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, Samsung Texas, Tesla FSD, Paintball Self-Defense, Describing Hypnosis, President Trump, Stormy Daniels, Legal System Corruption, Democrat Prosecutor Lawfare, Israel Iran Tension, Speaker Johnson, Ukraine Israel Aid Bill, Will of Voters Corruption, US Political Corruption, Election Integrity, Election Polls Narrow, NPR Katherine Maher, Biden Asylum EO, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time you've ever had.
But if you'd like to take this up to a level that nobody can even believe is possible with their tiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gels to style, a kemptine jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called a simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, I just barely made it.
Oh.
Oh man, that could have been a disaster.
You don't want to sneeze and sip at the same time.
It's bad enough if you sneeze and fart at the same time, but if you sneeze, fart, and sip at the same time, well, the cleanup is just going to go on forever.
Anyway, NVIDIA has a new AI agent.
For $9 an hour, it will be your nurse, and it performs better than nurses.
Do you want a $9 an hour nurse that performs better than nurses?
Well, I don't know about you, but How much do you do with a nurse that doesn't involve touching you?
Every time I go to the doctor, if there's a nurse involved, they're getting me on something, or putting something on me, or checking something, or... I don't know.
How much of that can they do remotely?
Seems like the nurse is for things that touch you.
But we'll see.
I wouldn't mind having a $9 nurse option.
Oh my goodness.
Sorry.
All right, speaking of microchips, Samsung is building a chip cluster in Texas.
So I guess the Biden administration is going to make 6.4 billion dollars available to help fund a Samsung chip making thing.
It's going to be a cluster in Texas.
We really are not good at things in the United States anymore, are we?
We kind of have to get other people to build our microchips.
Does that scare you?
It was only a few short years ago I thought the United States had some kind of, you know, technical dominance on the world.
But if we can't build microchips without another company, another country helping us, were we ever technologically dominant in the first place?
Maybe just software?
I don't know.
Well, um, I got some questions for you about, uh, you know, Tesla has the full, full self-driving option now.
Now, of course it's supervised.
You still have to check in with it once in a while, but your, your Tesla can pretty much drive you home on its own.
And here's the question.
Two questions.
Number one, what does that do about drunk driving?
Just imagine this scenario.
You've had too many drinks, you get in your car, and you have it drive you home.
And you're supervising, but not really, because you're drunk.
So a cop pulls you over and says, uh, can I give you a ticket?
They test you, you're drunk.
Can I give you a ticket for unsafe driving?
And you say, but officer, I was in full self-driving mode.
And the officer says, but you're still drunk and you're still in charge of the car.
Well, that's true, officer.
But isn't the whole point of giving me a ticket because you say I'm less safe than a sober driver?
Well, yes, that's true.
But do you understand, officer, that a drunk in a self-driving car is actually safer than a person who's not drunk at all, who's driving their own car?
And the police officer says, stop trying to lawyer me, and takes him to jail anyway.
But do you think there would be a case where the defense could say, look, I get that it's illegal, but this person was unambiguously safer than all the other people driving at the same time.
Because we can prove that the self-driving is safer, even unattended, even if you're drunk, than people trying to drive home at 12 at night and they're all tired.
I don't know.
It could be interesting.
Here's another one.
Suppose Tesla offered insurance and the amount you paid at the end of every month was based entirely upon how much self-driving you did.
Or, you know, how much the car drove versus you.
If you could show that the car did 90% of the driving, maybe it would reduce your insurance by 90%.
What about that?
Because Tesla would know how much safer it is to have the self-driving engaged.
And I think they're already claiming that it's much safer than humans, and I believe it.
You know, all things considered, humans are pretty sketchy.
So, do you think that a self-driving car could reduce your insurance costs so much that paying for the self-driving is free?
In other words, could you reduce your car insurance So much that $99 a month to pay for the self-driving just pays for itself.
That's a possibility.
Now we'll see.
All right, here's a story about backwards science.
Wall Street Journal has an article that says, a study involving the entire adult population of Denmark found a clear link between cannabis abuse and mental illness.
There's a clear link.
How many paragraphs down do you have to read in the story before they tell you that the clear link is not causation?
And they cannot tell you if people with mental illness are more likely to do weed, or people who do weed are causing their own mental illness.
Don't you think that ought to be the first paragraph?
Don't you think a story like this is written to fool you into thinking it's going to say one thing, and then it just says, oh well, we didn't demonstrate any causation?
And given that it's a near certainty that people with mental illness are more likely to try to self-medicate, does anybody doubt that?
Is there anybody watching who doubts The obvious statement that people who have mental illness are more likely to look for a solution in a drug or a drink or a cigarette or something.
I think that makes sense.
Fake science.
Backward science.
Speaking of Samsung, it looks like Apple is losing the number one position as a phone maker.
So Samsung not only is going to make chips in the United States, But they're making more phones and selling them than iPhones.
What do you think of that?
Hmm.
I think Apple has some real challenges because of AI.
So one of two things is going to happen.
Either Apple will be reborn with an AI version of whatever they do, or they're going to be in real trouble and Samsung will just keep eating their market.
I don't know if you've had this experience, but I have an Apple iPhone.
Where I live, you would be considered a heathen if you don't have an iPhone.
Does anybody live in one of those messed up places?
Where the iPhone is the one that makes you look good?
But when I see people whip out their Samsungs, I often think to myself, that looks better than what I have.
So I do think Samsung might be out Now engineering Apple at the moment.
There's a new security cam from a Slovenian startup that can shoot at your visitors.
So you can shoot paint balls or possibly tear gas canisters, pellets I guess, at your visitors.
Now how much do you want that?
So you can shoot the paintball at them to basically mark them for the police.
So if I get a package theft, Porridge Pirate, I can just mark them.
I want to mark them with paint but also tear gas and maybe sleeping gas.
Yeah.
I mean, I would put easily stealable packages on my porch every day if I could shoot people with a paintball remotely, but I really want AI to do it for me.
I want AI to be like a self-driving security cam.
Where it just looks at people and does profiling.
I want my AI to just look at their face, and if they have crazy eyes, you just light them up.
It's like, crazy eyes have been detected.
Commencing firing.
Pew, pew, pew, pew.
Who wouldn't want that?
Am I right?
Meanwhile, Steve Mnuchin Uh, who had been treasury secretary under Trump is trying to put together some deal to buy TikTok, but without buying the, the algorithm.
So I guess the problem is that China would never sell them the algorithm and the secret IP, but he thinks he could buy the customers.
What would you buy if you're not buying the servers?
You're not buying the employees and you're not buying the algorithm.
What exactly are you buying?
I don't even know what he's buying.
The name?
Are they going to keep the name on it but it would be a different algorithm and a different company?
How do you do that?
The data?
I'm not even sure they would buy the data.
I'm not sure.
But do you think the data would be for sale?
I feel like they wouldn't sell you the data because then you'd know what data they have.
So I'm watching this with interest, but I don't know what there is to buy exactly.
So we'll see.
Maybe he's got a plan.
So we hear today that trillions of tons of carbon were left out of the models, the climate models.
Trillions of tons.
Because it turns out there's more carbon in dirt than people thought.
And I guess it can get out.
I don't know how it gets out.
How does the carbon get out of the dirt?
If you just, if you just sort of disturb the dirt, does the carbon get out?
How does it get out once it's captured in dirt?
I don't understand that story.
Anyway, the point is that there may be trillions of tons of carbon that are not in any of the prediction models.
And it's like a really big thing, which means that if the models are wrong, they're wrong and too low.
Or, it would be proof that the models were never right, because if they left out all that carbon, it means carbon's probably not really what's happening.
So, do you notice the trend?
The climate change narrative is just completely dissembling.
You know, it's just one thing after another.
And just in time for the elections.
Now I remind you that I don't know what's true or not true about climate change.
What I know for sure is that scientists are full of shit.
Just in general.
So you can't trust them if they say there's climate change.
So that leaves the rest of us just sort of gasoline, basically.
All right, the rabbit hole is talking about a, that's a count on X, the rabbit hole.
People getting married later, they used to get married in the 20s now, Men are getting married at about age 30 and women at about age 28.
How in the world are we supposed to reproduce if people are getting their first marriage when they're close to 30?
Wouldn't that just necessarily reduce maybe by two-thirds the number of kids you're gonna have?
Maybe by half?
Because it's not a lot of time to have a kid after that.
Anyway.
I just point that out that everything seems to be moving toward lower human reproduction at the same time that robots are coming online.
Is it really a coincidence that the same time our reproduction is going in the toilet, that robots and AI are coming online to replace people?
It feels like that would be the weirdest coincidence in all of human history if after like a million years of evolution, Those two things head at the same time.
That's a weird coincidence, isn't it?
Tim Ferriss has a big podcast with a hypnotist, and I haven't listened to it yet, but here's what's interesting about this.
Tim Ferriss is one of those influencers who, if he does a big story about something, it's more likely to become a big thing.
Because he has a lot of reach and influence.
And I wonder if this will change what people think of hypnosis.
Because it's some Stanford guy with a lot of credentials and he's talking about what we can and cannot do, I guess.
So I haven't listened to it, but I will.
And here's what I'm curious about.
I don't know if any two hypnotists would describe hypnosis the same way.
I've never heard anybody describe it the way I describe it.
And you get, you tend to get vague words like, you know, you're subconscious and blah, blah, things that don't really mean anything.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
It could be that hypnosis could become a bigger mainstream issue.
Well, today is Trump's hush money trial, beginning of the trial for the Stormy Daniels situation.
Now, how many of you could accurately tell a stranger what that case is about and what was the illegal part?
How many of you even understand the case and what makes any of that illegal?
I don't.
I've been watching this damn thing for how long?
I don't really even know what the illegal part is.
What was illegal about paying her not to talk?
What was illegal about that?
I thought that was the most ordinary thing in the whole world.
People pay people and sign non-disclosures and it was just a contract.
So, was the only thing that came out of his campaign?
And how in the world is that not a legal campaign expense?
I can't think of anything that would be more directly applicable to getting elected.
So I feel like, did they have to make up a crime just so they could bring him in?
I think the public doesn't even know what the crime is.
I think the public is thinking, well, was it the sleeping with the porn star part?
Like, what exactly was the crime?
And then you get it confused with, you know, the other woman who sued him, Jean, whatever her name is.
They all run together in your head, don't you?
But the reason I don't take any of them too seriously is they don't look real.
None of them look super real, do they?
Here's my bottom line.
The only thing keeping Trump out of jail is 50 million American men.
Now, of course, there are more voters, but it's the men who keep him out of jail.
Because if only the women wanted Trump not to go to jail, it wouldn't make any difference.
It's only that there are 50 million men who are getting a little, just a little bit vexed, shall we say.
Yeah.
Now, I see some of you in the comments trying to prime me to say there are 50 million armed men.
But the armed is not even the issue.
It's 50 million men.
Even 50 million men without guns could pretty much make anything happen they wanted.
But do you disagree?
Because it seems to me that the legal system is so thoroughly corrupt that they would just throw them in jail on any damn thing that they could.
The only control on it is 50 million men.
And it's the men, it's not the women.
Who are unpredictable.
So 50 million men taking the Trump theory of unpredictability.
That's the only thing that's keeping.
If all 50 million men said, you know what?
Um, we don't want him to go to jail, but if he did, well, that's the system talking and we support the system.
If they said that he'd already be in jail and it wouldn't even matter what they charged him with.
They'd just throw him in jail.
If they knew they could get away with it, that's the only thing stopping them.
There's nothing stopping, other than can we make it look legitimate, so that the 50 million men don't go nuts on us.
Well, here's the good news.
I don't think anything's going to change the mind of the 50 million men.
So I think, it doesn't matter what the details of any of these cases are, if they find them guilty or don't find them guilty, If they appeal or don't appeal, you're not going to put him in jail for one day.
Because I don't know what's going to happen, but I'll tell you for sure it's going to be unpredictable.
And while I, let me say as clearly as possible, I don't recommend any violence.
All right.
I'll say that as clearly as possible, no violence, but I wouldn't advocate against it.
I mean, if the shit went down, I'm taking the day off.
Because you know I'm one of the people who could maybe help to stop it, because I'm a public figure, and I could be saying, stop it, stop it.
Nope.
If Trump goes to jail for one day, I'm going radio silent.
And I recommend you do the same.
If Trump goes to jail for one day, the day he goes in, Stop using all of your electronic devices.
That's all.
Just stop using all of them.
All right, next story.
So, apparently, Rich Noise, he's a contributing editor for MRC Newsbusters, he did an analysis of how often the regular news, you know, the ABCs and NBCs and CBSes, How often do they tell their viewers that the prosecutors against Trump are all Democrats?
Don't you think that's important?
Yeah, his name is Rich Noise.
That's right.
Richard Noise.
They could have called him Dick, because his name is Richard.
But they don't want to call him Dick Noise.
Because if you introduced yourself as Dick Noise, people would say, what's that sound like?
You're talking about when you're banging it on the side of the urinal?
What kind of dick noise are we talking about?
That's what would happen.
So he goes by Rich.
You know what a rich noise sounds like?
Here's what a rich noise sounds like.
Oh, this isn't the best caviar.
That's a rich noise.
Anyway, he found out that these news entities are all gaslighting their public, because if you don't tell them these are all Democrats going after Trump, you're acting like they're actually crimes involved that people care about.
They're not crimes involved that people really care about.
It's purely political.
So, there's that.
Well, unless Israel has done something in the last half hour that I don't know about, they're still planning to hit back.
They're planning a, quote, offensive and defensive action against Iran.
And some say the Middle East is going into crisis mode.
What do you think is going to happen over there?
What's your best guess?
Does it seem like they'll just do more theater?
Oh, I'll pretend to have some of your assets.
You'll give us lots of warnings, we can shoot down your slow-moving drones.
Like, it's all just theater.
Like, literally, just like they're acting.
But what happens if it goes beyond that?
Well, we don't know.
Things could get dicey there.
Some say that Iran already used up all its good weapons in that one night of strikes.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think Iran used up all of its good stuff on that one night?
And that's basically all they have?
They have other stuff, but it's not positioned where it could reach Israel.
I don't know.
I don't believe those stories.
We don't know what they have and what they don't have.
But here's my recommendation.
I think Israel should make Iran take full responsibility for Gaza.
It's the you broke it, you bought it situation.
Because if it was Iran, and they're sure Iran's backing is what caused Hamas to be so aggressive, then I think Iran should be feeding the refugees.
Imagine if you will, we'll just game this out.
This won't happen, but we'll just game it out.
Imagine if Israel said, We care about the refugees, but the responsibility for feeding them, we're talking about the Gaza refugees, the responsibility for feeding them has to be the responsibility for the people who broke it, and that's Iran.
So you could say, hey Iran, we will open up all of the travel channels and security, And you can bring in as much food and medical supplies as you want.
Yeah, we'll check it to make sure there's no weapons.
But you can bring in all you want and you can feed these people you care about so much.
We're not going to do it.
So if you don't feed them, they're going to starve.
And we weren't feeding them before.
So other people were, you know, giving aid to Gaza, etc.
So Iran, if you want to feed them, go ahead.
But we're not going to spend a penny.
But they'll starve.
No, they won't.
Because Iran can feed them.
And if Iran is their sponsor, and if the sponsorship went bad, as it did, that's Iran's problem.
But I would take another page out of Governor Abbott's book, and I would tell Iran that they're going to have to take the Gaza refugees.
Now, you can't quite bus them, because it's not exactly a direct bus route from Israel to Iran.
But you could say, this is the plan.
We might have to ship them by ship or something.
But the idea is that they will be resettled in Iran.
And just say that's your policy.
Just say, this is our policy.
All the refugees will be resettled in Iran.
Now, it's crazy talk, right?
It's never going to happen.
I know.
But here's the thing.
Here's one thing we all agree on.
If you don't break the business model of letting in another country stir up trouble for your neighbors, if you let that happen, they're just going to keep doing it.
So you have to break the business model.
You have to make sure that Iran has to take care of all the refugees, because they're the ones that broke that situation.
It doesn't seem like it should be Israel's problem, because they're not the ones that broke it.
Am I wrong?
If you broke it, you bought it.
And I think Iran broke it.
So I think they got to pay for it.
Yeah.
And I would say the same thing about Hezbollah, except they're a little better armed.
A different situation up there.
So if I were Israel, I would say we're just going to take Gaza forever.
That's the reparations.
And I would call it reparations.
I would say we've spent so much money defending ourselves from Gaza, which is really defending ourselves from Iran, that we're going to charge Iran reparations, and we're going to charge it in the form of just keeping Gaza, and just making it an Israeli land.
So I think they're probably going to do something close to that, but not exactly that.
That's my prediction.
I don't see Gaza ever going back to an Iranian controlled situation.
And the only way to prevent that is to not let those residents back.
Now, would that be a worse problem and cause more wars and stuff?
I don't know.
Everything you do there doesn't work.
So if you do the same things you were doing before, that would be the crazy part.
If you try something as radical as, you know, shipping all the refugees to Iran and saying, you broke it, you bought it.
I doubt they could get away with that.
But what they're doing now isn't working.
So you can get a lot more flexible when everything else doesn't work.
And I remind you that I'm not speaking from a pro-Israel perspective.
Because as long as the ADL has me as their enemy, I can't support Israel.
I'm just describing, just describing what the options are.
All right.
House Speaker Mike Johnson is going to push for aid to Israel and Ukraine.
I don't know.
I just can't get past the fact that if you lump those two things together, you're not working for the people.
Can we all agree?
If the government was working for the people, it would be two votes instead of one.
Clearly they know they don't have enough support for either one.
So they're going to make us eat two things we don't want to eat.
Because we weren't willing to vote on them separately and vote them down.
So instead of voting them both down, we'll have to eat both of them.
Because they'll put them together.
Now they're doing this right in front of us.
And that's not impeachable?
I'm sure it's not impeachable.
But don't you think that the Speaker of the House should lose his job if he tries to combine those two votes?
To me that's a job losing situation.
You cannot be considered credible if you're playing that game.
So, one of the ways that laws get made is by tricks.
Tricks.
So let me describe our system of government right now.
A lot of people, and by people I mean idiots, believe that our system of government has something to do with the will of the voters.
How many of you think the will of the voters is really even an important variable in our system?
You know it's not in the top 15, right?
It's not nothing, but it's not in the top 15.
So let me tell you some things that are.
Well, one of those is this trick I just talked about, where they use a little trick To make the public accept two things they don't want because they couldn't sell you them one at a time.
So one of the things that makes law is when the public doesn't want it, the politicians can make you have it anyway by a trick, by just combining things.
Is that the will of the people or is that the opposite?
That is the opposite of the will of the people.
And they're doing it right in front of you.
So what did your vote do?
What was the point of your vote?
None.
None.
They can just do a trick to remove your ability to influence the government.
They just put these two things together.
Trick.
All right, here are the other things that are affecting the outcomes.
All of these are more important than your vote.
All of them.
Gerrymandering, the artificial way they say, you know, which leader is related to which people in the population, that's totally gamed.
Now, I'm not saying it's gamed in one direction.
Both sides do it.
But this has nothing to do with the will of the people.
If you gerrymander, the point of it is to remove the will of the people.
Isn't it?
That's the point of it.
So that the people can't decide.
How about the current illegal migration?
It seems that there is a very big intention, anyway, of changing the outcome.
How much of that had to do with the will of the voters?
None!
None.
That has nothing to do with the will of the voters.
It's just where whoever's in charge decides to put these migrants, or wherever they end up.
How about the lobbyists?
Of course, the lobbyists are the biggest influence.
They actually write a lot of the legislation.
Are the lobbyists the will of the people?
No, they're the opposite.
The lobbyists are almost entirely to thwart the will of the people.
And they're probably the biggest effect.
How about the fake fact-checkers, so that the voters don't know what's real?
That has a big effect, because they don't fact-check the obvious hoaxes.
How about the brainwashing from the news entities?
For example, the example I gave you earlier, where the regular news, the corporate news, doesn't tell you that Trump is being chased entirely by Democrats in the law fair.
If they don't tell you that, you're being brainwashed.
If you don't know that finding people a hoax is a hoax, etc., you're being brainwashed.
That's a much bigger effect than voting.
Social media manipulation, the jiggering of the algorithms, the intel people, and the FBI putting their thumb on the scale, that's still happening outside of X. And that's a way bigger effect than voting.
How about the search engine manipulation?
Dr. Epstein showed us that Google can change what affects you, what outcomes you get on your search, and that can totally change your opinion and your voting patterns.
Way more important than voter opinions is that they're brainwashed.
How about the cancelling of critics?
The intentional targeting and cancelling of people who are unusually persuasive?
Well that, again, Takes the power away from the voters, because the voters don't get to hear two sides.
If you take out one side, it's glitching now, of course.
How about the military-industrial complex?
You don't think that we have wars because that bunch has lobbyists and they can make money?
Of course!
Do you think any of our wars are because we wanted them?
No, the will of the people has nothing to do with anything.
It's the people who can profit from it.
How about the deep state or the permanent Washington, the people who thwart anything that the public wants?
They're way more important than the voters.
They have way more power.
How about all this lawfare?
This lawfare trying to remove the top candidate of 40% of the public.
Is that something that's for the will of the people?
No!
This is to thwart the will of the people.
How about the gaming of election laws?
The Mark Elias stuff, where they change the election laws, and, hey, it's a pandemic, we better change these laws.
And what about the mail-in ballots?
I would say the mail-in ballots have a lot more to do with the outcome than your voter preference.
How about blackmail?
How much do you think blackmail by our intelligence people and anybody else, foreign powers, whatever, how much do you think blackmail influences our laws and policies?
I think a lot.
It probably always has.
So what's that got to do with the will of the people?
Nothing.
That's somebody getting blackmailed.
How about when the intel people take a Mike Johnson into the skiff and they say we've got all kinds of secrets, you can't tell anybody, and we can't tell you how we got the secrets, but you better do what we say because everything will blow up otherwise.
Does that have anything to do with the will of the people?
No.
That's the intel people completely owning the government.
What about all the national hoaxes that are run by some combination of our intel people colluding with the Democrats, colluding with the corporate press?
We have a hoaxocracy, if anything, that most of what we believe to be true is literally a hoax run by one side or the other.
Now, most of the good hoaxes come from the left, the organized ones.
The right has its own conspiracy theories and hoaxes, but they usually bubble up from the bottom, so it looks different.
What about the book deals and board seats after office?
You think somebody gets a book deal that's like way bigger than the market usually would pay or they get this juicy board seat after they've been in office?
You don't think that they do anything while they're in office to guarantee they get that big book deal or get that corporate thing?
Well, we don't know.
But what I do know is none of that would have anything to do with the will of the voters.
How about the fact that schools and colleges are literally brainwashing people to turn them into citizens who don't know what's going on or how anything works?
That has way more to do with the electoral outcome than the will of the people.
And you know what I didn't even count?
None of that included the possibility, unproven by any court, that the elections are rigged after all of that.
I wouldn't know, and you wouldn't know either.
Nope.
Do you know what, let's see, somebody in the DNC said, some person in the, not DNC, the Republican National Committee, Republican National Committee guy, Michael Whatley, so Rasmussen is talking about this, so last week, a Republican National Committee said, quote,
You've got to have observers and attorneys in the room when the votes are being cast and when the votes are being counted.
Wait, why is that important?
Why is it important for the Republicans that they have a Republican in the room when the votes and attorneys and attorneys in the room when the votes are being cast and when they're being counted?
Why would a Republican need that if the elections are fair?
Why would you need witnesses for a fair election?
Now what I think he means is they better include Republicans or you're in trouble.
Why would somebody who knows so much about the election system say that you couldn't trust the outcome unless Republicans were in every room?
Is this not telling us that we can't tell who voted?
That's how I hear it.
I hear that somebody who's in a position to know is telling me directly that we don't have enough witnesses in the room to even be sure the vote was counted and it was a fair election.
How in the world did the public get sold on the idea that we even know if our elections are fair?
The system is not designed so you could even know.
This problem that I'm talking about where you have to have the witnesses in the room, why would you need the witnesses If you could catch it in a recount or an audit, right?
Wouldn't you catch it in the recount?
So why does he think you wouldn't catch it?
Well, suppose you just threw away some of the boxes.
Just throw them away.
Who would know that?
I don't know that anybody would know that.
Do you think that the audit has a good chain of custody?
I think we learned that the chain of custody basically doesn't exist, at least in large parts.
So, let me read this fast.
So these are all the things in our system that are more important than the will of the people.
Gerrymandering, illegal migration patterns, lobbyists, fake fact checkers, brainwashing from the hoaxy news, social media manipulation, search engine manipulation, canceling critics, the military-industrial complex, the deep state, permanent Washington, lawfare, gaming of election laws, intelligence, blackmailing, operations, intel influencing using top secrets, national hoaxes run by the intel, book deals and board seats after office, school and college indoctrination, and maybe cheating.
How in the world do you think you live in some kind of voter-driven process?
There's nothing like that happening.
Not even close.
Well, I've been chasing down this mystery of why it is that we keep seeing stories of voters moving toward Trump, but we don't see stories of them moving toward Biden.
And yet the election is narrowing.
So how can it be that Trump was way ahead in some polls, More people are moving toward Trump, and yet the election was narrowing.
So that would mean somebody's moving toward Biden.
Who would that be?
Well, according to NPR and... Who else?
At least one other place.
It's college-educated white voters.
College-educated white voters, and mostly men, but also women, are moving heavily in Biden's direction.
Do you believe that college educated men are moving heavily in Biden's direction?
And it says older ones, specifically older.
Does that sound real?
Has anybody noticed that in the real world?
Has anybody noticed any older college educated man who used to be Trump and is now moving toward Biden?
Has anybody heard of even one example of that?
Because I've not.
Doesn't it feel like we're being set up?
Like they're telling us some demographic is moving, but we don't know anybody?
We don't know anybody in that demographic who's moved?
Not one person?
If you said to me, Scott, do you know any black voters who have moved toward Trump?
I would say, yeah, actually, I've seen a bunch of stories about it.
And on social media, very common.
Hispanic?
Yes, I've seen interviews.
People on the street?
Yeah.
But I have not seen even one anecdotal case of somebody moving in the other direction.
Not one.
Now, is that because I'm in a bubble?
Because it seems like the, you know, at least CNN and MSNBC They would want to have these focus groups on every day, saying, look at all these college-educated people moving toward Biden.
You know what I mean?
Oh, those experienced, college-educated white people.
They're the ones who are paying attention.
They're moving toward Biden.
Don't you think they'd tell us that story if it were real?
If it were real, there'd be examples of it all over the place, because they would use it to try to convince people to do more of it.
I don't know for sure, but it looks like we're being totally gaslit here.
It looks like they're pretending there's a big demographic change that I don't think is necessarily happening.
But if it is happening, it would suggest that college-educated men are the easiest people to fool.
Do you think college-educated men are the easiest to fool?
Well, college-educated people are, because they believe that they learned the truth.
If you didn't go to college and you weren't told that you'd been taught the truth, you'd probably say, well, I don't know.
I'll just look at this myself.
Yeah.
So I think that being college educated can give you a blind spot.
Makes you think you actually know what's going on.
When probably it just means that you are subject to much deeper brainwashing than other people.
But you walk away from the experience thinking you're the smart one.
Not knowing that you're the most brainwashed person in all of the country.
And that your intelligence won't help you at all.
If you're brainwashed.
Won't help you a bit.
Not even a little bit.
That's how brainwashing works.
It does not have anything to do with intelligence or even knowledge.
All right.
So we're learning more about the CEO of NPR, Catherine Marr.
So I've seen a number of her posts from the past, her tweets and stuff.
And she's seriously anti-white.
She's really anti-white.
And it's funny because yesterday I did a comic about Dave the Engineer.
So Dave the Engineer in the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can only see on the X platform if you're a subscriber or on scottadams.locals.com where you see the comic.
Plus lots of other things.
That's my commercial.
But Dave the Engineer, on Sunday, yesterday, he was complaining about racism in the office, but when he got down to the details, the racism that Dave the Black Engineer was complaining about is that all the white people seem to be racist against themselves.
And he was finding it creepy.
It's just kind of creepy.
All the white people here seem to be racist against themselves.
And that's exactly what Catherine Marr is.
She's literally racist against herself.
And she keeps posting super racist things about white people, of which she is one.
So yeah, being racist against yourself is a real thing now.
So Biden's going to gaslight us on some kind of executive order about asylum laws.
And then you're going to think that Biden did something about the border.
But apparently all he's going to do is change the, uh, if he does anything, it looks like what they're talking about is maybe changing the asylum standards to make it more difficult to get, uh, to get asylum status.
What do you think that would look like in the real world?
Here's what I think.
Anybody can still apply for it.
That's what I think.
Anybody can still apply for it.
If you apply for it, you still have to have a hearing.
And the hearing happens later, long after you've been released into the country.
So suppose the only thing he changes is the standards for asylum.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would make no difference at all.
Because they're all fake asylum seekers, but they're not going to go to court to, you know, get an actual asylum answer.
They're just going to stay in the country once they get in.
So it looks like right in front of us, they're going to do some kind of play where they say, Oh, we did this executive order.
We changed the standard for asylum-seeking.
And it won't make any difference to the number of people coming in, because they all just say, ah, well, we'll figure that out when we have the hearing that I'll never go to sometime three years from now.
This is our actual government doing this to us.
Amazing.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that was All I want to talk about today.
Until something happens with Israel and Iran, probably it's going to be a slow news day, but we'll check in on the Stormy Daniels stuff.
And I'm still blown away by the fact that at one point Stormy Daniels wrote a letter denying that she had ever had sex with Trump.
That's real, right?
Now, she must have, you know, she must have debunked her own letter at some point in the process.
But the fact that it ever existed, that it ever existed, that she said, I never had sex with him.
Don't you think that should be enough?
That he wasn't really paying for her to stay quiet.
He was paying for her to not make trouble.
And how is that not a legitimate campaign expense?
If the campaign is paying his legal bills, well, correct me if I'm wrong, is the campaign paying his legal bills?
It is, right?
If it's legal for the campaign to pay the legal bills, why would it not be legal to ask somebody to be quiet about an alleged affair that at one point she claimed didn't happen anyway?
She actually repeated it several times that she never had sex with him.
Okay.
But if she ever took that back, I don't know.
But at the moment she's saying she did, right?
Her current position is that she did.
Or is the current position that she didn't?
And they're going to do the case anyway.
Yeah.
She broke the contract.
You know what would be an amazing play?
I would like Stormy Daniels to reach an agreement with Trump that she would be the press secretary and in return for dropping the charges.
Is that legal?
Is it legal to offer her a job?
I actually don't know.
If it's a real job and it's done publicly, is it legal?
Would that be a bribe?
I don't know.
But I think this is the weakest of all the cases, wouldn't you say?
Do any of the cases have any real risk to Trump at this point?
Is there anybody who knows what they're talking about, which would not be me?
Is there anything That Trump is involved with now.
That looks like a real risk.
I feel like they've slapped down enough of the lawfare that whatever's left is going to be trivial.
Also, Trump did not authorize payment.
Well, I don't know if that's going to stand up.
Because Cohen is going to say that he did, right?
A hush money trial?
Yeah, I don't think any of the cases are going to put him in jail.
She's ordered to pay for his... So Stormy, at one point, was ordered to pay for his lawyer costs.
I think that's amazing.
Dershowitz says they have nothing.
So Dershowitz says none of the cases are going to amount to anything, right?
All right.
Offer a bounty.
I was just looking at your comments here.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
I'm going to say goodbye to X and YouTube and Rumble and just talk to the subscribers.
