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, Conservative Girls, Comparing American States, American Flag Respect, Stormy Daniels Letter, President Trump, DOJ, DEI Dept. of State, 2018 Wuhan Lab Coronavirus, Student Loan Forgiveness, American Open Border, President Biden, Federal Reserve Politics, FDA Drug Approval, FISA Extension, Warrantless Spying, Rep. Mike Turner, SCIF Scam, Vivek Ramaswamy, Climate Change, President Trump, Latino Immigration Poll, IDF Targeting, 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 of coffee with Scott Adams up to levels that nobody's ever even understood, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, gels, a sign, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind to fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen now.
Go.
Oh, that's so, so good.
Well, I've got a theme for today.
I'm going to do a little State of the Union today, but I'm going to take it down to a more granular level.
Granular level.
Let's see if I can make this work.
It's working!
Everything's working!
Oh, stop it!
There we go, that's better.
Well, The Federalist has an article saying that girls are way more conservative than they admit.
And they have closeted conservative beliefs.
Do you think that's true?
That girls are more conservative than they admit.
Gave some examples.
That even though 80% don't identify as conservative, 79% of women think that a stay-at-home mom is equal in success to a woman in a professional field.
74% like school choice.
71% oppose transgender surgeries, 68% plan to be married and have at least one child, and don't like men competing in women's sports, as they say.
But here's my theory.
I don't think any of those are conservative.
None of those are conservative.
Those are just sort of ordinary people issues, aren't they?
I mean, to me, it's just a preference whether you want to stay home or not.
It doesn't really seem like it's some kind of conservative, liberal thing.
But you know what is definitely conservative or liberal is abortion, and I didn't see it mentioned.
Here's what I think.
I think that being a liberal just means being in favor of abortion.
Nothing else.
I think all the other stuff is common sense stuff that we pretend is some kind of political thing.
I don't think the trans transitioning children, there's no way you can tell me that's a Democrat or Republican thing.
That is purely an insanity versus a reasonable mind thing.
Do you disagree?
How in the world is that a political thing?
It's not.
But abortion is.
So to me, the entire conversation of left versus right is just sort of abortion.
There's not really anything else.
And that would also explain why boys are less likely to conform and say that they're liberals or conform to liberal thought.
Because number one, they don't need to get abortions.
So the number one reason to be a liberal doesn't apply.
You know, unless they want to be allies and stuff.
But it wouldn't apply as directly as it would for a woman.
But here's my other hypothesis.
I believe that boys are rewarded for rebelling and girls are rewarded for conforming.
So what I mean by that is the pure effect.
If you're a girl, you don't want to be mocked for having a different opinion.
If you're a boy, You don't want to be mocked for being a joiner.
In other words, I think there's a premium for being rebellious if you're male.
That other men recognize rebellion as a symbol of power and agency and freedom.
And women might be a little more threatened by it.
And I think there's probably, you know, perfectly good biological evolutionary reasons for all of that.
So, I don't know if it's conservative beliefs that are closeted by the young women, or if the only thing that really matters is abortion.
I think that's it.
All right, let's talk about all of our different government entities and see how they're doing.
I'd like to start with a few states, if I may.
We'll start with California, see how that's doing.
Let's see, according to Just the News, California is looking at a reparation bill on licensing so there are a number of professions you need a license from manicurist to doctor you need a license and the idea is that the licensing requirements are racist because it's preventing black people from getting these jobs so
I don't know if you've noticed, but my state is totally racist against me.
You're aware that California is the most racist state now, right?
Meaning that DEI is everything and reparations and equity are the thing.
But I still have good weather.
I don't have a lot of electricity in the state.
I'm not so sure the forest fires won't kill me.
The crime is encroaching on my neighborhood, but at least I can go outside and not die.
I gotta use the right pronouns or I'll go to jail, I think, and being white is almost criminal in my state.
But again, the weather?
Extraordinary.
Let's compare that to Idaho.
In Idaho, the state, according to the Hill, The Idaho schools will be unable to require staff and students to use a transgender student's name and pronouns.
So you can't force the school or any of the students to use somebody's preferred pronouns in Idaho.
So let's compare California to Idaho.
If I go to Idaho, I can use any pronouns I want, but just in schools.
I don't know about the rest of the state, but In schools, I use any pronoun I want.
But, if I go outdoors in the winter, I could die.
Because of, you know, the weather.
So, good pronouns, but I will die if I go outside, versus... Alright, here's my solution.
California is a much better deal if you can avoid contact with all the other people.
So, the only thing wrong with California is the other people.
The weather, spectacular.
So if I go to Idaho, I can, I can at least associate with humans.
But if I go outdoors, I could die if I don't bring a jacket, depending on the season.
In California, I won't die if I go outdoors, but boy, you don't want to run into people.
Let's look at Seattle.
There's a Seattle dance squad that had the American flags on their outfits.
And they were told the audience members felt triggered and unsafe by the American flag.
Ladies and gentlemen, there was a time when I would have seen this story completely differently.
And I would have said to myself, my God, those Kaepernick-loving, provocative, left-leaning people, how are they rejecting my country?
But today, I'm going to join them in saying that the flag is No longer a symbol that I respect.
I'm going to say it right.
I don't, I don't respect the flag.
As of really today, I just decided when I was looking at that story, you know what?
I'm going to read you the rest of the stories about our fucked up country.
I'm going to tell you everything from the DOJ to the state department, to every fucking government entity is corrupt and racist.
And I don't support any of that.
I don't support them transferring my money to Ukraine or any other place.
I am absolutely not in favor of what my country is doing to me or its other citizens.
So, let me say unequivocally, I'm on your side, if you're American, and, you know, I don't dislike you if you're Canadian, but let me tell you where my allegiance is.
My allegiance is to the American people and not to the flag.
The flag has lost its ability to attract my respect.
So I've lost my respect for the American flag, because it no longer symbolizes something that, in total, I can support.
So I don't support the leaders, but I absolutely support the people.
So let me be as clear as possible.
I'm on your side.
People.
Human beings.
And I'm not on the side of a stupid flag, or the brainwashing, or the propaganda, or the lies, or the bullshit, or the racism that's coming behind the color of that flag.
So you might not like it, because I know it's painful to hear if you spend your whole life saluting the flag.
I'm not even sure I could salute it at this point.
You remember I agreed with Colin Kaepernick when I said, you know what?
If you've got your issue, I don't like it.
It's offensive if you don't stand for the flag and all that.
And I've really meant that.
But when I see how racist my country is against me, well, suddenly Colin's approach looks a little bit more reasonable, doesn't it?
A little bit more reasonable.
Let's talk about what else is wrong.
How about the Department of Justice?
Well, they're completely crooked, it appears, if you look at the Trump lawfare stuff.
So Trump's run out of options trying to delay the Stormy Daniels hush money payment thing, but do you think there's any update on that?
Yes, there is!
Trump just posted a letter that apparently Stormy Daniels wrote and signed in 2018, and it said the following.
Now, I think it's real.
You know, it's new news, so we'll wait to see if somebody says it's fake.
Apparently on January 2018th, Stormy Daniels wrote, to whom it may concern, over the past few weeks I've been asked countless times to comment on reports of an alleged sexual relationship I had with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago.
The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017, and now again in 2018.
I am not denying this affair because I was paid, quote, hush money, as has been reported in overseas-owned tabloids.
I'm denying this affair because it never happened.
It is not new?
Now, I assume that the defense is that she wrote it under duress, or she wrote it because of the hush money or something?
Is that what the, or the, that's what the prosecution will say?
But here's my question.
Whether or not the intention behind this letter was honesty or actually to earn the hush money, I feel like this should make this whole thing go away if we had anything like a justice system.
The mere existence of this letter should make everybody involved say, you know what, I don't know if he did it or didn't do it, but we can't go forward when this letter exists.
This is a pretty obvious Case of corruption.
Can you imagine that if this were anyone else but Trump, and this letter existed, do you think this would be a case?
There's no way anybody would go forward with this case when you could show that letter to the jury.
What would it take to convince you and the jury to convict this guy?
If you knew that the so-called victim had said unequivocally and as clearly as you can and signed it, that it didn't happen.
And there's no physical evidence it happened, is there?
Like, nobody has a video, nobody has a blue dress.
It's just two people's word.
And, well, there you go.
So I'd say the Department of Justice, completely corrupt.
Let's check in with the State Department.
The State Department has a DEI chief who says, quote, for promotion at the Department of State, you must be able to document what you're doing to support diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
And that's how you'll be judged for promotion.
Okay, so the State Department apparently is an overtly racist organization.
Who is not going to be too happy about promoting white people, based on all evidence.
And so I have some evidence, I have some advice.
I have some advice for the white men who are still working at the State Department.
Can you guess what my advice is?
So you're working, you're a white man at the State Department, and you've been told, publicly, so nobody's hiding it, that it's all about the diversity, equity, inclusion, And you're not even going to get promoted unless you've done a good job on that.
So if you're a white man working in the State Department, what's your best strategy?
Get the fuck out of there.
You should leave as soon as possible.
They can't tell you any more directly.
They can't tell you any more directly than that.
Get the fuck out of there.
Jesus Christ.
What is the lag time between me being canceled and me being right about every fucking thing?
One year.
All right, let's check in with the other federal agencies.
Let's see, Rand Paul says that 15 federal agencies knew in 2018 that the Wuhan lab was trying to create COVID-19.
What?
And not one person came forward and... What?
15 federal agencies knew in 2018, 2018, that the Wuhan lab was trying to create COVID-19 and not one person came forward and told the American people the truth.
So that's 15 federal agencies that are absolute fucking corrupt garbage filled with bullshit cowards.
So let me ask you a question.
Do you think you can know that there's no conspiracy because nobody came forward and no whistleblowers?
I actually used to think that was the thing.
And boy, am I embarrassed.
I used to actually argue that if thousands of people were involved, somebody would speak up.
So you couldn't possibly have, you know, any kind of a, you know, you couldn't possibly have any kind of a secret that thousands of people would keep secret.
Turns out you can do it quite easily and quite routinely, and it's one of the most common things happening in the world.
Do you remember when I tell my story in the 80s and 90s of being denied promotion for being a white man?
And when I tell it to black guys, they say, that never happened.
Do you know why I didn't tell you?
Do you know why 80 million people didn't tell you?
80 million people kept the secret, basically.
I mean, that's not completely true.
But around 80 million people thought it would be better to just shut the fuck up and not talk about it because you're getting more trouble.
It's easier just to change jobs or, you know, start a company yourself and escape the thing.
You know, you're not going to fight every fight, so it's just easier to solve your own problem and let everybody else work it out.
So yes, 15 federal agencies, the State Department and the Department of Justice, all fucking corrupt garbage pieces of shit.
And you're going to ask me to salute that?
You're going to ask me to stand for that?
Like stand up, cover my heart, and pray to that flag?
Not a chance.
Not a fucking chance.
I'm never standing up for the flag again.
All right.
Well, I mean, if things got fixed, then we Meanwhile, Joe Biden is looking to do anything he can to game the system to give away my money to student loan people.
And he's trying everything.
I mean, he's working hard on this.
He's looking for every possible bureaucratic, legal way that he can take my money and give it to people who made bad decisions.
But yet, He finds that he can't figure out any way to close the border.
If only, if only there was some way to close the border.
Oh, he just doesn't have the power.
Well, maybe it's because you're putting all your fucking time and giving away my money to not only the people who you let in through the fucking border you couldn't figure out how to close, Which, literally, 360 million people know how to do.
Is there anybody here who doesn't know how to do that?
Do you think there's anybody here, if you were president, you think you couldn't close the border?
Really?
Is there anybody who thinks they couldn't do it?
I mean, personally, you could do it.
I could do it.
You could do it.
Every one of us could close the fucking border tomorrow.
But Joe Biden can't do it.
But I'll tell you what he can do.
He can dig so deeply in my pockets that he can find some money that I still got to give to some people who did some things that should have been their own problem.
So the federal government is led by a brain-dead piece of shit thief who's clearly incompetent.
But at least the Fed is pretty good.
At least the Federal Reserve is... Wait, is there a story today about the Fed?
Oh yes, James O'Keefe.
He had to send somebody else this time.
I guess it was a hetero guy who got a date with one of his female confederates.
And this guy who works at the Fed, he said, among other things, that Trump is a crazy person and conservatives are dumb.
He said that the Reserve Board, where Powell is at, has promoted ESG issues like climate change, and he wants to be remembered in history as a savior, and that he's putting a big push on DEI and racial equity and wealth inequality.
Is that exactly what we asked the Fed to do?
I don't remember that being part of their job.
I feel like this is a complete corruption and the Fed is finding a way to be racist and trying really hard.
Trying really, really hard to be racist and figure out how to take my money and give it to other people.
So the Fed is corrupt and garbage and bullshit.
But let's see how they're doing.
So I saw a post by Jesse Cohen who said, you know, inflation is going up.
The Fed has been trying to keep interest rates high to keep the economy from heating up and raising inflation.
But it's not working.
So inflation is still going up.
Looks like the Fed won't be cutting their rates anytime soon because what they've done so far hasn't worked.
Well, at least the FDA is good.
At least we can trust the FDA, am I right?
I wonder if there are any stories about the FDA today.
Well, NBC News has a story that says the FDA is accelerating their approval program.
So they've got a program so they can speed access to promising drugs.
Now that sounds good.
You know, they've got some promising drugs, and if it isn't too dangerous looking, they'll speed the approval of them.
That sounds good, doesn't it?
What, you don't want that?
In the comments, you're acting like speeding your drug approval is some kind of bad thing or something.
What's wrong with you?
You don't like speedy drug approvals like the vaccines?
They were so speedy.
Made you feel good, didn't it?
Well, it turns out that a new study finds that many cancer drugs approved under that program, you know, the speedy one, remain unproven after five years.
So apparently they approved a whole bunch of cancer drugs that don't do anything.
Or at least it hasn't been proven they do anything.
Surprise!
Well, let's talk about the Pfizer extension bill.
So the thing I learned today is that the Pfizer bill was either killed or totally not killed.
So it's sort of a Schrodinger's cat Pfizer situation.
It's either killed or totally not killed.
And I read the news today, so I know it's one of those, but I don't know which one.
So I'm going to try to explain to you what is a confusing topic, but I'm going to summarize it in a way that really only I can.
I don't like to brag.
I don't like to brag, but I'm really good at summarizing.
And it's really complicated.
So if you stick with me, like watch how I just take all of that complication and just Put it into one easily understood concept.
You ready?
All right.
So FISA, of course, you know, is that thing where the government can spy on foreigners, like ISIS terrorists.
But if you were an American and you placed a phone call to any of these foreign bad people, Then the government would be able to check you out too, and all of your communications, because that would make you connected to the bad people.
Does that make sense?
Makes total sense, right?
What could go wrong?
Oh, what could go wrong is it could be misused just to spy on people for political reasons, exactly as it was with Trump and Tucker Carlson and probably me.
Yeah, probably me.
You don't think they're into all of my communications already?
Of course, because I've shared messages with people from other countries who, in my own opinion, I don't know too much about.
You know, just social media back and forth on topics and stuff.
But would that be enough for them to check out everything about me if they didn't like one of the people that I messaged?
I think so.
I think they could make any excuse to go after anybody for anything if they've talked to anybody from another country.
So we don't really trust this thing.
So now that you've heard what it is and that it exists, you're probably saying to yourself, huh, I'd like to have less of that.
Well, some say that this thing that they were going to vote on was going to tighten that up so that the government couldn't do what I just said, which is bend the rules to just illegally spy on Americans.
But let me, let me read this to you exactly what's going on.
So as The Hill explained, there are 19 Republicans who broke with their party and voted against advancing a procedural move to begin the debate on a bill that authorizes the nation's warrantless surveillance powers.
All right, was that a little confusing?
Because there was a lot in that sentence.
So I'm going to break it down.
Let me read it again, and then I'll break it down.
So The Hill says there are 19 Republicans who broke with their party, so that's opposite the party, and voted against So opposite of the party, but opposite the bill and against advancing a procedural move to begin debate on the bill to reauthorize the warrant list, which is don't need a warrant, the opposite of warrant of surveillance powers.
So really the vote was against advancing procedural move to begin a debate About reauthorizing, not using a warrant.
Okay, I don't know what's going on.
But something about FISA.
Tucker's not too happy, Tucker Carlson.
He says that Republican Mike Turner, who's in the Intelligence Committee, lied about everything about what FISA is.
Now, I listened to the video clip, and I would say, yes, that is an accurate characterization.
It looks like some Republican lied about everything that that bill does.
Why would they do that?
I mean, it's an opinion, but it looked like all lies to me.
And I guess Mike Turner was acting like the only way that FISA would backfire is if you happen to be talking to ISIS, But they should be talking to you if you had a phone call with ISIS.
Well, I don't think it's all about that.
I don't think it's just if you had a phone call with ISIS.
Who believes that?
And then there's questions about why Mike Johnson's for it and for Ukrainian funding too.
And Tucker says there's this trick that the intelligence people use Which is they take you to the skiff and they show you secret stuff that you're not allowed to talk about, but you also don't know if it's real.
Now, remember I told you that in my mind, when you get into power, whether you're the president or you become the speaker, that somebody from the intelligence groups talks to you for the first time and says, all right, now that you're in power, We're going to tell you the things that nobody else knows.
And you can't tell anybody either.
So come into this SCIF, which is this secure room, where you can't take a copy of anything, you can't bring your phone, but you can look at a document and then walk away from it.
But you can never talk about it.
And Tucker says, that's how they control you.
Because you don't know if that's real or not.
So if they show you a document that says, if we don't fund Ukraine, We will be nuked and here's the proof.
Here's the secret message from, I'm just making this up by the way, here's a secret message from Putin saying he's going to nuke us the day something.
And then you're like, oh my God, I'm the only person who knows, except the intelligence people.
And I can't tell people, I can't tell the public, I can't even tell my colleagues.
So I guess it's up to me, Mike Johnson, To save the world and be a martyr because the world will never know what I know.
And they'll never know I saved them.
I saved the whole world.
But man, I'm glad those intelligence people got to me.
But if you don't know if the intelligence is real, it simply gives the intelligence people a way to control everything important.
You know, that's geopolitical or big.
Now, I don't know if that's the case, that that's really happening in the real world.
I will tell you that if I were in the intelligence community, I'd probably do that, if I wanted to control things.
So, I can't say it's not happening.
Anyway, there's some kind of FISA thing that might reappear as a, quote, clean bill.
But I'm glad that 19 Republicans pushed back.
So that's the only good thing happening today.
Vivek did a really interesting bit of persuasion in which he was talking about climate change and whether 400 years from now, or a thousand years from now, we would look back and laugh that we thought the world would fall apart if the temperature went up one degree.
Now I said to myself, I need to look into that a little bit.
Because the persuasion part was excellent.
This is a good persuasion lesson.
So Vivek is taking something we're familiar with, which is that we laugh at the thought that the Sun was going around the Earth.
In modern times, we would laugh about that.
But back then, it seemed like a fact.
So he says, could the same thing be happening with climate change?
When you're in the moment, it looks real and existential threat, but in a thousand years, are we just going to laugh at it?
Say, why did we ever think that we're going to die because the temperature went up a little?
Well, so I asked myself, how do we know the temperature stuff is accurate?
Because when you're talking about one degree, doesn't that feel like that would be less than we could actually accurately measure?
Does your common sense tell you That one degree over decades by 2050, I think, is the one degree.
If it goes up one degree by 2050, do you think we could ever measure that to within one degree and really know that it went up or why?
So I thought I'd go to Google and find out.
Is it really just one degree?
It's not exactly that.
So there's a little bit of hyperbole in there.
But so the projection is that we go up 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050.
So that's the official prediction.
And that we might go up from anywhere from 4 to 7 degrees by 2100.
So I would say it's pretty important that we can measure accurately.
So I went to Google and I asked the question, are our measurements of temperature accurate?
Now, Google, as you know, is the keeper of the Republic, so it's definitely going to tell me that it's accurate, right?
Don't you think?
I mean, if you go to Google, it's going to be nothing but non-stop confirming things about climate change.
And so I went to ask about the NOAA, N-O-A-A, that's NASA, blah, blah, blah, Oceanic Group, so they're the official keepers of the temperature data.
And here's what Google says in its highlighted answer.
You know, it likes to highlight and summarize some answers.
So that means that's sort of official Google answer.
So here, how accurate is NOAA's temperature data?
According to Google, it says, quote, NOAA uses data of known quality, or from sources acceptable to the relevant scientific and technical communities, in order to ensure that synthesized products are valid, credible, and useful.
Wait a minute.
Did I read that right?
This is an exact quote off of Google.
They use data of known quality.
Well, that's an interesting choice of words.
Known quality.
Why wouldn't they say highly accurate?
Why wouldn't they say demonstrated to be super accurate data?
But instead they use the word known quality.
What if the known quality is less than perfect?
Oh, we'll get to synthesize.
Oh, oh, we'll get there.
Don't worry.
I'm building up to it.
We'll get to synthesized.
So they won't say it's high quality.
They'll say it's known quality.
Now, if you've ever lived in the real world for more than five minutes, and you ask a question, are you sure that you have accurate data?
And somebody responds by saying, our data is of a known quality.
That's telling you that they don't know how accurate it is.
Is there any other way to interpret that?
We know the quality, but why don't they say we know the quality is high?
They just know the quality?
That's a surprising phrase.
What else do they say?
It's from sources that are acceptable to the relevant communities, technical and scientific.
Acceptable?
Wait a minute.
Acceptable is subjective, isn't it?
Oh, that's acceptable.
Is it acceptable based on criteria?
Or is it acceptable because they just all agreed?
And somebody told them, this is good enough.
And they said, yeah, that's good enough.
What kind of scientific data standard is acceptable?
That's not a standard for data.
It just means people agreed to accept it.
You know what else people agreed to?
Well, apparently there are 17 federal agencies agreed to keep their mouths shut about the COVID thing for years.
So if somebody says something is an acceptable source, doesn't that really mean that they don't want to say it's not acceptable?
Meaning they don't want to be the one who says, I'm not sure that's a good source.
And then it says, in order to ensure that synthesized products are valid, what do you think would be a synthesized product?
Well, I think in this case, product is used for the measurement itself.
So the product is the data.
They're producing the data as a product that then other people can put into their models and make decisions on.
It's a product.
And they're saying it's a synthesized product, which means they're taking sources from various places and combining them.
If you heard that somebody took data from several different sources and combined them and synthesized them, what would you think about the quality of the data?
If you didn't know anything else.
Came from different places, and then we synthesized it.
Well, I'll tell you one thing you wouldn't believe.
You wouldn't believe that it's accurate within one degree.
Let me give you an example of some synthesized data.
You ready?
One day when I was in college, I got my grade for the, I think maybe for the year, and it was much lower than I knew it should have been.
So I went to my professor and I said, I'm looking at all of my test scores, and I'm looking at my biggest one, the biggest test score, it was the one that counted the most, and I totally nailed it.
And so I said, you know, given these test scores, the average that you gave me for the class doesn't make sense.
It's literally not the average of these scores.
And here's what the alcoholic professor told me.
Yes, he was literally an alcoholic.
He said, well, I lost your test.
I said, what?
Yeah, he said, the big one that you say you got the good grade on, I don't have it.
I lost it.
You mean I didn't turn it in?
No, you turned it in.
I lost it.
And so I said, how did he give me a grade when my biggest, most important test was not in the mix?
And he said, I synthesized it from the other grades that I did have.
He averaged my poor grades together and gave me a grade because he lost the most important score that I had nailed completely.
That is synthesized data right there, ladies and gentlemen.
That's what synthesized data is.
You took it from different sources And you talked yourself into it being accurate, because you hoped nobody would ask you a detailed question.
And I asked him a detailed question, and the whole thing fell apart.
Because it was synthesized.
My entire life, you know, depends on these grades and stuff.
He's just synthesizing them.
So, I would say that Google does not support the temperature data as being accurate.
They only support it as being of a known quality from sources that are acceptable?
If the internet won't tell you the data is accurate, and Google won't tell you it's accurate, do you really think it's accurate?
Do you really think that Google, probably one of the most valiant supporters of all climate change alarm, you think they wouldn't tell you it was accurate if they knew it was accurate?
They can't do it.
I'll be damned.
Well, meanwhile, Arizona passed a law to ban almost all abortions except the life or the health of the mother.
Even Trump disagrees.
He says they think that'll get walked back a little bit, probably.
He says it'll definitely change.
So he thinks that they'll add a few more exceptions or maybe add a little timing thing.
So we don't know.
Now this led people to say to me, Scott, why do you say that Trump is playing this perfectly by saying it's a state's issue and there's some kind of middle ground that makes sense for the country?
And the question I was asked is, can you name one independent who changed their vote to Trump because he found this middle ground state thing?
Is that the right question?
Scott, can you name me even one independent Who was not going to vote for Trump, but now is, just because he had this sort of middle ground, non-committal thing?
That's the wrong question.
The question is energy.
Remember?
Trump is an energy monster.
He's not about the fact check.
He's about the energy.
And what he did was he tried to take the energy out of the abortion question.
Because every time you bring it up, He's not going to say something that causes a fight.
He's going to say, well, uh, thanks to me, you get to work that out with your state.
So you're in much better shape to get a law that your state likes by majority than if the federal government did it.
So I actually made it easier for you to get what you want in your state.
Now, if your state doesn't want what you want, well, that would be sort of between you and your state.
And at least that's easier to fight with the state than it is with the federal government.
So, you know, we've moved it into the place.
In other words, Trump moved it from a life and death, kill the baby or don't kill the baby, which is enormous energy, right?
People will get off the couch for abortion if you let it become the emotional thing.
You know, you're controlling women's body or you're killing a baby.
They'll definitely get off the couch for that.
Do you know what they won't get off the couch for?
Well, let me explain how FISA works.
FISA, you're against the advancing of the procedural thing to debate the reauthorization of the warrant.
That doesn't get anybody off the couch, because bureaucracy is not exciting.
So Trump basically said, let's bury this in the bureaucracy where it belongs, because it does belong there.
And that takes the energy out of it.
It takes the fun out of it.
It keeps you out of your couch.
So all Trump needs to do to win is to make sure abortion is not the, um, the lighthouse topic.
You know, if abortion is the lighthouse, then, then all the moths are going to be like, yes, walk toward the lighthouse.
We'll vote against Trump.
Monster.
But if the lighthouse isn't lit, It's just a bunch of other topics.
Like, well, you know, there's the inflation and you got the border and, you know, stuff.
I think Trump wins.
So I think Trump wins.
So think of the abortion question and Trump's opinion on it as an energy play, not a play to get some specific voter to change their mind.
You want some people to be less interested in voting.
That's it.
Your opponents.
All right, there's a new poll from Ipsos that says Biden has a clear, that he's got 41% approval, or actually people would vote for him, compared to Trump at 37.
So the polling from one of the more credible, they say, outfits is that Biden has leaped, leapt ahead, and now he's winning.
Based on What changed?
What exactly changed?
Trump softened on abortion?
I don't think that changed it.
What changed?
Well, so I looked at the 538 rankings of pollsters, and they're 17th, which doesn't sound good in reliability.
They're 17th in reliability, but it's actually out of Like a hundred.
If you're in the top 17 out of a hundred or so, that would be toward the top.
Do we trust Ipsos?
I don't think so.
I don't think I live in a country where I can just automatically trust polls.
I think that the polls are going to have to support any cheating.
So if there's any planned manipulation of the election, and I don't have any information that they would, but if they did, they would have to, they would have to rig some of the polls first.
How hard is it to rig a poll if you're the CIA or the FBI?
You walk into a polling company and you say, you know, we know a lot about you.
Sure be a shame if the news heard about it.
Sure would be good for us if Biden had some good poll results.
Do you think that happens in the real world?
I don't know.
Probably.
It probably happens in the real world.
Somebody needs access.
Somebody needs a favor.
I don't believe that polling is necessarily a non-corrupt entity.
So I don't believe it automatically.
Speaking of polls, that we don't believe automatically, Axios is reporting that 42% of Latino adults Surveyed said they support building a wall or a fence on the border.
That's 12 points up from December 2021.
And 38% support sending all undocumented immigrants back to their country.
So 38% of Latinos want to send all undocumented immigrants back home.
Now that's up from 28% in 2021.
So there's been a big surge.
Obviously the open border is a big part of that.
And 64% of Latinos say they support giving the President the authority to shut the border.
No, the President has the authority to shut the border!
Stop acting like the President can't shut a border.
I mean, does anybody believe the President can't shut a border?
I don't have to even look at the law to know that that's stupid.
You know, I'll say it again, Commander-in-Chief, Immediate danger to the country.
He can do anything he wants.
Commander-in-Chief.
Immediate danger to the country.
He can do anything he wants.
Not legally.
Not legally.
But he can do anything he wants and then work it out later.
So first you close it and then you see if it was legal.
That is the correct order under an immediate threat.
Well, there's a report that the IDF is using AI To identify targets in Gaza.
And there's some kind of presentation that somebody got a hold of.
I saw this in Mario Nafol's post.
And it showed somebody explaining how, if they know a few people who are targets, they can use their, what they call their magic dust programs, basically, to figure out who else they're associated with.
And whether those people they're associated with are also legitimate targets.
So, presumably it's looking at, you know, databases of people's activities and maybe demographics and profiling and who knows what else.
But they do, apparently it helps them target people.
Now, the way the story is being reported in Mario's feed is that the IDF said it was not using AI to identify targets.
But then the claim here is that here's a PowerPoint presentation in which the IDF is explaining they're totally using AI to identify targets.
And it's an AI tool called Lavender.
Well, here's my take on that.
I don't know that AI means AI anymore.
I think there was a time when we said AI was, you know, any complicated program that could do some things.
But now AI is this sort of self-deciding LLM model.
I don't think that they're using the LLM model for this.
I don't think they're using... Why are people saying OJ is dead?
Is OJ dead?
My feed is full of people saying OJ is dead.
Is that real?
Can you check that?
Yeah, people are saying O.J.
Simpson's dead.
Wow.
Well, that's, uh, of cancer.
I'll be darned.
I'll be darned.
O.J.' 's dead.
Huh.
He was 76?
O.J.
was 76?
76? OJ was 76? I had no idea.
Prostate cancer.
Well, I'll be darned.
All right.
Well, so let me just finish up this point.
It might be true that IDF is not using AI as they define it.
But it probably is true that they're using a program that's more, you know, less AI and more just straightforward checking against other sources.
So it might be both true and false at the same time, depending on how you How you define it.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
Yeah, I think the OJ death may be related to blocking Erica.
Because Erica reported he blocked her.
And I think karma got him, honestly.
I think if it wasn't the murders, it was the blocking of Erica.
Somebody say OJ died from eating too many Lunchables.
No.
I think you'd have to eat dozens of them before it would kill you.
All right.
All right.
Well, I don't want to talk about OJ anymore.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the conclusion of my amazing show.
I'm going to say goodbye to the folks who are not on Locals and talk to them privately for a little bit.
And let me put my summary on this show.
So the states are a mess.
The State Department is racist.
The federal agencies are full of liars.
Climate change looks like bullshit.
At least the measurement of it.
Don't know about the actuality of it, but the measurement of it looks like kind of bullshit.
And, uh, can't trust the FDA.
Can't trust anybody.
That's where we are.
We're in a zero trust environment, but we might figure a way out.
Now, it makes you wonder if there's a deathbed confession, doesn't it?
Thank you.
Do you think OJ did a deathbed confession to anybody who will tell you after the funeral?
