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, Middle Age Loneliness, Gender Dysphoria, California Slave Descendants, Climate Change Grift, Election Integrity, John Cougar Mellencamp, RFK Jr., Violent Crime Stats, DA Pamela Price Recall, FISA Warrantless Searches, President Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Justice System Corruption, Senator Tom Cotton, Traffic Blocking Protests, Israel Iran Tension, President Biden Perceived Weakness, Israel Gaza War, Larry Fink, Blackrock ESG, NATO Financial Incentive, Ukraine Incentives, Election Transparency, 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, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass.
So take your Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Wow.
What a show it's going to be.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
Looks like I'm only seeing comments from, oh, there we go.
YouTube comments.
Everything's working just the way it's supposed to.
All right.
Here's some, uh, quick hits before we get to all the political stuff that you want to talk about.
Um, if you're not watching the, uh, the show of, uh, Prince of Fakes, Bri.ai, BRY.AI.
He's sort of publicly developing a sex toy that's going to work with AI.
So you can swipe left until you get the, you get the AI personality of your choice, I guess, male or female.
And then there's a device which I won't describe in great detail, but just say it's, it's meant for your, your fun bits.
So you can, Have a conversation with the AI while you're getting stimulated.
Now here's what's funny about it.
As soon as I bring up this topic, most of you just went nuts.
I don't even have to see you to know.
Half of you just went, whoa, I can't handle it.
There's a sex toy and it's going to have AI and it's going to replace people.
And that's the fun part of the story.
The fun part of the story is watching the public reaction.
To one individual who has the skills to create not only the sex toy, but the AI interface such that he might be able, he might be replacing human reproduction.
Now, if you don't think that this has a genuine possibility of destroying humankind, you're missing the show because it does.
It actually could be a replacement for like human sex.
It could.
Now, not for everybody, of course, but for the 80% of people who are not exactly optimizing their sex life, this could be quite a risk to civilization itself.
Anyway, you have to watch the just freaked out comments, and you have to watch all of the comments to the comments, because Brian is hilarious in how he's dealing with the comments.
So you've got to watch that show.
All right, there's a report from University of Sydney that AI can write a poem and edit your video and now it can make you funnier.
Do you think the AI can now make you funnier?
They did a test of a caption contest where they had the AI help people write captions for cartoons and then they had them graded and the ones where AI helped were better.
Now here's what's missing from that.
Do you know how An average person does in a caption contest where you're adding the funny caption to a comic.
The average person on a scale of 1 to 10 is producing something like a 1 or a 2.
Let's say 10 is commercial-grade humor.
The average person can do a 1 or a 2.
If you add the AI, AI is good with wordplay.
It'll give you a wordplay dad joke that's definitely better than a 1 or a 2.
It might be all the way up to a 5.
Might be a 5 out of 10.
But it is nowhere near commercial-grade humor.
And in my experience, I've played with a bunch of AIs just to see what they know about humor.
They don't even know how it works.
If you ask them to even describe why something's funny, you get the worst descriptions you've ever seen.
So it's not even close on humor.
All right, here's some more things that maybe you could have just asked me, but science is confirming that loneliness can kill, and middle-aged Americans are particularly vulnerable.
Why do you think middle-aged Americans are the loneliest versus, let's say, Europe?
Do you think it's density?
Is it just that we have the option of living alone, so we take it?
Whereas if you didn't have the option, You know, you had to have roommates or you had to live with your family or you had to live with your parents or something.
I feel like it's because we have the option.
Oh, maybe divorce.
Yeah, maybe divorce as well.
Yeah, probably divorce.
I'll throw that in as well.
We have different norms about divorce here.
It's probably that.
Yep.
But I would say that loneliness does in fact qualify as one of our biggest health problems, along with our food supply being completely poisoned.
And I don't know that anybody has an idea for dealing with it, so let me tell you.
Here's how you deal with loneliness, and it's the only way.
You create natural ways that people can be in groups to do group activities.
Nothing else works.
Once you're an adult, you don't just make friends.
Hey, you seem nice.
Let's be friends and we can hang out.
That almost never happens in the real world.
What does happen is you join a bocce league, and then you get to know some of the other bocce players.
And then you say, Hey, I got a bocce court.
Come over and play, you know, practice in my place.
And then you can do something, but you have to have at least some activity in common, or it just doesn't work for adults.
The number one way that adults make friends is the parents of their children's friends.
That's like the number one way.
And that works great by the way.
So if you don't have that going for you, it's hard to make friends.
So, more activities.
We need something that would get normal people out of the house and in any kind of a group doing any kind of a thing.
More evidence that weight training improves your anxiety and depression in old people.
How many times do you have to see a study that shows that exercise is better than therapy and meds?
It's just every time.
Now, you know, I always tell you, don't, don't believe studies because studies are sort of a coin flip.
But if all of the studies are in the same direction and it's been years, well, that probably does mean something.
So I'm pretty sure that weight training does improve Anxiety and depression.
And by the way, my biggest BS filter is that if science claims something, but you don't observe it in person, it's probably not real.
But you do observe it.
Anybody who's ever done weight training knows they feel better when they're done.
Would you agree?
Is that observably obviously true to all of you?
That when you do exercise or weight training, your mental state is just immediately improved.
It's kind of obvious.
Now, how many of you have had this experience?
There'd be somebody in your circle who says, I'm very depressed and I'm thinking of getting professional help.
And then you say, you know, before you do that, and that might be necessary, I don't want to poo-poo the professional help, but before you do that, would you consider doing the thing that works every time, which is exercise?
Well, I'm thinking of, you know, this or that therapist.
I feel like you didn't even hear the sentence I just said.
Did you hear me say that if you just exercise, you might get more benefits than that thing that you're planning?
So I'm looking for a recommendation now.
I feel like you didn't even hear the words that came out of my voice and my mouth.
Have you had that conversation where people can't even hear it?
So I think there must be something about being in that situation where you also can't hear obvious solutions.
Not complete solutions, but something that would help.
Anyway, just an observation.
People can't hear that advice.
Here's another one I should have asked Scott.
They did a study of weight loss for obese women that were not very active and they said Some of them ate a big breakfast.
They all ate big breakfasts.
But some of them ate a lot of carbs.
A lot of carbs and protein.
And the others did a strict low-carb diet.
What do you think was better?
The big breakfast, high in protein and carbs?
Or the strict low-carb diet?
They could have asked me, because if you do protein first, you always do better.
So here's what I wrote in my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, that's now second edition, you can get it, is that what matters with diets is whether you can stick to them, and everything else doesn't matter.
It's also true with exercise.
If you say what matters with exercise is that I do it, And what matters with the diet is that whichever one I pick, I can make it work.
So it's the psychological part that we get wrong, not the how to do it.
Right?
You could figure out how to exercise.
It's not the hardest thing in the world.
You could figure out how to get right.
But the doing it, the motivation, the actual, the mental part is the hard part.
So that's the part I teach in How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
I teach you how to beat the mental part.
And then the physical part becomes almost trivial.
You get the mental part right.
But here's what I tell you.
If you can't do anything else right, If you're hungry, look for protein.
That's my trick.
So that's the mental trick.
If you're hungry, look for protein.
If you think that hungry means whatever you put in your mouth satisfies your hunger, you won't do well.
Because carbs tend to be more available.
So if you just convince yourself that hunger equals protein, or good fats, you know, like a good avocado is good too, You'll just do better.
Just protein first.
Protein, protein, protein.
If you can afford it, of course.
Here's another one maybe you should have asked me.
Turns out they did a big study about gender dysphoria in young people and turns out that the puberty blockers and hormone treatments for gender transition is not backed up by any kind of quantitative science whatsoever in terms of whether the people are happier after it's done.
How many people are surprised by that?
Could've asked me.
And by the way, if the science had said the opposite, you would still handle it the same way.
You get that, right?
So apparently there's no strong evidence, or not even weak evidence, that these early interventions for the gender dysphoria is likely to turn out well.
But suppose they did have evidence.
Suppose, hypothetically, just as a mental experiment, suppose the science indicated that two-thirds of the kids who wanted to transition as kids were glad they did.
Now that's not the case, but just imagine if it were the case.
Would that be a strong case to transition children?
No!
No!
No, that absolutely would not be a strong case to transition children.
If one third of them would be worse off and children can't make decisions, it just makes sense to wait.
Because you can't make that decision for them.
That's the hard part.
So I think even if the science were the other way, it still would make sense to wait.
Now, I get that, you know, there's some argument that if you started early, you'd get a better outcome, but I don't think that's a strong enough argument.
So, you could have just asked me about every one of these things.
About the weight training, I would have told you.
About the diety protein, I would have told you.
About maybe it's not a good idea to transition kids, I would have told you that.
And about the AI that can write humor, I would have told you that that's fake and it can't write humor.
So there are four scientific studies that literally, literally you could just ask me.
Now, I think you could have asked most of you as well.
How many of you were surprised by any of that?
None of you, right?
I'll bet there was not one thing I said that you didn't also know before the science.
All right.
Here's the funniest story.
So the California Senate Judiciary Committee, so now they've approved a bill.
So I guess this has to be voted for, but it would be a bill to create some kind of mechanism to figure out which descendants of slavery live in California.
Because they want the black residents of California who are, but only the ones descended from some kind of slave situation in America, They want them to be eligible for reparations.
But first we have to figure out if they can be identified.
So the first thing we're going to do is see if they can use a genetic kind of process to check the genes of Californians to find out who's eligible.
Now here's the fun part.
It's the math.
Are you ready for this?
This will be the funniest thing you've heard today.
Has everybody heard this story yet?
It's going to be the funniest thing you hear today.
You ready?
California has about 6.5% black residents.
Suppose half of them can prove that they're descended from slaves.
So you'd have, you know, 3.25.
But, there are 72% white citizens in California.
How many of the white citizens will show up having DNA that connects back to slavery, as in, they have a relative who was descended from slaves?
And the answer is, it doesn't have to be a very large percentage.
Because that percentage would be against the 72% of citizens who are white.
So there is a very good possibility, not yet confirmed, that there will be more white people in California who would get reparations for slavery, legitimately, legitimately, because they would actually be descended from slaves, that there would be numerically more of them than the number of black citizens who could also prove that they were descended from slaves.
So, is that perfect or is that perfect?
Does it seem like I'm totally in control of the simulation at this point?
Does it look to you like reality is starting to conform to what I would have written as a joke?
It's a little too on the nose, isn't it?
I think it's reality.
I think.
I mean, I've lost all sense of reality, but I think it's real.
Well, what could be more perfect than that?
Now, this is the beauty of the Go Study It.
I can tell you, as the person whose job it was in corporate America, to go study stuff.
That was what I did.
It's like, hey, we don't know if we want to do this financial thing.
Go study it.
We don't know if we want to replace this network equipment.
Go study it.
As soon as you go study stuff, you get a lot of surprises.
And this is one of them.
Now, I would not have predicted this specific surprise.
But I would have predicted surprises.
Meaning that as soon as you start studying it, it doesn't look like what you think it is.
So here's the other surprise.
If they did a legitimate calculation, They would have to net it out, because you'd have to net out other things that were, you know, advantages to black Americans.
You'd have to compare it to, you know, the people who were not slaves who stayed in Africa.
If you did an actual analysis of what is owed, I'm not even sure which way it would go.
You might find that descendants of slaves owe money to white Americans, if you actually did the math.
Now, if you did it correctly.
Now, I don't think there's any intention to do it correctly, but if you did it correctly, it might be opposite of what you think.
Don't know.
Well, Mark Zuckerberg is not going to be legally responsible for kids being hooked on Instagram.
I guess there are 25 cases Along those lines and it's all dismissed because it's not a standard that America accepts that the CEO is going to be personally responsible for that sort of thing.
So it's more like it was dismissed, not because the kids did not get addicted.
So that wasn't the question.
All right.
I got to see what this little image says.
Okay.
So anyway, that's happening.
All right, here's another funny story.
So where was this?
Axios, I think?
That there's an insect Armageddon coming from climate change.
So the researchers surveyed, so this is a climate change alarm story.
Now I want you to see if you think that the alarm is changing nature.
Here's what we used to worry about.
Climate change is going to drown us all.
Now that's pretty scary.
Climate change is already killing the polar bears.
Well, I don't know if that'll affect me directly, but they're big old mammals and it bothers me when mammals are dying.
So that's scary.
The hurricanes are going to kill us all from the climate change.
But it turns out the hurricanes aren't any worse than they ever were.
And we won't be able to grow food, but it doesn't seem to be a problem yet.
So they're looking for new problems to scare us, and researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder, they studied 12 ant species, and they found that the ants in Gregory Canyon, some of them have moved on to other environments, because they say it was too warm, probably climate change.
So we went from, you're all gonna drown and your food supply will be fried and the polar bears are already dying and you're next, to, we're now concerned that some subspecies of ants will relocate.
Oh no!
Oh no!
I wasn't worried about climate change until you told me that some of these several species of ants Might relocate.
No!
No!
Not relocating ants!
No!
The climate narrative has completely collapsed.
Now, I don't know if everybody knows it yet, but I'm telling you, it completely collapsed.
And it was the pandemic that did it.
You know, I've said it before, but I'll keep reminding you.
The public argument In other words, the part that the public understood was that all the climate scientists were on the same side.
That's all we had because we don't do the science and I can't check the science.
I don't know how to check the science.
So it's all we had.
And now we know that that's ridiculous and was never a real reason and that the experts can absolutely all be on the same side very easily as long as that's where the money is.
On my, uh, my locals community, where you have to be a subscriber to see the good stuff, I did a, uh, what I call a micro lesson.
I've got over 200 micro lessons.
Two minutes, I teach you something or a reframe that you didn't know.
So they're all, they're all designed to make your life better.
Like just watch it for two minutes and then you go, Oh, I got a new life skill.
So one of the life skills is how to explain to somebody, uh, why those climate models are BS.
Now, if you look at a climate model, if you visualize it, you know there are dozens, if not hundreds of climate models.
And you know that they like to draw it in a, in sort of a wide band.
There's like, well, all the models conform to sort of this band and they all seem to be hockey sticking up.
And there's so many models that are in the same range and they all show that the problem is going to be in the future, much worse.
So therefore it's believable because they're all in the same range.
And you might call that range the probability zone or the probability band.
You know, the place that probably we're going to be within that band.
Here's another way to think of that band.
That's the paycheck band.
If you created a climate model that did not fall within that band that they've already decided is the narrative, you couldn't get paid.
And it turns out that it's expensive to build and maintain a climate model.
It's not something you could do in an afternoon.
And once you build it, you have to tweak it forever because the data is always changing.
You're getting smarter.
You found out something, your model didn't hindcast anymore, something like that.
So you're always, it's like an expensive thing.
So in order to get a budget to maintain your climate model, you've got to make sure that your model is within that narrow band.
Otherwise you don't get a paycheck.
There is nothing scientific about that.
They've simply told all the scientists, make sure your data is in this narrow band or you can't get paid.
And they all know it.
So if the only conclusions are the ones you can get paid for, how do you expect anybody to produce a model that's outside that band?
That can never happen in the real world.
In the real world, they all have to be inside that narrow band or else they discard the model.
So if somebody came up with one, if they found a way to fund one and it didn't fit the model, and they produced it, what would happen?
They would be mocked out of climate science because their model is not within the narrow band that everybody is sure is the true one.
You just can't, you can't, you can't get out of that band.
Now, you might say, but Scott, you're no climate scientist, so why are you even weighing in on this climate stuff?
To which I say, I'm an economist.
My background is economics.
I have a MBA, so I know business and economics, and I know that if you describe this situation where the only way you could get paid is to make sure that your data went within this narrow band, and then you also knew, because you studied economics, that you can make a projection fit anything you want, just keep tweaking things until it fits.
Uh-oh.
It was just a little alarm sounded.
Got a low battery somewhere, I think.
All right.
You're going to hear that again in about 15 seconds.
Beep.
So anyway, that's why climate models are BS.
So it looks like Maine is going to be the latest to join this interstate effort I wasn't paying much attention to that would say that the state would give all of its electoral votes in the presidential election would give them all to whoever got the most votes in the whole country.
So basically it would be doing away with the electoral system without doing away with it.
So they keep it, but they'd make it irrelevant by just giving all the votes to whoever won the popular vote in the country.
Now, you can tell that the only purpose of this is to put Democrats in charge forever, right?
Because there are more of them.
And the only way Republicans ever win is if they win in the key battleground places.
So they're trying to take the one advantage that Republicans have to ever win, They're trying to add 10 million people to the voting rolls, mostly Democrats, the migrants, and changing the rules at the same time.
So I remind you that we don't have, and we haven't lived in anything like a republic, or a democratic republic, or a democratic federal republic, whatever we're called, for a long time.
It's all about the rules.
So whoever changes the rules, counts the votes, decides who can run, who can be in the primary, Those are the things that decided as a president.
We're a long way away from the voters will deciding the presidency.
And, and I think we should stop teaching it to kids really.
I think we should stop lying to children and say, we have, we have this system where people vote and you know, your vote matters.
Your vote doesn't matter.
Your vote doesn't matter at all.
All that matters is which rules get implemented before the vote.
If it's one side of the rules, you can tell who's going to win.
If it's the other side of the rules, you can tell who's going to win.
It's the rules.
So whoever controls the rules decides who's in power, and that's not you.
All right.
So there's some effort to prevent new residents from voting.
And obviously that's the reason for the bringing in all the illegal people is to affect the election.
All right.
Nearly two thirds of American voters believe the situation along the border is an invasion. 64%.
Oh my god.
Anyway, we already knew that.
Let's see.
So Rasmussen did a poll and asked, would you cheat to win in the 2024 election?
So voters were asked, would you cheat to win?
28% said yes.
28%.
Now it wasn't, actually it wasn't that different between the Democrats and Republicans.
So don't get all cocky.
It was about a quarter, roughly a quarter.
Roughly a quarter would cheat.
Now, given that all of Democrats believe that Trump is Hitler, because they've been told that, do you think that one in four being willing to cheat, so let's say they're willing, So they're able.
So they have the opportunity.
If one in four were willing to cheat, that would be enough people willing to cheat who are running elections.
Would you agree?
If it's true that one in four would be willing to cheat, certainly the people who handle the actual security for an election, probably one in four.
There's no reason to think that the people managing the elections have a lower rate of being willing to cheat.
So, if you had a system in which one in four told you they'd be willing to cheat, and then you also knew they had the opportunity, because we have elections that can't be fully audited, so they have the willingness and the opportunity, but do they have the motivation?
Well, yes, they do, because the news has been telling them that Trump is Hitler.
And then on the Republican side, they look at Biden and he looks like he's Hitler.
So you got two groups that both think the other one is a fascist, you know, dictator, Hitler.
Of course they have a reason.
So they get the motivation.
They have said they're willing in large enough numbers, and they certainly have the opportunity if they're managing elections.
So, do you think there's any chance that our elections are fair if a quarter of the people involved would be willing to cheat and they've got the best reason ever?
We're stopping Hiller.
And you see them acting like this in person.
You know, like the CEO of NPR who's getting a lot of heat this week.
If you look at her posts, it does look like she'd be willing to cheat Because she would believe that she was saving the country.
If I thought I could save the country, I'd cheat.
Wouldn't you?
If you thought you were literally saving the country, I'd cheat.
Because I'd rather save the country.
Of course.
So, to imagine that our elections are fair is kind of laughable in 2024.
Which is not to say that I have specific information about any cheating.
I don't.
I don't.
Well, here's one of my themes today, which is maybe some limits have been reached.
Limits of patience.
For example, John Cougar Mellencamp was giving a show recently and he managed to say something pro-Biden and was unable to finish the show because he got booed off the stage and ended up just quitting.
He just walked off.
So apparently some kind of limit has been reached with the public where if you go on stage in public and act like everybody is on the same page and Hey, you know, Biden's the greatest and Trump is the devil, then you're not going to finish your show.
You have to go home after that.
He had to go home.
Yeah.
So the, uh, apparently the, uh, Republicans and maybe independents and the audience said, no, we came here for music.
If you're going to give us that, go home.
And then he had to go home.
They sent him home.
Basically.
Good.
There's a story about RFK Jr.
who said that some Trump allies asked him to be VP.
Now the word he used was not allies, but the headline says allies.
He said emissary.
So that some Trump emissaries were feeling him out about being Trump's vice president.
Let me tell you how to interpret that.
It wasn't Trump.
It wasn't Trump.
You have to understand that.
If somebody says it was his allies or his emissaries, it wasn't Trump.
Now, I call this the fantasy politics season.
Here are two things that are pure fantasy politics.
Michelle Obama is going to replace Biden is never going to happen in the real fucking world.
Ever.
But we can't stop talking about it because it's fantasy politics.
Wouldn't that be interesting?
RFK Jr.
as the VP for Republican is the same thing.
That's pure fantasy politics.
There isn't any chance that Trump would have considered a Democrat for Vice President.
Zero chance.
That's pure fantasy.
So if in fact some emissaries or some allies were feeling RFK Jr.
out about it, they may have acted like it was more serious than it really was.
Because if they could get him to say yes, Then they could go to Trump and say, you know, it's not hypothetical.
He would say yes.
So I think the allies were trying to make something happen that I can't believe.
I can't believe for a second that Trump would have taken seriously because it would have been a huge mistake.
You agree, right?
It would be a gigantic mistake to just put a Democrat as the vice president.
I mean, it's just, it's just fantasy politics.
It's not things that could happen in the real world.
So, No, I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that Trump was flirting with RFK Jr.
as Vice President.
Now, if you said, would he flirt with him as Attorney General or as some kind of role to fix our food supply?
I say yes, because I think those people, I think they have a sufficient level of respect for each other that if the fit was right, yes, I think so.
I'm not predicting it.
But you could imagine him having a role in the administration, but not VP.
That would be crazy.
Axios says, U.S.
is on the rate to see the lowest levels of violent crimes and homicides since Obama was in office.
That's Axios.
Does anybody believe that?
Do you believe that violent crime is, for some reason, taking a plunge?
Well, it might be.
But do we believe any statistics, or is it more likely they changed the way they're recording the statistics, or something like that?
You know, the other possibility is, I wonder if all the people who are shootable already got killed.
Do you ever wonder about that?
Like, let's say murder just became way more common.
Wouldn't you fairly quickly reach the limit of the number of people who are worth shooting?
Like, what if you just run out of people who are worth murdering?
Because, you know, most of the murder is people who know each other.
Like, you probably know somebody you'd be willing to kill, but, you know, just one.
If I said to you, I know you're against murder, but let's just say, hypothetically, you had a magic button And you can make just one person die and nobody would know it was you.
You just have to pick one person who's so bad in your personal circle, you just think the world's better off if they're dead.
Would you push the button?
Well, some of you would.
And I actually wonder if all the people who are worth killing already got killed.
For example, a lot of people who get killed are themselves just monsters.
You know, there are people who have killed other people, they've hurt other people, and then, you know, they went too far and somebody killed them.
So, anyway, it's just a question of whether the stats are wrong, could it be something that happened with policing that's different, or could it be that everybody worth killing just got killed, so you ran out of people who are worth killing.
Anyway.
Where I live, in my county, there's a DA called Pamela Price, who's one of these Soros-funded prosecutors, a black woman, and I've never seen anything political in my town until this.
Meaning that you rarely are going to see like a campaign sign on everybody's lawn.
Yeah, I don't know why, but where I live it's just a very non-political place.
There's not going to be any Nobody's going to be protesting in town, there aren't going to be any parades for political reasons.
It's just a very non-political place.
But the only thing I've seen a lot of is people collecting signatures to get rid of the DA.
That I've seen a lot.
And I've signed it.
So I've signed that petition.
So they're working like all the grocery stores.
Every time you go in a grocery store, somebody's there asking you to get rid of Pamela Price.
So it looks like they're getting close to reaching a number where they can recall her.
That might actually happen.
So it looks like people have reached a limit.
Well, here's something that we can't limit.
The FISA thing is moving along to the Senate.
And as you know, there will be no provisions saying that the intelligence people have to get a warrant to look into ordinary Americans.
So now you have lost all 100% of your privacy.
100% of your privacy now officially gone, because the intelligence people can look into anything you're doing without a warrant.
They just have to have some bullshit reason that you talk to somebody from another country.
How often do you talk to somebody from another country?
It happens a lot.
If you talk about politics, or if you're doing anything that matters in the world, it probably is affecting other countries.
And you've got some ongoing conversation.
How hard would it be for the intelligence people to say, okay, you talk to somebody in another country, And it's just sort of some business person, but oh, hello, we can make a connection between that business person, who is just ordinary business, and they've got a brother-in-law who's part of the Communist Party.
So you got the Communist Party, you got the brother-in-law, you got this guy in another country that's good enough to watch the guy in the other country.
Oh, well, if you're making a phone call with an American, we have to see both sides, and then they can get anything they want on you.
So basically all privacy now completely gone.
So the government can look at whatever they want without a warrant.
Now you could argue that you never had any privacy because it's easy to get a warrant, which would be a pretty good argument.
But now don't even have that little tiny little safeguard.
They can just do whatever they want apparently.
So there's that.
There's a company that can make you into your own digital clone fairly easily.
Deepak Chopra, who's 77, he's already got a little clone.
And apparently for some monthly fee, there's a company called Delphi that will let you create your first, your own digital clone.
Now, I'm not sure if I will create mine using this particular app, but as you know, it has long been my plan long before AI was practical for decades.
I've been telling you that as soon as it gets here, I'm going to create a digital version of myself.
So I'll look into this one, but this might be it.
So what I imagine in maybe a year is if you go to Dilber.com, instead of having to read all the text about where my work is and where you can find it, you could just call up my bot and say, Hey, Scott, where can I find your comic?
Oh, well, you can look at it on The X-Platform, if you subscribe to me, or the Locals Platform at scottitems.locals, where you can buy my books, reframe your brain, and it will just answer all your questions.
Maybe even look for reprints if you want a license, and everything else.
So, one year or less, I should have that up and running.
Well, of course, Trump's in that Stormy Daniels paying to shut her up case that's so confusing that Vivek did a video, it was 2 minutes and 40 seconds, explaining the complications of that trial and why it's all BS and lawfare.
Now, if you saw it, It's easy to find.
Just look for Vivek and his video on Lawfare and Stormy Daniels.
It'll pop right up.
Here's why I would recommend you watch it.
It's a complicated situation, which Vivek explains perfectly.
Like, really summarizes it just perfectly.
But that's not why you should watch it.
You should watch it because I'm pretty sure, and I don't know this for sure, I think he did it with one take.
Watch it again.
Just watch it again and ask yourself, did he do that with one take?
Without notes?
Because it doesn't look like he's reading it.
I think he did that with one take.
You have to see it.
Like, we're not used to this.
Like, we just don't see this.
One take?
For that?
It's crazy.
It's just crazy.
I don't think he, I don't think he stumbled over a word.
Two minutes and 41 seconds of talking about a super complicated thing off the top of his head.
Incredible.
Anyway, you got to see it.
Elon Musk also weighed in and said it was, you know, obviously corruption of justice and lawfare.
And of course that makes news.
Um, and then Jack, Bassabek reminds us that in 2022, Hillary Clinton quietly settled a campaign finance violation about the Steele dossier and who funded it and whether it was, quote, legal services.
She paid a fine and was never arrested.
And Jack says that's the same thing Trump is on trial for now.
So you got Vivek saying this is a corruption of the system.
You got Elon Musk saying this is an obvious corruption of justice.
You've got Hillary Clinton, who wasn't arrested for some version of the same crime.
And even Rachel Maddow asked this question of her audience.
Why are we still talking about something about the 2016 election?
Why is that even a thing?
It's not about the 2020 election.
It's not about 2024.
The Stormy Daniels thing is about 2016.
Why are we caring about that?
Well, as Erica Abinanti responded to Rachel Maddow on X, it's because the left is blatantly weaponizing the justice system to take out their top opponent.
The only reason it's a thing is because it's bad for Trump.
Do you think Rachel Maddow doesn't know that?
That the only reason it exists is because it's bad for Trump, and that the system is completely corrupt?
Well, it gets better.
So they're picking the jurors for this trial and the jurors are being asked, you know, if they're biased or if they could be impartial.
Apparently 50 prospective jurors were dismissed for saying they can't be fair and impartial about Trump, but eventually they will find people who said they can be fair and impartial about Trump.
In other words, the only people on the jury will be liars.
I'm not making that up.
Because obviously nobody's impartial about Trump.
Can we all agree on that?
Literally nobody.
Unless they haven't been paying attention and then they're too stupid to be on a jury.
If somebody doesn't have a strong opinion about Trump, you don't want them anywhere near a jury because they're so fucking lame that they can't, you know, probably find their way home.
So you either have the stupidest people in the world or the biggest liars, and that's our system of justice.
And by the way, they're doing it right in front of you.
Right in front of you.
Do you think any of you believe that they're going to find impartial jurors?
Nobody believes that.
Nobody believes that.
Not a single citizen of the United States.
Not a Democrat.
Not a Republican.
Nobody.
And yet they're going to do it anyway.
What's up with that?
It's exactly what it looks like.
It's complete corruption.
And it's so blatant that they can do it right in front of you.
Now, a lot of people are saying, and I think I agree with it so far, that it's all good for Trump.
Because every day he's in trial on what is obviously corruption.
You know, not on his part, but obvious corruption on the part of the Department of Justice.
That it should help him.
But I don't think we have really an election that elects who the people want to elect.
I mean, it's obvious that we're pretty far from that standard.
But yeah, we'll have a jury of idiots and liars, and they'll come up with something.
Politico is reporting that a number of the defendants, the January 6th defendants, there are 350 of them that are in jail for something like Obstructing justice and interfering with some documents or something.
Now there's one judge, a Trump-appointed judge, who basically threw out some cases.
So there are currently people in jail, while there are other people who are accused of exactly the same thing.
And the judge threw it out as BS.
Basically, I think he probably just said it's a protest.
Now the Supreme Court's taking it on, as they should, because if the lower court judges can't even decide if it's a crime or not a crime, well that's a perfect job for the Supreme Court.
And I didn't realize just how much they had to torture the law to make any of this illegal.
So apparently it came out of some Enron law, The Enron Law was specifically about Enron destroying records.
So they wanted it to be illegal to destroy records that are part of an official proceeding, such as a court case.
So, does it sound like the January 6th people were destroying records to interfere with an official proceeding?
No, they were not destroying any records.
So they had to stretch it from the original intention of destroying evidence to simply interfering with an official proceeding.
Because I guess the language of the law is broad enough that they thought they could get away with that.
So were people who were protesting interfering with an official proceeding?
Well, yes they were.
They were intentionally trying to interfere with the official proceeding, but they were specifically trying to improve it.
Which somehow gets left out of the conversation.
Yes, they did want to interfere with it to make sure that the system was working Not to break the system they wanted to delay to make sure that the the count was accurate and they just said hey two days and Then at the same time Trump was organizing this so-called fake electors but What do we know if Trump's lawyers go to jail for the fake elector scheme?
What can you determine from that?
Number one, that a court said it was illegal to try to organize these fake electors.
Number two, the lawyers went to jail for it.
Or not jail, Eastman?
Eastman got disbarred or something.
So if the lawyers get in trouble for it, what does that tell you about Trump?
Let me connect the dots for you.
If the lawyers got in trouble for it, it means that Trump was operating under legal advice.
Under legal advice.
That's why the lawyers are in trouble.
So how in the world does the principal get in trouble for following the advice of lawyers?
And how can you say that that's interfering with an official proceeding if the lawyers thought it was legal?
There's no indication that Trump thought it was illegal, because it all came from his lawyers.
He didn't make up any of it.
It was all stuff his lawyer said, you know, I think we could maybe make this work.
So the fact that the lawyers are in trouble tells you Trump should not be, because it means it was a lawyer organized concept and he just said yes.
So apparently this law is complete BS that they stretched it from some Enron thing into a slightly delaying a process to improve it.
So they went from destroying records that would be necessary in a court case, very bad, to protesting and using your First Amendment, but too aggressively.
You know, the trespassing was over the line.
To improve a process, publicly, transparently.
They wanted to transparently and publicly improve a process that appeared to them to be broken at the moment.
And they're going to try to torture that until you should be in jail.
And they are in jail.
So what's going to happen if the Supreme Court rules that all of these people who are in jail for Um, these charges, these obstruction of justice charges, what happens if they all get freed?
What does that do to the narrative?
Well, as Politico points out, that's not necessarily going to mean Trump is off the hook.
Because Trump was part of organizing these fake electors, whereas the protesters didn't organize any fake electors.
So this Enron rule about, you know, falsifying documents and stuff, they're going to torture that thing into falsifying and destroying documents is the same as getting a fake slate of electors, which, by the way, we know from the documentation at the time, Was to preserve their legal challenge.
It was just to preserve the legal challenge.
Basically, just the legal strategy.
So I don't think that's such a thin charge.
It seems to me if the 350 people get out, even though they're not exactly in the same situation as Trump, that the whole obstruction of justice thing is going to look like BS for Trump too.
That the glow from the Supreme Court kicking out the other cases should end up giving Trump a little advantage.
Yeah, so right now we're watching protesters block bridges, you know, the anti-Israel protesters.
But the people who are blocking bridges, are they stopping some kind of a legal process?
Are they stopping a legal process or just traffic?
So they're probably okay, because it's just traffic.
But suppose, suppose you were a Suppose it was Republicans who were doing it.
Do you think they could torture the law to turn it into a crime?
Sure.
They'll say somebody on that bridge was going to a official, to some official event, and you stopped them from doing it.
So you stopped the government from working.
So you got to go to jail.
You obstructed justice.
I don't know.
I feel like they could torture anything into anything at this point.
So, speaking of those people on the bridges, did you see that Tom Cotton, Senator Tom Cotton, said that the citizens should take matters into their own hands and don't wait for the police?
Basically, he was in favor of getting out of your car and dragging people out of the road.
Now, I would stop, he didn't say violence, He did not say violence.
People sort of read that between the lines, but he didn't say that.
He said take matters into your own hands.
I think take matters into your own hands should be limited to physically dragging them out of the way.
Which I agree with.
Does it seem to you that some kind of limit has been reached?
Yes.
I think the Supreme Court's going to find the limit on this obstruction of justice stuff and reverse it.
I think Tom Cotton is telling people Do you take matters into their own hands?
I think maybe they will.
I don't know.
You're seeing some stories in the press of people taking matters into their own hands, more than you expected.
Maybe that's a thing.
And generally, everywhere you look, there's something like a limit that's been reached.
Now, I'll say it again, because as part of our fantasy politics, Democrats like to talk about the day that Trump goes to jail.
So that's their fantasy politics.
And I want to say as clearly as possible because clarity really helps.
You know, the one thing that can get you in serious trouble is not understanding the room.
Like if you do something, you don't think it's going to cause a revolution, but then it does because you didn't understand the room.
Let me explain the room.
Trump in court is very, very bothersome.
Like his supporters don't like it at all, but so far, They can handle it, meaning they think he'll probably prevail, so they don't need to get involved.
But if Trump goes to jail for one day, all bets are off.
Now, I never, I never recommend violence, of course, so don't do anything violent or illegal, but I'm just saying that the social contract will be gone at that point.
And in my opinion, it should be.
At that point, all options are on the table.
I don't recommend violence, but all options would be on the table.
So, if the Democrats want to push it to the breaking point, that's the breaking point.
I want to be as clear as possible about that.
One day in jail is going to make me feel like you put me in jail.
If you put Trump through the legal process, it feels like that's about Trump.
If you put him in jail for one day, One hour, one hour.
That's personal.
Because I know they're going to do it to me.
And I would say that I would pull out, um, I would, I would remove all controls at that point.
At that point, there wouldn't be anything I wouldn't be willing to do.
The social contract would be gone.
I don't recommend violence.
I'm just saying that whatever you thought was the limit on other people's behavior, one hour in jail, The limit will be gone.
And I can't predict what happens after that.
If you want that situation, complete unpredictability, put him in jail for one hour.
You're not going to like it.
You're definitely not going to like it.
But again, no violence.
All right.
There's an NGO in Mexico that's handing out flyers to tell people that they need to vote for Joe Biden.
Once they come to this country illegally so that more illegal people can be let into the country like them.
So yeah, it's exactly what you thought.
That the migration situation is a political process.
And I think we're done with it.
I think we've reached the limit.
You know what else we've reached the limit to?
I feel there's a very high chance that the election will be rigged, and really obviously and really right in front of us.
I'm not sure we're going to be able to put up with it this time.
I mean, there was a protest last time that turned into, you know, the insurrection.
But I don't think you want to do it this time.
I feel like this time things would go differently, and I don't think that people would be dumb enough to attack the Capitol or anything like that.
Don't do it right in front of us.
Don't make it obvious.
I mean, I think the limit has been reached.
So Iran is talking about they have some secret weapon unspecified, which is just a good thing to say if you think you're going to get attacked.
We don't know if Israel yet is going to make a direct attack on Iran, but there's a lot of talk about that.
And some say that secret weapon could be a A nuclear dirty bomb.
Well, here's what I know for sure.
If Iran ever used a nuclear dirty bomb anywhere, I'm pretty sure we'd have to put them out of business.
Would you agree?
Like, that would be a limit.
That would be the limit.
The limit is, if you nuke anything, you can't be a country anymore, at least with the leadership that you have.
So I love the Iranian people.
If you're lucky enough to know anybody who was born and raised in Iran, I think you'd agree with me.
Amazing people.
Amazing people.
Just the nicest, warmest, friendliest, smart, usually well-educated, looking to make a difference kind of people.
So the Iranian people are amazing, and I definitely don't want to get in a fight with them.
But their leadership Might make themselves a target if they did a dirty bomb.
So here's what I think Israel's options are now.
Now I remind you that I don't support Israel because the ADL has labeled me a Holocaust denier.
Obviously I'm not a Holocaust denier.
But the ADL, of course, is not directly reporting to Israel.
They're a separate American entity.
However, that's not my problem.
Because Israel could turn them off if they want to.
They would just have to disavow them and it would be hard for them to raise money.
So, given that the ADL is an enemy of mine, I can't support Israel while the ADL is after me.
Is that fair?
And trust me, I understand that they're separate entities.
But I don't care.
That's not my problem.
So anyway, so I'm not supporting Israel.
I'm just describing their options.
Option one, there will never be a better time to do a decapitation strike on Iran.
I'm not recommending it.
I'm not recommending it.
I'm saying if they ever wanted to, there'll never be a better chance, because they've got a free punch right now.
It's a free punch.
If they go too far, this would be the only time they could come back from that.
Because too far doesn't look the same as it did before October 7th, does it?
What you would have considered as going too far on October 6th would not look like too far today.
And if time goes by and, let's say, things normalized, it would be impossible to take out their leadership and think you can get away with it.
But in the context of having them funding October 7th, everybody assumes, it seems obvious, and the ongoing attacks, Hezbollah continues to send missiles, and that's Iranian-backed, and Hamas is not giving up the hostages, Iranian-backed, And then Iran did that massive missile and drone attack on Israel, which fortunately was mostly thwarted.
But under that context, Israel can take out the leadership of Iran.
And probably no other time that could have been possible.
So, if they don't do it, I doubt they'll ever get another chance, because everything that's happening now is just so unique.
It just doesn't, it's not likely they'll ever get another shot.
So again, not recommending it, but if it happened, don't be surprised, and it would be the only time they could get away with it.
Uh, also they could get away with it because Biden is so weak.
Um, again, that's more of an impression.
Uh, it might be that the Biden administration is plenty tough and I don't know, you know, maybe they're playing it right.
I don't know, but he's perceived as weak and probably perceived as a lame duck in the sense that it doesn't look like he would win if you're, if you're outside the country, you probably think he's not going to win.
So, we've got a weak president, and then the other fact is that Israel, in my opinion, has already spent their Holocaust chip.
So, what they're doing in Gaza will forever be called by their enemies as a genocide, and that just essentially kneecaps the whole Holocaust narrative that has been so useful up to now.
Now, if you're going to give away your biggest asset, the Holocaust narrative, you want to make sure you got your money's worth.
And so far, I don't think they have.
If the only thing they've done is get aggressive, super aggressive with Gaza, then they spent their chip and I don't know if they got anything back.
And if they rebuild Gaza the way it was, then they gave it away for nothing.
They got nothing.
They'll just recreate the problem.
So you don't spend your greatest asset and get nothing.
The only thing that would be worth that expense would be to take Iran out as a risk in the future.
I don't mean destroy the country.
That would be very, very bad.
But a leadership decapitation strike, maybe.
Or, if they don't do that, here would be the other way to go.
If you wanted to go psychological rather than kinetic, I think Israel should say, look, the reason we have this problem is Iran.
If Iran were not funding all these entities, none of this would be happening.
So Iran owns the people who have been displaced, the Gaza residents.
Just say, here's the deal.
Iran, you can feed them all you want and we'll open up the corridor.
So Iran, if you want to feed them, you broke Gaza.
We didn't break it.
We just did what we had to do.
But you did things that were optional.
Israel did what it had to do, because everybody knows self-defense is legitimate, right?
But Iran didn't have to do what they did, which is funding the militants, etc.
So Iran is the one that broke it.
They're the one that broke Gaza.
So I think they should take all of the residents, Uh, into Iran proper.
They should open the door and say, all right, we ruined your country, Gaza.
So now you can live here and we'll keep you alive until you, you get settled.
So I think that's what Israel should do.
They should demand that, uh, Iran take their proxies and all the families and everybody that they, everybody whose life they destroyed by funding Hamas.
So the trouble is Israel is allowing They're allowing the situation to be reframed as Israel destroyed Gaza.
That's not exactly what's happening.
Iran destroyed Gaza by funding a situation which guaranteed Gaza would be destroyed.
Israel is just doing their part.
They're doing the automatic part.
Well, if you do this to us, it's kind of automatic that this is going to happen.
So I think they can make the case that Iran should be feeding and clothing and doing the health care for everybody who's displaced.
And they should be the permanent settlement for all of them.
And that that would be the fair and only thing that could work.
The only thing that wouldn't work is rebuilding Gaza and repopulating it like it used to be.
That's the only thing you can't do.
And by the way, Everybody's pretending like that's the only thing that will happen.
Like the international community is still pretending.
This is like fantasy politics again.
I saw Bill Ackman, this was a while ago, a few weeks ago.
He said, you know, maybe Gaza could become the real model city that's rebuilt and the Gaza residents are put back in.
And not only do they go back, but it's a better situation.
It's like a model, you know, amazing city built with modern wonders and stuff.
To which I say, that's fantasy.
Israel's never going to let their enemies repopulate.
Who thinks that's going to happen?
So there's this whole fantasy, you know, belief about this two-state situation.
None of that's going to happen.
That's like Michelle Obama being president and RFK Jr.
being selected to be vice president for Trump.
This is pure fantasy.
They're not going to rebuild Gaza the way it was.
So you're going to find something else.
There's a story that says that Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, Quote melted down on some kind of earnings call and it was over ESG and I guess BlackRock's losing money because people are pulling their funds because of ESG.
Specifically, let's see who did it.
Specifically, there was the Texas Permanent School Fund pulled eight and a half billion from their management.
That kind of hurts.
Imagine having one entity pull over $8 billion out of your fund over ESG.
So now the report was that Larry Fink, quote, melted down, but I heard an audio of it and it didn't sound all that melty down to me.
He did sound stressed, but I wouldn't go all the way to melt it down.
Yeah, he was just being quite, let's say, assertive in his opinion.
He wasn't too happy about it.
But, melted down?
Nah.
Melted down is a whole different standard.
I wouldn't say he melted down.
RFK Jr.
explains to us why NATO is so hell-bent on expansion.
Now, remember, follow the money explains everything?
And do you remember when you were confused about why do we need NATO to be every country?
When Russia, it's like the main thing they don't want.
Like Russia says, there's just one thing we definitely don't want.
Just don't grow NATO, okay?
We can make everything else work.
Just that one thing.
Just one thing.
Don't increase NATO.
So, of course, we're increasing NATO like crazy.
And it turns out that there's a financial reason for that.
Are you surprised?
Here's the financial reason, as described by RFK Jr., which immediately made sense to me.
Like, everything fell in place.
When you hear this for the first time, you're going to say to yourself, are you fucking kidding me?
If you've never heard this yet, I'm going to tell you in a moment, if you've never heard this before, and I never have, it's the first time I heard it was this morning, your head is going to explode.
You ready for this?
RFK Jr.
tells us that if a country goes NATO, the first thing that country has to do is buy only NATO-type weapons, because NATO needs to be interoperable.
Do you see it yet?
Do you know who sells all the NATO-approved weapons?
The United States.
This is all about building a weapons building entity, and having a good reason for lots of weapons.
Well, it's right on the border there with Russia, so of course they need lots of weapons.
Well, they don't need our weapons.
Well, if we make them NATO, they'd need our weapons.
It was always about selling them weapons.
That's all it is.
And then the arguments about Putin wanting to roll over Europe?
Probably all complete bullshit.
Probably.
And then BlackRock, of course, and others will get the big contracts to rebuild.
So Ukraine is not just one thing.
Obviously, the CIA wanted it to help them conquer Russia, and the energy people wanted the fight so they could take Russia's energy business, and the weapons people wanted them to be NATO so they could sell NATO weapons.
Let me say something with no ambiguity whatsoever.
America is the bad guy.
Are you all aware of that?
You know we are the bad guy, right?
Like, we're really bad.
Like, we're so bad, it's almost incalculable.
We might be the worst country that ever lived.
Well, Hitler and Stalin now did pretty bad.
Maybe not worse than them.
I'll give you a Pol Pot, too.
But we're in the top 10.
I mean, the shit we do to other countries just for money is completely morally and ethically bankrupt.
We're probably the most morally and ethically bankrupt country in the history of all countries.
But does it work?
Kind of.
You know, kind of.
As long as we have the biggest military, we can get rid of all, we can do all kinds of stuff.
So anyway, um, remember I predicted, uh, right after Trump lost in 2020, uh, I predicted that Trump would look better every day he was out of office.
And I saw Fox news was reporting on a poll.
That people who remember the years in office of Trump versus Biden, 42% remember Trump's years in office as, you know, basically good, mostly good, but only 25% think Biden is mostly good.
25%.
Hmm.
25% of the public thinks that Biden's years are mostly good.
it. 25% of the public thinks that Biden's years are mostly good. I think all 25% are on MSNBC. Did you see Morning Joe go full mental illness about Trump today?
I'll see you next time.
Oh my God, that guy's got some mental problems that he's trying to trying to sell as his professional job.
Anyway, meanwhile, Axios has a scoop that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is preparing fresh sanctions on Iran.
Huh.
Sanctions on Iran.
Who does that remind me of?
What leader wanted to build a wall and have sanctions on Iran?
Hmm.
Well, it seems that Trump was right about everything, and now sanctions on Iran looks like a good idea.
Suddenly, doesn't it?
How about those sanctions on Iran?
And maybe we should build a wall.
Trump, right on everything.
Then as you know, the Republicans are talking about how they have to have more observers during election night.
So the Republicans think that they need more lawyers and observers to make sure that you have full transparency for the election.
It's a good idea, don't you think?
What would be your, what kind of complaint could anybody have about that?
Could you even imagine what the complaint would be?
Like why would you, why would anybody complain?
About having extra observers, so that way you don't have to wonder if the election was rigged.
Right?
Well, wasn't it terrible that all the Republicans said, hey, I think that election was rigged?
Well, you could do away with most of that by making sure that everywhere there's a Democrat, there's also a Republican.
I'll tell you, if you told me there was a Republican watching every step of the process at the same time as a Democrat, I would say, you know what?
A lot of people say this system is rigged, but if you just tell me there's a Republican and a Democrat watching every vote, I'm going to think maybe that system worked.
But apparently that was not the case.
Apparently there's quite a bit of pressure to make sure that there are no Republicans watching.
Who would say such a crazy, crazy thing that would obviously out you as a scoundrel and obviously out you as somebody who had every intention of rigging an election?
Who in the world would be against transparency and having both a Democrat and a Republican looking at every step of the way?
Who could possibly be against that?
Mark Elias, a lawyer for the Democrats, says, For those who can't believe it, yes, the right-wing groups are suing for the right to harass election workers and voters.
That's right.
Mark Elias, the guy famous for getting all the rules changes that probably got Biden elected in the first place, is saying that transparency is really just Republicans wanting to hassle and harass the election workers.
Now, could we have a show of hands?
Because I know there are a lot of Republicans watching this stream.
How many of you wake up in the morning and say to yourselves, you know, there's one thing I like even more than fair elections with great transparency.
I'd love to go down to an election and just harass a Democrat on election day.
Because I can.
I'm going to sue somebody.
In fact, I want to harass somebody so badly.
That I'm going to sue for the right to harass people.
Now, is that the weakest lawyer argument you've ever heard?
That transparency is the same thing as harassing?
He's actually trying to sell that.
But more importantly, he's trying to sell that there should not be transparency.
He's the guy who knows where all the bodies are buried.
I'll bet you Mark Elias knows if there's anything that's, say, imperfect about the elections, he would be the one who knows.
Probably more than any single person in the world.
He'd probably know.
And he thinks that lack of transparency would be the better way to go.
At least based on his comments, it seems that way.
Aren't they telling us directly they plan to cheat?
How do you interpret this other than, we very much want to cheat, and we would hate it if you were watching?
I don't even have another way to think of it.
Like, I try to show you both sides of things.
There's no both sides of this one.
What is the both sides of transparency?
Lack of transparency?
No, the opposite of transparency is not harassing Democrats.
The opposite of transparency is non-transparency.
But he's tried to sell us that the opposite of transparency is harassing.
That is not an argument.
That's not even a good try.
But we've got nothing else, so... Let me ask you this.
When does a lawyer lie?
When does a lawyer lie?
Now, I know you're going to say, when their mouth is moving.
Funny, but that's not what I'm going for.
When does a lawyer lie?
There's only one situation in which a lawyer lies.
When the truth doesn't work.
When the truth doesn't work.
Because if the truth worked, why would you lie about it?
Because you want something that works.
So a lawyer would never have a reason to lie when the truth works.
Am I right?
Is Mark Elias telling you the truth?
That this is about harassing Democrats?
Does that sound like the truth to you?
And if it's not the truth, why would a lawyer lie?
Only one reason.
If he's lying, and it looks like an obvious lie to us, but we can't read his mind, but if he's lying, there's only one reason.
Because the truth would be bad for him.
There's no other reason, right?
You had to say, well, his lips are moving.
You had to say it.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that gives us the conclusion of today's amazing show.
I'm going to say goodbye to the platforms of Facebook, Rumble and X. I'm going to stick around for the local subscribers who are special in a good way.
