that's not true.
So we'd better censor you.
And then they could do it very well, because they know exactly what nodes to turn off and on.
But that would be looking primarily at numbers.
So that method says, oh, this is a big account connected to lots of people.
So they map that out.
And it looks like that path of influence is like the big one, because it goes through larger accounts.
However, this newer technique It's looking at the personalities of the individuals, getting down to really understanding people, given data that we know about people.
And I think it's looking for the super spreaders, or the people who are the most persuasive.
So independent of how many followers they have, people have different batting averages.
In other words, some people will bat Much higher than their user count.
So this new way would pick that up.
Does that sound familiar?
Has anybody read a book that I may have written in which it predicted that someday in the future, this book written in 2003, I think, predicted that just about now, because it predicted this future, that just about now the government would have figured out how to find the prime influencer.
Now, in the book which is fiction, it's called The Religion War.
It's cancelled, but it's coming back this summer.
It's going to be reintroduced as part of a God's Debris trilogy.
The trilogy is really 2.1 books, because there's a short story that's new that makes it three entities.
We're putting them together and reissuing, because The Religion War and God's Debris were both cancelled.
Cancelled!
But they're coming back.
Can't be stopped.
Anyway, one of the key, really one of the most important parts of the religion war is the prediction that we would be able to do exactly this.
Find out who was the persuaders without maybe even those people knowing it.
Now here's my theory in the real world.
I suspect that some things start in multiple places at the same time.
Do you ever see a news story and your first thought about it is, oh, this is the frame I'll put it in, or this is the way I'll understand it.
Then you find out everybody else is doing the same thing.
So there's some things that we all just sort of see at the same time.
That's different.
But there are other things that I'm completely convinced start with one person.
Actually, literally.
One person out of the billions of human beings.
That one person puts it in a certain way, maybe it influences a bigger account, and then it goes from there.
Now, I don't think it's the same one person who influences every decision, but I've got this feeling that literally one person is a common way that memes and narratives form.
Literally one person.
Now, Do you think that there are, say, a handful of people in the world who are more responsible for the narratives than you can imagine?
And maybe they're not even famous.
They might even be behind the scenes.
But do you think that that's viable, or a possibility, that there are a handful of people who are not just World leaders have power and money, but have a specific skill to change the world through persuasion.
Do you think that's the thing?
in the real world? Well, if you don't, good.
Because that's how persuaders hide in plain sight, because you don't believe it's possible.
Well, one of the things about being a hypnotist is you can literally tell people what you're doing.
It doesn't make any difference.
There's no impact on your effectiveness.
You can say, I am now hypnotizing you.
And people will say, uh-huh.
Yep.
Oh, look at me.
I'm so hypnotized.
Go ahead, Mr. Hypnotist.
Try your best.
Oh, I'm so hypnotized.
And then they're hypnotized.
Anyway, so it's Fiction predicts reality once again.
We're going to look for the prime influencers.
Does that worry you?
That somebody will make a map of the prime influencers?
They should, because the prime influencers who are undetected are the only ones giving you any freedom right now.
It's the only counterforce, because the government has the power to basically clamp down on everything.
The only thing they can't clamp down on is The only thing they can't clamp down on is, fill in the blank, what's the one thing that a government can't clamp down on?
Something it can't find.
If it can't find it, it's helpless.
And right now it can't find it.
Don't you think that the reason they're trying to find the prime influencers is because they don't know who they are?
They wouldn't be looking for them if they knew who they were.
They actually can't figure out who's influencing.
But if they find us, I mean, people, then it's going to be a whole different game.
And the people who are influential are probably going to go to jail on trumped up charges.
Probably.
Because they're going to have to take them off the field, Alex Jones style.
We'll talk about that.
Well, there's a new survey that says that climate change is only the most important thing to 2% of the people.
Only 2% see Biden's green agenda as the top issue, while a quarter of the people see the border as the top concern.
Well, I'm not going to make fun of the fact that 25% think the border is the top concern, because it's a survey with lots of different choices, and that just happened to be the biggest one.
So, what do you think?
Could it be possible that there's such a thing as a prime influencer, like one person, literally one person, who could change the entire narrative from climate change being the existential threat to really maybe that's not so much of a threat, but migration is a key threat.
Who would be a prime influencer on that?
Trump.
Now, Elon Musk is certainly a big part of things, but Elon is not anti-climate crisis.
I think he's just a reasonable voice in that sphere.
I would say this is Trump.
This looks like one person.
This poll looks like the effect of one insanely persuasive person, Trump.
Mostly.
Now, you would say to yourself, but, but, but, Scott, what about all the other people who also say similar things?
To which I say, probably because of Trump.
Right?
It's safe to say what he says because he's already said it.
It's safe for you to say, I'm not sure these climate models are good if I've already said it and I didn't die.
So I get to test it out for you.
Can I say this without getting canceled?
And then you can watch.
So yeah, I think the government's going to figure out who's behind a gigantic shift like that from climate to border.
Now, some of it might be just reality too.
We see a lot of images of the border and climate is less visual unless you make up stuff like this hurricane was caused by.
All right.
Biden says he's looking into, his people are looking into, whether he has the power by himself to shut the U.S.
border down.
Yeah, we're examining whether or not I have that power, Biden said.
No guarantee.
All right, let me explain this.
Let me give you a little lesson on leadership.
When China originally got the COVID virus, and we didn't know what we were dealing with.
And we thought, wouldn't it be good to maybe keep that out of America until we figure out how bad it is?
You know, because we didn't know.
And day one, we saw scary pictures.
And then Trump, fairly soon after, closed to travel.
Now we can argue whether it was closed enough, but for my purposes, he made a big difference, at least in terms of the traffic.
And was it legal?
Was it legal to close traffic?
I don't know.
But was it the right decision?
Yes, of course.
Yes.
So the right decision, if you're the leader, is you stop the danger immediately, you stop the danger, and then you figure out if you did it legally.
That's the order of things.
That's what leadership is.
The whole point of a commander-in-chief is we say, you know what?
There are going to be situations where you have to act fast, and then we'll debate it later.
But we're going to elect you to make the dangerous, important decision fast, and then we'll talk about it, and we hope that you did things as legally as possible.
But as long as you're on our side, as long as it's well-intentioned, You did your homework.
We're going to back you.
Even if you bent the rules a little bit, because we want to be safe and we asked you to keep us safe and we don't want to handicap you.
So do what makes us safe.
And then we'll talk about it after whether that was the right thing to do, but make us safe first.
Who would get that right?
Trump would.
Trump would get that right.
Every time he would say, well, close the border.
We'll figure out if that was legal after the fact.
You know, it's because it's not permanent.
If it's not permanent, and none of this is permanent, do it first, debate it second.
That's the way it works.
That's basic leadership.
That's leadership 101.
It's literally not leadership if you're waiting for your lawyers and the public to weigh in.
Oh, what did the polls say?
Am I going to lose the election?
What did my lawyers say?
What does Congress say?
Oh, that's wrong.
First, you do it.
And then you let everybody talk about it after we're safer than we were.
It's amazing to me that that's not obvious to voters.
There's a complete abdication of leadership.
Complete abdication of leadership.
There's no leadership in that.
That is followership.
We didn't need that.
We wanted a leader.
All right, the AP, Associated Press, Did some kind of a survey about journalists who use AI already.
It says nearly 70% of newsroom staffers are using AI for different things, backgrounds, and maybe for posts on social media and stuff.
One-fifth said they'd use generative AI for multimedia to create graphics, et cetera.
Now, here's an interesting question.
What part of the news is the human doing?
Now, at the moment, it's still mostly the human using AI as a tool.
But what exactly is a human adding to the process?
If you took them completely out of the process, what would it look like?
Because the only thing I can think of that the humans at the Associated Press are adding to what AI could do generating news is the lies.
The lies are the only thing the humans could add.
Because I don't know how much reporting the AP is doing, you know, on its own versus looking at other stuff and reporting on it.
Because a lot of this reporting is just looking at press releases and then writing up the story from the press release.
Or you look at how some other news entity covered something, then you talk about how the news covered it.
I don't think too many of these journalists are going in the field and doing original reporting.
And if they did, is there anything that AI couldn't do?
AI can make a phone call.
AI can have a conversation.
AI can poll people.
It can ask for opinions.
It can tabulate them, summarize them.
What exactly is a human doing?
Literally, the human is adding the lying.
That's what they're adding.
The narrative.
So the narrative is also the lying.
You know, it's lying by narrative or lying by what you leave out.
So the human is going to have to come in and remove the context.
Because the AI will be tempted to add context.
Well, some people say this and other people say that.
So the human's got to get rid of the, some people say.
Nope.
The narrative does not support both sides.
So get rid of the both sides stuff.
Yeah.
The human literally is only for the lying.
Speaking of lying, you, you know, the story of the NPR editor who admitted The NPR didn't, they actually left their business as being a news entity when Trump got in the race, or got elected, I guess.
And they became an anti-Trump organization with no regard to what was true.
That actually happened in the real world.
It's exactly what it looked like.
We all saw it.
But now an insider, an actual editor from NPR is saying, everybody, that's true.
They just became a bigoted, biased propaganda network.
They completely abandoned their responsibility to the public because they thought there was a bigger responsibility.
They came to believe that Trump was Hitler and they couldn't just do their journalist job.
They had to kill Hitler.
So NPR.
So how did that strategy work with NPR?
Let's check in on their numbers.
Let's say in 2022, They had 45 million views on the radio show, I think.
45 million, wow, that's doing pretty good.
How'd they do two years later, once people knew that they had lied about everything?
So they've gone from 45 million views in 2022 to 2024 is now around 14. 14 from 45 two years ago.
Do you think people noticed that it's not real news and therefore they didn't need it whatsoever?
Did they notice it was just screechy bullshit?
Did they notice it was a lot of mentally ill women who got radio shows?
They probably did.
Now, some of it might be that, you know, social media is more interesting or whatever, but yeah, it turns out the NPR literally turned from a news industry or news business into a propaganda business.
And during at least the second half of that, they dropped almost all of their business.
They're basically on the way of going out of business, if you can call it business.
And the question I wonder is, now that NPR is admitted being fake news, and there's no question that this happened to all of the other left-leaning entities, can we agree?
And by the way, If you were to look at a list of objective news, because every once in a while somebody will say, we looked at which news entities are the most objective, and they'd say, oh, this one on the right is so right-leaning, and yes, we admit this one on the left is pretty left, but at least you've got NPR right in the middle, huh?
Am I imagining that I actually heard that?
That people rating the bias of news entities put NPR like solidly in the middle?
I think I've seen that, right?
I'm not imagining that.
That the other news, the other fake news, told us that NPR was the good one.
It was never true.
And anybody who listened to it, who had any sense of what was real, knew it.
I mean, it was just screamingly obvious that it was a completely corrupt organization and they'd abandoned the news business a long time ago.
Anyway, so are Democrats noticing?
I doubt it.
Do you think Democrats saw that story that found out one of their favorite news sources was completely fake for years?
No?
Oh, but they are not familiar with that story, do you think?
Do you think that story got surfaced on all their Facebook posts?
Do you think all the left-leaning women caught that story?
Nope.
Nope.
You saw it because you already agreed with it.
Nobody else is going to see it.
Siloed.
I saw a post from Heidi Brionis.
Who has a very clever, clever ex-account.
Lots of good posts there.
Good follow.
Good follow.
Heidi Briones.
And she said today in a post, most psych majors and true crime fans are women for one simple reason.
We're crazy.
Has anybody ever noticed that psych majors are generally people looking to fix their own problems?
Almost always.
I've never seen anybody who was perfectly mentally healthy who wanted to go into the psychology business.
I've never seen it.
It's people who have their own problems and from it they think they've learned something or could learn more, want to help people in the same situation.
But basically, it's the business, the job that attracts the most people who would self-assess as having mental problems.
But what about this true crime stuff?
How many of you men have been in a relationship where your female partner was obsessed with true crime shows and you looked at and said, you know what?
Why do I want to expose myself to this?
How many minutes of my life should I be looking at horrible crimes and all the details of them?
And you think to yourself, What is wrong with you that you find this entertaining?
I'm deeply disturbed by the fact that of all the things you could watch, while I'm strumming through reels on Instagram of kittens hugging dogs, literally, I spend some part of every day scrolling through Instagram, which has now quite lovingly served up a non-stop trail of cats hugging dogs.
Can't get enough!
I cannot get enough of Cats Hugging Dogs.
I will watch that all day long.
You know what I won't watch?
True Crime.
Now just wait a year, and I've spent a year looking at Cats Hugging Dogs, and let's say somebody chosen randomly, a woman, has spent her time watching non-stop true crime TV shows, and TV shows that make you cry, And feel terrible.
Who's going to be in better shape at the end of the year?
Me, watching kittens hug dogs all day long?
Or a crazy woman who's probably going to become a psychology major to figure out what the hell's wrong with herself.
Anyway, I bring this up because the theme that women are crazy, not all of them, by the way, I feel terrible that I have to even say this.
Can we do this like an idiot again?
All right, here's a special announcement for the idiots who are listening.
Now, most of you are not idiots, so you can talk among yourselves.
This is just for the dumbest people.
When I talk about something about women, I never mean all women.
And when I'm talking about women being batshit crazy, I'm mostly talking about left-leaning liberal women.
So if you're not one of those, and you're not crazy, I'm not talking about you, but it's time that we're just being open about the fact we have a massive problem of mentally ill women, and it's not just a massive problem because they are victims of whatever the hell is going on in the society that's making them crazy, but they're also in charge.
They have the power in the Democrat Party, which has a majority, and it's an existential threat.
Batshit crazy women is the biggest existential threat because it sits above every one of our problems.
Every one of our problems, we can't work on it because there's somebody who's batshit crazy stopping you from fixing it.
And it's the same group of people over and over again.
Batshit crazy women.
Until you can say it out loud, you can never fix it.
So that's the service that I'm presenting to you.
I've got enough arrows in my back that any of the new arrows are just going to hit the other arrows.
I'm kind of invulnerable at this point.
All right, now in a shocking twist that you will not expect, I'm going to debunk a hoax about The View host Sunny Hostin.
You're going to have to put up with this.
You're not going to like it.
You know that I've debunked the fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax from President Trump.
And you know that I've told you exactly how those hoaxes are created by taking something out of context and just leaving out the context.
Right?
And I've described them in detail.
And I've told you how terrible it is that the news creates these hoaxes.
Well, the same thing happened to Sonny Hostin.
So the people on the right can no longer say that they're innocent of this behavior, and I'm not going to name names, but a number of people believe that Sunny Hostin said on live TV, they believe this happened, that they believe she said the eclipse might be caused by climate change.
Now that was the story yesterday, and it was going around social media, and clips were shown.
So you could look at the clip yourself and you could see her doing it.
Right?
How many of you saw the clip and say to yourself, well, I saw it.
I don't know what you're talking about.
I saw it myself.
I saw every bit of that.
How many of you think you saw it?
So a lot of you, yeah.
So you're saying she did say it.
She did say it.
Now, do you remember what happens when I debunk the fine people hoax in front of a Democrat?
What did they say?
But Scott, he did say it.
I heard it.
What happens when I debunk the drinking bleach hoax?
And a Democrat hears me do it.
They say, uh, Scott, I, I heard it with my own ears.
I, you know, you can't tell me it didn't happen.
Stop gaslighting me.
What happened when I told you that this is an obvious hoax?
I'm going to tell you exactly how it was done.
I'm going to tell you what they left out to fool you.
And you'll still see in the comments, but I saw it myself.
I heard it myself.
So watch how persuasion is not, you know, it's not limited to one side.
And I do this because this is why you watch my show.
The reason you watch my show is that I'm not going to just take the side because it's the side.
Soddy Hostin, who I generally disagree with on almost everything, is a victim of a hoax and I'm now going to defend her completely.
Because this isn't cool.
That's not cool.
I don't want to be on the team that's hoaxing the other side.
Not cool.
Now, I'm very much in favor of winning at all costs.
I think winning is important, but she's not running for office.
She's just a commentator.
So, I'm going to surprise you.
Here's what actually happened.
There were two contexts.
She started out joking about the sign of the end times.
Now, when you're talking about the sign of the end times, And you're sort of jokingly talking about it.
Is that serious?
Do you think she actually believed that she named the eclipse, earthquakes, and cicadas happening at the same time as maybe signs of the end times?
But very obviously, it was in a joking context.
Would you agree with me so far that when she mentioned end times, that she did mention those three categories, earthquakes, cicadas, and eclipses, And that she did say, wow, it feels like the end times.
You all heard that part.
She definitely said that.
Now here's the part you missed, because it's taken out of context.
Then the context switched, and it switched to climate change.
And then when she talked about climate change, she sort of wondered out loud if earthquakes and cicadas could be, maybe there's a climate change effect.
So really big, she's a big old dummy, right?
Because who would really think that earthquakes are caused by climate change?
Like that's just sort of stupid, right?
Or who would think that maybe the insect world could be greatly affected by climate change?
Just kind of dumb, right?
Is it dumb?
Google it.
If you Google, does climate change affect earthquakes?
The answer is yes.
According to Google, the answer is yes.
That it's very plausible, I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying that Google says it's true, that it's plausible, plausible, just plausible, that climate change could affect earthquakes.
They also say that climate change absolutely could have a gigantic effect on insects.
Now it might be a negative effect, whereas the cicadas would be, you know, there's a lot of cicadas, that's sort of the opposite.
Now I ask you this, Is it crazy to wonder out loud if you believe in climate change?
Now you could argue that, you know, that that's crazy too, but I don't think, I don't think believing in climate change is crazy.
That's not crazy.
It might be wrong.
It might be alarmist, but if it agrees with most of the scientists, even if I think they're wrong, it's not crazy, right?
I don't think people are suffering mental illness because they believe the scientists.
I just think scientists are probably a little hyperbolic and, you know, they're making money and stuff, but they're not crazy.
It's just something they believe that may or may not be true.
But here's the key.
When she talked about climate change, that was a change from the end times thing, and she did not mention, in that context, the eclipse.
If she had said, I wonder if the eclipse is caused by climate change, I would say, oh my God, that's a dumb person.
That's a dumb person.
But if she said maybe the earthquakes and the cicadas have something to do with climate change, she knew more than you did.
She knew more than you did.
Those are real actual conversations.
Now, there is no connection between the cicadas and, and the climate change that I know of, but if you are not a cicada expert, and it became very clear that she didn't know the whole cicada situation, just that they were coming.
Uh, she didn't, I don't think she knew that it was on the 17 year schedule and there were two different kinds.
And by coincidence, their different schedules were going to line up.
So it'd be worse this year.
Now, if you didn't know that, And, you know, why would you expect she's clicking on the bug stories, right?
It's easy to imagine that you see a headline about a lot of bugs are coming and you don't want to click on it.
It's like, OK, bugs are coming.
Got it.
Don't need to know the details.
So I would say that she was right on point for not only her joke about the sign of the end times, perfectly good joking, that earthquakes and eclipses and cicadas happening at the same time is just kind of funny.
Coincidence and then when she talked about climate change she accurately picked two items earthquakes and bugs that real serious scientists say could be greatly affected by climate change and so ladies and gentlemen I submit to you that Sonny Hostin was a little bit smarter than you and a little bit more clever than you and a little bit more funny than you and does not deserve any
Uh, any mocking for this particular comment.
However, may I join you and link hands by saying she says some really bad and dumb things about Trump, but at least that's done under the cover of, you know, pure, uh, pure, let's say, um, Democrat propaganda.
So when the view is talking about, oh, Trump is the devil, we all kind of know Where that's coming from, that it's political, you know, you don't take it too seriously.
But when she's talking about this, I think her opinion was not only funny and entertaining, which is her job, but she was pretty close to the scientific consensus, whether that's true or not.
All right, how did you take that?
Everybody okay?
So here's what you should be feeling.
If you thought that story was true, you should be feeling some discomfort.
And some of you are just going to reject it and say, no, I heard it.
Scott, I heard it.
And then other people said to me, because I brought this up in my man cave, other people said to me, but Scott, Joy Behar and Whoopi also heard the same thing you heard because they tried to correct her.
To explain like an idiot would explain, uh, the eclipse is just sort of something we knew was coming for a hundred years.
And it's not related to climate change.
So, because Whoopi thought that, that, uh, Sonny Hostin was talking about the eclipse.
Should you believe that Sonny Hostin was talking about the eclipse?
No, because what happened was Whoopi and Joy Behar heard what you heard.
They misheard, and they didn't notice she had changed context from talking about the funny End Times thing to climate change, which was more of a factual conversation.
So they also were fooled.
Don't use Whoopi or Joey Behar as your source for why you're right.
That's not good thinking.
They're a terrible source for what is a good interpretation of what anybody said.
In fact, they're among the worst.
All day long they misinterpret Trump for a job.
Misinterpreting things is primarily what they do.
It's almost their entire business model.
All right, the McKinsey Consulting Company said it was going to pay some of its employees to not work for nine months and look for another job.
They're going to pay them to not work.
What's that called?
Is that sort of like Sort of like they're fired.
Don't we usually call that you're fired?
But it's nice that they gave him nine months to find another job, but you're still just fired.
And here's the embarrassing thing.
If you're McKinsey and you're a consulting firm, why didn't you see this coming?
Their job is to tell businesses how to be healthy businesses and how to have a strategy that works.
It's a little bit embarrassing if they start firing their own employees.
A little bit embarrassing.
Because it means they grew too fast, or they didn't read the room right, or their model wasn't working, or something.
Because they outgrew their business.
So, would you hire somebody to tell you how to run your business if you knew they'd change, we're firing people because we have too many, into, well, it's more like we're paying them to look for other jobs.
Don't say we're firing them.
That'd look like a mistake.
No, no, no.
We're so progressive.
We're going to pay them to look for better jobs.
McKinsey Consulting.
Here's my favorite story of the day.
Terrible as it is.
You've heard of Kraft Lunchables.
It's a, it's a little package of lunch-like food with some meat and cheese and stuff in there.
And it's a popular kid snack.
Now, Turns out that Consumer Reports looked into them, the store-bought versions, because they have store-bought and they have school versions.
The store-bought versions, which are made by Kraft Heinz, found relatively high levels of lead and cadmium.
Now, there's no level of lead that's anything except bad for children.
So, what do you think of the psychologists who didn't mention food?
Does that feel a little more relevant at the moment?
That you know that one of the most popular foods for kids has lead in it.
And we're pretty sure that lead is not good for your brain.
Am I out on a limb there, or is that true?
I didn't research it recently, but aren't we sure that lead is bad for your mental state?
I thought we knew that fairly reliably, that lead is just the worst thing you want to put in a kid's body.
So that's happening.
Then cadmium, some of you know, is a component for batteries.
And it's in some of the Lunchables.
Now, this is sort of good news, bad news, because if you put the lead and cadmium in the Lunchables, and then the child eats it, they can actually charge their smartphone just with their own body.
Because the kids, if they eat the Lunchables, they're basically half battery and half child.
And so you don't even need to plug into your phone.
You can just sort of hold it in your hand and the cadmium and lead plus the static electricity will charge your phone.
No, I made that up.
That's all made up.
But cadmium does come from batteries.
So I don't want too much of it in my body.
Now let me tell you why, uh, and it has tons of sodium.
Now here's my first encounter with Kraft Lunchables.
Many years ago, I decided that I'd made enough money in the Dilbert world that I wanted to see if I could give something back, like literally solve some big problem.
And I thought I was very interested in nutrition at the time.
And I knew that I was so busy that I wasn't getting good nutrition.
So I created a company to make a nutritious, Convenient food that you could always have something that was perfectly nutritious.
It was just convenient So the form that we chose Was a burrito That would be packed with all the nutrients you needed for the day.
So if you were in a big hurry, and you don't want to spend much money, and you just want to eat something you knew would taste good, because burritos almost always taste good, it'd be like, I imagine it to be like the blue jeans of food.
You know how blue jeans sort of, they work in every situation except formal?
You know, like they're easy to wash and take care of, and they don't cost too much, and they feel good, and they make you look, they basically do everything.
So I thought, well, maybe I can make a food that does that.
Just sort of does everything.
Now, the company didn't work out for other reasons, partly because the formula in the burrito made you fart so hard that it would inflate your socks, as I once wrote.
And that was sort of a negative.
So we couldn't really mask all the minerals in it, because in order to get a good mineral and vitamin count, you had to put all these additives in there.
So you couldn't get anywhere near The taste that you wanted because you had to mask all the minerals.
Now you might say to yourself, why do you have to add anything to food?
Like if your burrito is full of all the things that have the vitamins and minerals, you know, your broccoli and your kale and your beans and whatever, why do you have to add anything?
Well, it's because you've been lied to forever.
But when you were told that if you just have a balanced diet, you'll get your vitamins and minerals.
If you do the math, you'll find out that no matter how much you eat, And no matter how well you eat, you don't come anywhere near.
The food you eat doesn't have vitamins and minerals in anywhere near the minimum requirement that you need.
So we had to supplement.
There was no way around it.
But it didn't work as a supplement.
It just made it too hard.
Anyway, so part of that story is we sold into 7-Eleven.
Imagine being a startup company that gets a contract with 7-Eleven.
Now it's a contract to test it, so they would say we're going to test it in these stores and at the end of the test we'll decide whether it's a permanent product.
So you just have to do well and sell during the test.
Do you know how many units we sold during the test?
Take a guess.
How many total units?
Just a guess.
How many numbers did we sell for the test?
Because it was a number of 7-Elevens.
The answer is zero.
Zero sales.
Do you know why?
It wasn't because people looked at the product and decided not to buy it.
It was because every store that we checked, the product was covered up by another product.
And it was always the same product.
Kraft Lunchables.
Kraft Lunchables were actually placed in front of my product in all the stores we checked.
Did you know that that's a common trick?
Because somebody like Kraft would have people who are boots on the ground.
So they actually visit the stores.
I didn't have boots on the ground because we're a startup.
So it's just when we checked, we found that their boots on the ground did this thing.
Because you don't want to be selling Lunchables, which anybody can look at and say, I'm not so sure that's the healthiest thing I could give my kid.
You can't have that sitting right on the shelf.
Next to something that just has all the vitamins and minerals that your kid needs.
Right?
They can't be next to each other.
So they just moved theirs in front of it.
In all the stores we checked.
Every one.
We sold nothing.
And the test failed and I went out of business.
By the way, same thing happened in some other places.
We sold it to Costco and Safeway.
Made all the sales.
It's just none of the tests worked.
And the test didn't work in other places because they never tested it.
In Costco, we signed up to do a test in a number of stores, shipped them the product, product sat in the back warehouse the whole time, and then the test was over and I said we sold none because it never made it into the store.
So if we had boots on the ground, we could have sent like an army of people to say, Hey, if you move that out to the shelf yet, can we help you move it to the shelf?
And that probably would have worked, but we're, I didn't know that we needed to do that.
So Kraft Lunchables, the reason that your kids are eating lead and cadmium in part is because they covered up One of the products that would have maybe been very fart-filled, but didn't have lead and cadmium in it, as far as I know.
Probably had too much sodium in it.
I will admit that.
Everything has too much sodium in it, I think.
If you believe that sodium is bad for you, I'm not entirely convinced.
All right, there's an Arizona mom who pled guilty to poisoning her Air Force husband with bleach.
So she was putting bleach into his coffee maker and he caught her on video and she's in trouble now.
Do you know why she put bleach in his coffee to try to kill him?
Does anybody know why she used bleach?
It was cheaper than Lunchables.
Does it sound like I'm bitter?
Oh yeah.
Today's my revenge.
Oh, I waited.
Kraft, you fucking Lunchables.
I waited.
Good luck, Lunchables.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Have I mentioned that our food supply is poison?
And that Kraft Lunchables apparently is part of that.
Too bad.
Yeah.
So next time you want to kill somebody, either put bleach in their coffee.
No, don't do that.
Don't ever do that.
Or you could give them Lunchables.
Don't do that.
Don't ever do that.
Not to somebody you love.
Anyway, Ollie London is reporting that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner's daughter came out as trans during her grandfather's funeral this week, which is really the best time to do it.
You know, if there's ever a funeral of a beloved member of your family, The best thing to do is to make it all about you.
You know, Grandpa's dead.
But where it really matters is I'm transitioning.
I'd like to announce that at the funeral.
So maybe timing.
Timing.
Work on the timing.
But it turns out that there's more than that.
Because not only is Jennifer Gardner's daughter coming out as trans, but Ben Affleck's Has a non-binary kid.
And as the red-headed libertarian pointed out on X, the chances of Ben Affleck having, well, between the two of them, they've got a trans kid and a non-binary, are about 1 in 9 million.
I don't know if she made up that number, 1 in 9 million, but it's very unlikely that a couple would combine families and there would be Both a trans and a non-binary, which strongly suggests that there's a social contagion element to it.
Now I ask you this question.
Do you think that either of those kids of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner, do you think that they use TikTok?
Just take a guess.
I don't know the answer, but do you think they use TikTok?
I'm gonna say that would be a safe bet.
Do you think TikTok has the ability to turn off our reproductive urges?
Yes.
Yes, it does.
And in fact, the Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner family.
Oh, I guess that's right, because they were married at one point, so it must be both of their kids.
I was thinking it was a blended family, but I think it's I think it's their two kids that they had together.
I think we've reached the point where we could calculate the reduction in American reproduction based on TikTok alone.
And how you would do it is you would just look at TikTok users versus non TikTok users and try to balance everything else out the same.
And my guess that now this is just a hypnotist guess.
This is not based on any data.
This is just my knowledge of persuasion and how it affects children and how it would be effective if it came to them through their phones and it was repeated over and over.
So it's just my knowledge of the field, not any data whatsoever.
In my opinion, TikTok will reduce the reproductive urge of 20 to 40% of its users.
you Something like 20-40% of TikTok users will be far less likely to reproduce.
Because the things they're learning are that they could be a gender preference or a sex that is very difficult to reproduce.
It's less likely than your standard Um, hetero couple, they might have kids, but they're going to have lower reproduction rates than, you know, the standard traditional Christian family or Muslim family.
So I'd love to see that estimate.
I'd love to see somebody just say, okay, what percentage of TikTok people are, you know, trans and non-binary compared to the public at large.
And then just make an estimate that says, okay, The trans community has, you know, a reproduction rate of 0.1.
The hetero community has something closer to two, you know, two for two, like a one for one replacement.
And then you just project it forward and you could actually find out how many people are being denied life by being in a situation in which it's unlikely they'll ever be born.
If you were to look at the total number of grandkids, That Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner will have collectively, knowing that they have a non-binary and a trans in the family.
Don't you think they'll have fewer grandkids than if all of the kids identified as hetero?
Now this is not any kind of knock on any hetero or trans or non-binary.
If you're new to me, I'm very pro adults doing whatever they need.
It's not up to me.
I'm definitely not the one judging you.
I don't have a judgmental bone in my body.
Do what you need to do.
You're an adult.
The fact that I think it won't work, I don't get a vote.
You didn't get a vote on my COVID shots, and I'm not going to let you debate it.
Like, I'll let you debate what I said about anybody in public, which is nothing.
I said, make up your own decisions.
But you don't get a vote on my personal health decisions, and I don't get a vote on whether you're binary or trans.
It's up to you.
So this is not being judgmental.
I'm just doing the math.
The math suggests that the more trans there are, the fewer reproduction possibilities there are.
So you can actually calculate what TikTok is doing to our population.
Meanwhile, in the Dilbert Reborn comic, which you can see if you're subscribing here on X, or if you want to see more than just the comic, a lot more, on the Locals platform.
But if you were watching that, you'd see that Ashok, the intern, has become non-binary from using TikTok, and things aren't going the way he hoped.
Germany, as you know, was shutting down its nuclear power industry and becoming dependent on Russia because they were making bad decisions about their green future.
They didn't really have a replacement for the things they took offline, except for Russian gas and that put them in a lack of available weak position, as Trump and others pointed out.
So, can you tell me, did Angela Merkel make those decisions to shut down the nukes?
I'm not so good with my Germany history politics.
Was it under Angela Merkel?
Or was it just everybody wanted it?
Okay.
So, it looks like that will be seen as one of the most massive mistakes of all time, in terms of managing a country.
So, female leader, female leader bought into the climate crisis hysteria and destroyed the manufacturing base of her country, built mostly by men, by turning off their electricity because she fell for a hoax, the climate crisis.
So I'm just calling out the facts.
Anyway, but I'm going to give a different spin on this.
You know, many of us believe that the war in Ukraine doesn't have a good justification and that the story about stopping Russia from advancing may not be the whole story.
And it looks more like it's a giant CIA I think we all agree on that.
company play to grab all the resources from Ukraine, keep it out of the hands of Russia, and to destroy Russia's energy business, and maybe even change the leadership in Russia.
Now if you just hear me say that, it sounds like the craziest, most reckless thing you ever heard in your life.
I think we all agree on that.
But I'd like to take you to another frame.
I imagine that in some dark room somewhere, the people who really are looking at the world for the next hundred years, may be saying something like the following, the only way America survives is if we capture Russia's energy business.
.
That might actually be a conversation.
How are we going to pay off our national debt?
Well, it would be helpful if you captured the energy business of the biggest producer, or got them out of the business so our oil could, we could charge more, you know?
So, I wonder if this isn't just a gigantic economic play, and it would be more accurate to see Russia and the United States as two competing mafias, and our mafia is trying to rub out Putin, He would rub us out if he could, but he knows he can't, so he's just playing his game as best he can.
And to me it looks like the United States is just trying to overthrow Russia to take their money in the form of energy.
Now, what would that do in terms of our geopolitical future for Russia?
I'm sorry, for China?
Suppose you say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, the biggest risk is China.
It's not Russia.
To which I say, hmm, but how can China thrive if they don't have energy?
If you denied China or if you had control of Russia's energy, you would have a lot of leverage on China, wouldn't you?
So China would have a lot of leverage on us, but then we would have, you know, it'd be like China grabbed us by the balls.
It says, yeah, we have so much control over your big pharma and your big industries and stuff that we gotcha, you better do what we want.
But if we were to control, hypothetically, Russia's entire energy infrastructure, which looks like the play, we would have them by the balls and it would be at least mutually assured destruction.
Because China can't live probably without Russian energy.
Or at least they wouldn't thrive.
So, part of me thinks that there might be some really dark personalities in our government, in the deepest, deepest spy networks, who are saying, I hate to break it to you, but if you don't conquer Russia, we're all dead.
Because if we don't control their energy, there's no other thing that could be a big enough thing to keep us from dying from our own debt, and China becoming the dominant country in the world.
So, I'm not saying that that's actually a conversation, but I wonder.
I wonder if it is, because shouldn't it be?
Shouldn't there be somebody who's making the 100-year plan and says, you know what?
Energy is the whole play.
If Russia has their own energy, they sell it to China, and we become the third country in that trifecta.
But if we could capture Russia's energy, Russia would have nothing else.
So Russia would be completely out of the game and China would be dependent on our allies.
Hmm.
How convenient for us.
So anyway, I just put that out there.
There's a Congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett, she's a Democrat from Texas, and she's on video, and Wokeness shows us this.
She said, it might not be the best idea to give tax breaks to black citizens as a form of reparation.
It might be better to give them checks, because not all black people pay taxes, so a tax benefit wouldn't help them all.
But a check would.
A check helps everybody.
Now, I got to watch a video Of two people I don't know, casually discussing how much of my money they should take from me.
It's very offensive.
It's very offensive.
Because I'm not even part of the conversation.
Nor am I part of any slavery legacy or anything.
But I'm just watching two people I don't know, casually discussing taking my money.
Because they can.
Or they hope they can.
And let me say this as clearly as I can.
I have no respect whatsoever for anyone who thinks I owe them reparations.
I have no respect for you.
None.
Not only that, I don't have any respect for anybody who supports DEI.
Now I think that's important to say.
Because we live in a world in which being respected is actually an asset.
So, if you keep hammering on reparations, in all likelihood you won't get any cash, but you'll be giving away the asset of any kind of respect.
I cannot respect you if you're asking me for reparations.
Blah, blah, blah, you're a good argument.
Don't care.
Blah, blah, blah, racism.
True.
Don't care.
I mean, it's not that I don't care.
It's just, it's not relevant to taking my money.
If I were the story, that's different.
But if I'm not part of the story, I don't care about your racism from other people.
That doesn't mean I owe you money.
I don't respect you.
I have no respect for anybody who's pro-DEI.
Now you have to, you should put that to the extent that I represent any other people with that view.
And by the way, show me in the comments.
Would you agree that you don't respect anybody who's even trying to get reparations or trying to make DEI a thing?
Am I alone there?
Or is it you would also not respect anybody in that domain?
Shut up, racist!
All right.
Well, I think it's important for everybody in any kind of a big conversation to know what the costs and benefits of their actions are.
And one of the costs of DEI and one of the costs of even asking for reparations is a complete loss of respect.
Now, if it's still worth it, at least you are fully informed now.
And, and by the way, if the situation were reversed and I thought I could get some free money, I might try.
And if you said, I don't respect you for that, I would say, well, I kind of understand that.
You know, this is one of those situations where you can see why everybody's acting the way they can.
Because, you know, free money is free money.
Who doesn't want free money?
Did you see the video of the ex-FBI CIA intel guy who talked casually on some undercover video that the agency went after Alex Jones just to kneecap him and take all his money?
To basically shut him up and discourage people from doing stuff like him.
Now it's one person.
So could be somebody just bragging to somebody on video, but it looked pretty reliable and they even have a word for it.
It's called nudging.
So in the case of Alex Jones, uh, the, the thing that took his money was a civil suit by the parents of the San Diego people.
And the FBI, in that case, according to this one guy, CIA officer, former FBI guy, named... What's his name?
He's Gavin Oblenus.
Yeah.
And he says they called it nudging.
So he suggests that what happened was the FBI didn't tell people to sue Alex Jones.
They simply said, you know what?
You'd probably have a good case.
I don't know.
A person like you, in this situation, seems like you could make a lot of money if you sued him.
I mean, it's not for me to tell you to do it.
I'm not suggesting you do, but I'm just educating you that you've got a good-looking case here, and I've got the phone number of a lawyer who could take care of this for you, but I mean, I'm not suggesting it.
It's just information.
If you wanted to talk to somebody who could give you more information, I could give you the name of a lawyer who sues people for this sort of thing.
Somebody really good.
That's a nudge.
So they don't actually force anybody to do anything.
They just make it likely.
Now, let's look at my situation.
The Washington Post led my cancellation.
The Washington Post is known to be a CIA vehicle.
That's widely understood.
And we know that the CIA nudges private enterprise to financially destroy people who were pro-Trump.
I'm quite notably pro-Trump, or have been in the past.
And suddenly, a private entity very closely associated with the CIA leads my cancellation, which made it automatic for everybody else.
Once the Washington Post, you know, made it a thing, it became a thing everywhere.
Do you think I got nudged?
Or do you think that was completely organic?
That 100% of the newspapers and publishers all canceled me at the same time?
Over a weekend?
I would say the odds of that being organic are pretty small.
And look at the other people from Tucker, you name it.
I mean, you could do the same six names that I could.
They all were financially destroyed, and it all looked like private industry did it, didn't it?
It didn't look like the government did anything.
Didn't look like the CIA did anything.
Didn't look like the FBI was involved in any way.
But a whole bunch of nudging is my guess.
So, I don't have hard proof that the Washington Post is a disreputable piece of shit, but they obviously are.
Whether they did this nudge on me or not, they're still a piece of shit.
I mean, that's pretty obvious.
They still hire Phil Bump, that's all you need to know.
All right, Assemblyman Keith Sanchez in California wanted to strip fentanyl dealers who were here in the country illegally from their protection in sanctuary cities.
So in other words, if you were a migrant and you sold some fentanyl and you got caught, you would be shipped back even if you were in a sanctuary city.
So this is a Californian who is trying to carve out this exception.
And do you think it passed?
Seems like a pretty obvious one, right?
I mean, of course.
I mean, obviously you're going to send back the Fentanyl dealers, right?
No, it didn't pass.
It didn't pass.
Am I all upset about it because one of my biggest issues ever is Fentanyl?
I hate to say it, but I'm giving up on the Fentanyl and TikTok arguments.
And the reason is they're both coming from inside the house.
When I thought it was a problem with Mexico or China, or both, I kept saying, hey, Congress, hey, President, hey, CIA, go after them.
Why are you not shutting them down?
Why are you not doing more?
But once you realize that in all likelihood, I mean, by far all likelihood, both the fentanyl business and the open borders and even the existence of TikTok, that's coming from Americans.
If Americans aren't shutting it down, it's hard for me to blame Mexico and China.
Right?
So Mexico and China are accomplices, but the main problem is American.
There's somebody in America who wants that border open.
CIA, probably.
There's somebody in America who wants the fentanyl business to keep on going.
Probably the CIA.
Because they work with the cartels and they need them for other stuff, so they let them earn.
50,000 Americans a year.
Could be worse.
We'll let you earn.
That's what it looks like.
So I don't know how to argue against our own CIA, because they're just going to say, we're not involved in that.
That's the end of the trail.
What are you talking about?
That's crazy.
We're going to nudge somebody to take more of your money away if you keep this up.
So there's no place to go with it.
I was super mad when I thought we just weren't acting competently or aggressively enough against the cartels.
But now that I can see the cartels are our guys, I don't know what to do with that.
Because there's no form of persuasion that's going to make any difference.
Because everybody will just say it's not happening.
And then that's it.
Oh, it's not happening.
Nope.
And if it were, it would be secret.
We couldn't tell you about it.
And if it were and it were secret, there's some bigger purpose.
So, you know, you don't understand.
Maybe there is.
There might actually be a bigger purpose and I don't understand.
Anyway, that's what's going on.
Vivek has a plan for fixing elections.
He says, here's his plan.
Here's how we move beyond fights over stolen elections and we unite our country.
Number one, make election day a national holiday.
Number two, single day voting.
Number three, paper ballots.
Number four, government issued voter ID to match the voter file.
And then number five, English as the sole language that appears in a ballot.
I wouldn't mind Spanish on a ballot.
I don't think that's the big one, but you do make accommodations if there are a tremendous amount of legal citizens who have a language issue.
I don't think that's the biggest deal to add Spanish.
I wouldn't add anything else, but Spanish is a special case.
Anyway, so whether you agree with this one or not, would you all agree that this would be a simple, practical, huge improvement Compared to the current system.
Would everybody agree?
The Vivek has nailed this completely.
He's nailed it completely.
This would actually make it impossible to argue about it because it's just a good system.
And we've seen it work in other countries.
We don't have to wonder if it works.
We can observe it.
Oh, this works fine in these other countries.
So why won't this happen?
This will get no traction and will never be close to being implemented.
Do you know why?
I can only think of one reason that our system is designed for cheating.
There's no other reason.
It's not because of money.
It's not because we disagree this would work.
It's not because of efficiency.
It's not because of timing.
It's not because of credibility.
There actually is no reason to do it the way we do it unless the whole purpose is cheating.
It's designed to be impossible to audit.
It's designed to be easier to cheat, the mail-in ballots.
So, it's exactly what it looks like.
And, by the way, I'm not speculating about this.
So, the other things I said, you know, like, well, it seems like the CIA is behind it.
That's speculation, based on, you know, the best information I have.
But when I look at the election, I'm not speculating.
I can tell you with certainty that if you design elections this way, And then you let it continue despite all the public outcry about this not being good enough.
You've designed it for cheating.
There's no second argument.
It is designed for cheating, and we need to stop saying there's any other reason.
It's not because Democrats disagree.
It's not because we think there's other factors in play.
No, there's only literally one reason.
And here's the interesting thing.
Nobody even argues that there's a better reason other than the fake one that is suppressing voters.
The suppressing voters thing, nobody thinks that's true.
Do they?
Have you ever met anybody who thought their vote was suppressed?
Ever?
Ever.
Have you ever met one person Who thought their own vote was in some way suppressed.
I've never even heard of it.
It's so not a thing.
Or that Black people can't get IDs.
I mean, Black people mock that.
As they should.
As they should.
Super racist.
On the Democrats' part.
So no, let's stop pretending that the elections are designed to be efficient or make it all fair for everybody.
It's not.
It's very clearly not designed for that.
So no, none of those things will ever happen.
Trump wants to kill the FISA.
Is it the FISA being re-upped?
Is that what it is?
So FISA where you can spy on an American if that American had contact with a foreigner.
So since they're allowed to spy on the foreigner, but it would be helpful to see both sides of the conversation, that gives them a backdoor to spy on Americans.
They just have to get that American to talk to one person overseas.
Have I talked to one person in another country?
Yes, I have.
In my last several years, have I ever exchanged a message with somebody in another country who had any political, you know, sort of abilities?
Yes.
Yes, I have.
Now, was I doing anything nefarious?
No.
No, just ordinary conversations and politics and stuff.
The same thing I do with anybody.
But that would give the government the full ability to monitor everything I do.
I think, right?
If I had any conversation with anybody that they say, ooh, this Australian you talked to, I don't know, even though they're an ally, you did talk to an Australian and we've got some questions.
That's exactly what they can do.
They could get into all of my business if an Australian sends me a message on WhatsApp.
I think that's true.
Am I wrong about that?
That all it would take is one Australian to send me a message on WhatsApp, and they can get all of my communications.
That's all it would take.
How hard would it be for them to talk an Australian into sending me a message?
Pretty easy.
Pretty easy.
That'd be the easiest nudge of all time.
So, Trump's against it.
MTG.
Seems to be against it, but the leader, Johnson, apparently wants to keep it.
So, I have questions about Speaker Johnson, and I'd like to renew my hypothesis that our leaders start out with good intentions, but when they reach the highest levels, such as a Speaker of the House or President, I believe somebody pulls them aside.
I think in the real world, somebody pulls them aside and says, look, here's all the stuff the public doesn't know and you don't know either.
Here's why we do these things.
And here's why you can't change it.
And then they go, Oh God, I can't explain this.
So they say, well, good luck.
So you're gonna have to lie because you can't tell them the truth.
The way the real world works is really naughty and dirty and terrible.
And, but it's not going to change.
It's going to stay naughty and dirty and terrible and you're going to have to lie to the public and tell them it's some other reason.
It's the only way we can operate.
It's the only way we've ever operated.
We don't tell people these things until they reach your job.
But it's now your job, Speaker of the House, to prevent the public from knowing what's going on for their own good.
And then they make a good case for it.
Maybe there's some blackmail.
Maybe there's some bribery.
And then they just own anybody they want.
They just own any politician they want.
Now, the bad guys don't have to own every politician.
If you said to me, Scott, do you think Thomas Massie is, you know, owned by the intelligence people?
No, I don't think so.
Because they don't need to.
All they have to do is own the Speaker.
Because the Speaker will determine what they can even vote on.
And he'll just not allow the Thomas Massies to vote on things that would be a good idea.
If there's some other reason.
So that's all as dirty as it looks, probably.
Here's another of the know the players.
It's not enough to know the news, and hear the news, and know the names, and know the people involved.
You have to know about the players' backgrounds to understand the story.
So let's say I told you this story, that there's a bunch of important ex-government people who are, let's see what they do.
They're arguing that the January 6th charges should be not thrown out and that the president should be liable for what he did in office on January 6th because if you gave him full immunity, you know, he could do terrible things in office because you don't want presidents to have full immunity.
Now, suppose I told you it was a bunch of retired, you know, military people.
What would you say to that?
You'd say, oh, Retired generals and military people?
Pretty credible.
Pretty credible.
Suppose I told you that one of the leading people in this effort is a fellow named, let's see, what's his name?
Michael Hayden.
Michael Hayden.
How many of you recognize that name?
If you don't know the players, the news doesn't make sense.
He is a former CIA director.
Former CIA.
Also, one of the biggest anti-Trumpers, Russia collusion guys ever.
He has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's not anything but a propagandist, a brainwasher, professional liar, who used to be the head of the CIA.
Does that scare you?
Because if you told me it was just some generals got together and they were worried about this technical change to a law, you know, about presidential immunity, and they said, this could be a problem.
I'd say, well, you know, we should listen to that.
But if one of the people who's probably the main principle is the past CIA director, Michael Hayden.
You should think that that's a completely illegitimate process, and that it's part of a propaganda effort, and that none of it's legitimate.
You just have to know the players.
Or to put it another way, Michael Hayden, I would best describe him as the poor man's Adam Schiff.
Did I bring it home?
Is there anything else I need to say?
He's the poor man's Adam Schiff.
That's all you need to know.
Same guy, just one's a low rent version.
Speaking of low rent, do you remember Avenatti?
He's in jail for all of his many abuses in the Stormy Daniels situation and others.
And from jail, he called into MSNBC to talk to Ari Melber.
And I guess it didn't go the way they expected because Avenatti said he expects Trump to be Convicted, but there are all kinds of problems with the case.
So basically, Avenatti said that Trump will be illegitimately prosecuted.
Now, that's not exactly what MSNBC wants to hear, is it?
They'd like to hear that he's going to be prosecuted and it's all legitimate.
Nope.
Even Avenatti, even Avenatti, no friend of the president, says, yeah, he'll probably be convicted, but the case is bullshit.
Now, Ari had to immediately have on a guest who had big saucer eyes, you know, the saucer-eyed liars, wide-eyed.
Oh, oh, Avenatti doesn't know anything about this case!
Which he, you know, he doesn't know enough, probably.
So I don't think the Avenatti's opinion should carry any weight.
It was just hilarious to watch MSNBC try to tap dance their way into the fact that somebody who doesn't like Trump, knows Stormy Daniels, knows the law, says, nah, it's bullshit.
He's going to be convicted unfairly and it's a bad case.
So.
Anyway, I saw that Jack Posobiec is all over this, and he said that Avenatti just called into Ari Melber on MSNBC from prison and told him the Trump case next week from Stormy Daniels is a disaster, stale, and filled with problems.
And then he said that Ari looked like he was going to cry.
All right, I'm going to give a little defense to Ari Melber.
He had me on his show.
Back when people still invited me on shows.
And I have to say, he gave me full respect.
Let me talk.
And it was not an opinion that was super comfortable for MSNBC.
And he didn't he didn't dump on me or treat me unfairly.
And I don't think he's the same.
As the other people on MSNBC.
Just like I sometimes call out somebody on CNN who's like a good egg.
He's their best egg.
I'll just put it that way.
I'm not sure I would go full good egg because he's on MSNBC, but he's their best egg.
If you're going to pick an egg, he's their better egg.
All right, the Gaza situation has devolved into a war of definitions of words, and we all want to use the word genocide the way we want it to work.
So, I want this to be true, so I'm going to say this word is defined this way, and somebody else will say, no, that's no genocide, it's defined another way.
You're defining it all wrong.
But here's the thing.
If you're arguing over the definition of whether it is or is not genocide, you're kind of wasting everybody's time.
Because we all see the same stuff.
We all know that it's a war.
We all know that civilians are being killed.
We all know that Israel would prefer not killing a bunch of civilians if they could just take out all the Hamas people.
I'm sure they would.
So it is what it is.
And we also know that there will be war crimes.
Guaranteed.
Guaranteed war crimes.
Both sides, all the time, it's war.
There's no such thing as, you know, a major war action like this with no war crimes.
I mean, you can't really expect that.
So, if you're going to have war, you're going to have war crimes, and sure enough, there are.
So, I'm not going to give you my opinion whether it's a genocide or not a genocide.
I'll just say that we all know what it is.
We don't need to use one special word.
Why don't we just say it's the thing happening in Gaza that we all witness?
We all know it's horrific on a level that is sort of unusual.
Well, maybe it's too usual.
Yeah, so don't argue about the word.
It's not about the word.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says the U.S.
doesn't, quote, doesn't have any evidence of Israel committing genocide in Gaza.
But again, that's just about your definition of the word.
So, yeah, if they believe that Israel's trying their hardest to not do civilian casualties...
They could argue it's not a genocide, but it is what it is.
It doesn't make it good or bad.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the conclusion of my prepared comments.
Oh, I went way too long.
Sorry about that.
And I'm going to say bye to everybody except the locals people, because they get a little extra.
