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, Robot Security, Democrat Party People, Identity Persuasion Technique, Phil Bump, Christina Bobb, Elise Stefanik, DEI Racism, Nancy Pelosi, Katy Tur, Corporate Home Purchases, Nicolle Wallace, Never Biden Voters, Mar-A-Lago GSA Boxes, Julie Kelly, Pentagon DEI, DEI Nuclear Power Plants, Mass Deportation Support, Pro-Trump Trends, 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
Up to levels that even the ancient Egyptians couldn't imagine while they were building pyramids, which we can't even do.
So think of that.
Think about that for a minute.
Well, all you need for this is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Well, trolls, you will be ignored.
No trolling today.
Alright.
I've introduced a new character in Dilbert Reborn that is a smug idiot.
Now, I want you to see if you can figure out who I based that character on.
The smug idiot.
Now, I don't do politics in the comic, But I can see you all waited for the video to kick in and now you're all happy.
Good.
Good, good.
Yeah, it just takes a little delay.
Anyway, see if you can identify who the new character in Dilbert is.
If you're a subscriber, you'd have to be subscribing on X or Ot, or at the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com.
The Smug Idiot.
See if you can figure out who that's based on.
Smug Idiot.
Alright, one in four people, according to a new survey, think they're going to lose their jobs this year.
People are really afraid of robots.
So, new survey of 2,000 people.
A quarter of them think that they're going to lose their job.
Here's my prediction for jobs and AI and robots.
Now, the common wisdom is that robots will take your jobs and then will be unemployed.
Here's what's really going to happen.
You ready?
A robot will be an expensive piece of equipment.
You with me so far?
A robot Will be an expensive piece of equipment.
But not so expensive, and so big, that you couldn't turn it off and throw it on a truck and steal it.
So the theft of robots, and then reprogramming them, I assume, is going to become an industry.
Do you know what's the one thing that could protect a robot?
Not another robot.
Because robots will not be allowed to do violence.
So they won't be able to protect themselves.
So the obvious future is that you'll need at least one human being for every eight-hour shift in which a robot is working so that somebody doesn't come and steal your robot.
And since the robot can work all day and all night, you need three eight-hour shifts of humans So for every high productive robot, let's say a robot that can do cobalt mining or something, something you don't want to do, you're gonna need three humans to just guard it from somebody stealing it.
Yeah, think about that.
Which part am I wrong about?
Am I wrong that robots will be expensive, they will be stealable, I'm pretty sure, and And robots won't be able to protect themselves.
Right?
Because you're not going to give the robot a, like a, a flamethrower.
So you have to have human beings with guns to protect your robots.
Three per robot.
Now, in reality, you would have a smaller security force guarding a larger body of robots, but there must be a whole bunch of situations where somebody just has one robot.
Let's say you run a junkyard, like literally a junkyard.
You might only need one robot to run the whole junkyard, but you're going to need a person there to make sure somebody doesn't steal that one robot.
Or how about this?
At some point, I predict, if you just straight line what's happening now, that all of the jobs that have any value and productivity will go to robots.
But that will leave all of the DEI jobs for humans.
So I believe the inevitable future is that all productive work will be robots and AI, and all unproductive work, and I'm talking about DEI, will all be humans.
And we'll get to the point where the humans don't do anything but accuse each other of racism.
And that's really all we're good for.
Because if you compare us to robots, the robots are going to be smarter, faster, work all day, no complaints, no lawsuits.
Really the one and only thing that humans are going to be good for is accusing each other of being racist in different ways.
So probably it's nothing but robots and DEI consultants and everything else will be unnecessary.
Well, you can expect that someday in the very near future, in the Dilbert comic, Dogbert will be a career advisor in the world of AI and robots.
Dogbert's advice will not be, let's say, motivational.
I haven't written these comics yet, but I'm already laughing about Dogbert giving advice for the age of robots.
Well, we could make a potato battery out of you, maybe, but that's about all you're good for.
Well, I like to say this as often as possible, until people accept it as their preferred frame.
The Democrats are dominated by young people and women.
Is that a fair statement?
The Democrat Party has a big advantage in young people, and women in particular, and single women in particular.
What can we say about those two groups?
Young people and single women.
Younger single women.
We can say that the young people, both male and female, are our dumbest citizens when it comes to politics.
Now, I say that not because I think they have low IQs.
No, nothing like that.
They have perfectly good intelligence.
It's just that, do you remember what you were like when you were 20?
Does anybody remember how stupid you were when you were 20?
I like to tell this story in case you don't see me acting humble enough.
Would anybody like to see me act humble for the first time ever?
Come on, sometimes I act humble.
But it would be very rare.
I'd like to demonstrate it for you now.
I have to get ready for this.
A rare act of humility Okay, get ready for it.
Okay, I think I can do it.
It's gonna be tough for me.
The first time I ever voted in a presidential election, I voted for Jimmy Carter.
Do I need to say anything else about the level of my intellectual and political sophistication at the time?
No, I managed to pick The president who became famous as the worst president of all time until Joe Biden.
That's right.
My first try at being a voter, first try, I voted for Jimmy Carter.
Once I realized what I had done, what followed was many years of not voting under the theory that I could not be trusted to vote.
Oh, I was very aware of it.
I would look at my choices and I would say, okay, Scott, remember, you did vote for Jimmy Carter, but worse, it gets worse.
Not only did I vote for Jimmy Carter, but at the time of my vote, I was feeling pretty confident about it.
Yep.
Feeling pretty confident.
I dare say, I don't recall specifically, but I imagine if somebody got into a political conversation with me, I might have been arrogant.
I might have been.
I might have been a little arrogant.
So I was a smug idiot.
I was a smug idiot.
Pretty sure I had all the answers.
I'm 21.
What could there be left to learn?
I'm pretty done learning.
I'm done learning.
Now I'm smarter than all the old people who have been just sitting around and rotting since they were 21, getting worse.
But now I'm 21, and I'm at the peak of my intellectual powers!
Voting for Jimmy Carter.
Alright, so you've got a bunch of young people in the Democrats, and then, as we've often discussed, young single women have the greatest mental problems, and it's not a close call.
They have the most mental problems by a lot.
What else do these two groups have in common?
They can be the most easily fooled and brainwashed and hypnotized.
Do you know how people always say senior citizens are the easiest to scam?
Do you believe that?
Do you believe senior citizens are the easiest to scam?
Not even close.
It's true that senior citizens are often scammed.
Do you know why they get scammed more than young people?
Because they have money.
There's no point in scamming a 20-year-old.
What are you going to get, a pack of cigarettes?
You scam old people because they got money.
Right.
Now, are there lots of old people who get scammed because they're not quite with it?
Yes.
Yes.
At a certain age, it's pretty dangerous to make your own decisions.
But you know what's even more dangerous?
Voting at 21.
I voted for Jimmy Carter.
Have I mentioned that?
Yeah.
Compare that.
Compare the people, the young women who are marching in favor of the rapists.
The anti-LGBTQ rapists.
They're marching in favor of them.
Is that because of all their intelligence?
And all their wisdom?
No.
It's a form of mental illness and they've been hypnotized and brainwashed.
And every time we treat this like it's anything else, like it's a difference of opinion, It's not a difference of opinion.
It's literally insanity.
And a low level of awareness of how anything works.
Do you think that the young Democrats are aware that their entire party is essentially a Rico criminal enterprise?
Do you think they're aware of that?
Of course not.
You have to get to a pretty sophisticated point before you can see it all.
Because it's kind of invisible until you know a lot about a lot of things, and then it all comes together.
So, the Democrat Party is the party of the dumbest and least mentally capable people, and that's based on data.
It's not even an insult, that's just a description.
And there's a study from Dr. Michael Taylor at UCL Economics.
It says that basically your opinions are assigned to you by the media.
So if you... Motivated reasoning he calls it.
People just want to agree with their team basically.
So this is an extension of what I told you about persuasion.
If you want to change somebody's mind, The most effective way to do it, I mean, it's hard, but the most effective way is to change what they, who they think they are.
So if I told, let's say if I took a bunch of, you know, young people and I said, let's talk about each of these issues.
And you go one issue at a time.
All right, abortion, war, taxes.
And you would, you'd be debating about all these things and you'd probably be losing.
But suppose You'd be losing in the sense that nobody ever changes their mind.
But suppose you started telling people that they were a different party.
And you just say, you know, the more I listen to you, you're wise beyond your years.
I really expect you to be more of a conservative.
You know, you can actually talk somebody into a different identity, and then all the opinions will come with it.
But it's really hard to talk somebody out of an opinion.
But you can talk somebody into changing their identity.
Believe it or not, it's easier.
It's not easy, but it's easier than getting somebody to change their opinions before they change their identity.
So change their identity first.
Phil Bump, as you know from the disgraced Washington Post, barely a publication, certainly More of a propagandist entity.
So there was an article in the New York Post, which is not the same as the Washington Post, different posts, and that the New York Post was doing an expose on where the money was coming from for the protesters, the college Hamas, pro-Hamas protesters, and the The bottom line was that some amount of it came from Soros funding.
Maybe not directly, but through entities that he funded, and then those entities became part of this protest.
So what did the Washington Post do when that article came out?
In mere hours, I think it was only six hours later, there was a whole gigantic fill-bump article trying to debunk that Soros was involved and saying that any indication that Soros was funding these people was anti-Semitic.
So here's the example.
Imagine explaining what I'm explaining to you.
To a 21-year-old, a college student.
And they'd say, all right, so you know Phil Bump?
And they'd say, who?
Phil Bump.
You know, like the most famous propagandist for the most famous propaganda newspaper.
What's the most famous propaganda newspaper?
You know, the Washington Post.
Yeah, everybody knows the Washington Post is just propaganda.
I didn't know that.
Maybe it just disagrees with Trump.
No, I mean, everybody knows that.
So that's what your conversation would look like.
There's no way you could convince a young person with enough context that they could see the whole field.
They're looking through the keyhole at everything.
So Phil Bump runs some cover for George Soros, Soros being part of that whole Atlantic group, Masters of the Universe, and the Washington Post being part of their Apparently covering for them.
So, there we go.
There's a Trump lawyer, Christina Bob, who has so many charges against her because of all the January 6th stuff and the alternate electors that the Democrats call the fake electors.
She could spend the rest of her life in jail.
Now, That's a lot of Trump supporters and lawyers going to jail.
Do you think that a young person has any idea what's going on with all of this?
Because young people think that they were, quote, fake electors.
Fake electors.
And every time you see that, that they tried to do fake fraudulent electors, and then somebody will run a clip of the Hillary Clinton team Doubting the 2016 election and talking about their own alternate electors.
Totally a process.
Totally a process that's normal.
And most of the Democrats who are young people and are dumb as citizens and also mental illness, they believe that just because the news told them that the electors were fake, that that means it was illegal.
Nope.
They do not understand any of the context, and if there's anybody here who doesn't understand it, here's what would happen.
The fake electors, also known as alternate electors, should Trump have put them forth, there would be some legal case, and then the courts would sort it out, and then they would decide which electors are the real ones, and then we would just go on with our business.
There was never any risk to the system.
Not even a little bit.
It was literally just a bureaucratic, paperwork-y kind of thing, and nobody was going to allow Trump to take over the country with some paperwork.
Who believes that?
Do you think that you can run a coup with paperwork?
Oh, we changed the box we checked.
We checked a different box, and now we rule the world!
If you don't believe us, look at the box we checked.
People, we checked the box.
That means we run the country.
Oh, you and your constitution and your military and your 340 million people who don't agree with this at all.
Don't you know?
I checked the box on a piece of paper.
Therefore, I must run the country.
Who is going to accept that?
Was there ever any risk that the Democrats were going to go, you lost that election.
Wait a minute.
Oh.
Oh, I didn't know you checked the box on the piece of paper.
Okay, I guess the election is over and Trump won because the box on the piece of paper.
That's actually what the Democrats think.
That he was this close to taking over the country by checking the wrong box on a piece of paper.
Like that's just mental illness and stupidity.
Young stupidity.
The kind people grow out of sometimes.
All right.
Here's what we need.
We need a sanctuary state for Republicans.
Is that legal?
Hell no!
It's not legal to have a sanctuary state, because the federal law says you can't hide in one state if the other state wants you, you've got to give them to them.
But that doesn't work with sanctuary cities, does it?
Why can you have a sanctuary city if you can't have a sanctuary state?
So I think, quite legitimately, literally, we need a sanctuary state.
Texas or Florida come to mind.
But wouldn't it be good if somebody who is being charged for what are obviously just politically motivated charges, don't you think that the lawfare people should have a state to escape to?
Now they could never leave, you know, they wouldn't be able to leave, but it'd be better than going to jail for life.
Don't you think it'd be okay to live in Florida for your life instead of going to jail?
So quite literally, I want to see a sanctuary state.
Is it illegal?
Yes.
It's as illegal as the sanctuary cities.
And if you want to end one of them, you better end both of them.
I think as long as there are sanctuary cities that are allowed, I think there could be a sanctuary state.
You just have to assert it and make them fight you.
All right.
At least Stefanik She just filed an official ethics complaint about Jack Smith with the Department of Justice Professional Responsibility Group for illegally interfering with the election.
So Jack Smith is a subject of a complaint.
So he's the prosecutor prosecuting Trump for which of the lawfare cases is he?
The boxes?
He's the Mar-a-Lago boxes guy, right?
So yeah, the Mar-a-Lago boxes Um, and now, uh, the prosecutor is going to be, is being accused of interfering with the election.
I like this.
Now, will it go anywhere?
I don't know.
But do you think that Jack Smith is in fact trying to interfere with an election?
Oh yes, very much so.
It is very obvious that he's trying to interfere with an election.
And it's very obvious that this has very little to do with the law or justice or any of that stuff.
So yeah.
Elise, I give you an A-plus for pushing this, and I don't care how it turns out.
I don't expect it will go well, but yes, you should be doing this.
This is what we pay you for.
Thank you.
Thank you, Elise Stefanik, for doing the job that I think you're getting paid for.
Appreciate it.
Like, literally, I appreciate it.
As a citizen, thank you.
Thank you for doing this.
All right, there's a black researcher.
Was I so bad I didn't write down his name?
Man, I'm terrible.
Oh, his last name is Smith.
And he's got a thesis that DEI is racist because it rests on prescribing, quote, approved ways that black people should behave and think.
Now, do you see the connection?
So, DEI, from one black man's opinion, is racist itself because it assumes that black people think and act in a similar fashion.
And I had to think about that one for a while.
It's like, wait a minute, but it's supposed to be about discrimination.
It's not really about how you think or act.
But if you think or thought or act differently, would you be ostracized?
Yes.
One of the examples was when Biden said, if you don't support Biden, you ain't black.
Now that's not DEI, but that would be an example of a white guy saying that black people should think the same.
Not cool.
Very not cool.
And the same people who think that black people should think the same are the ones pushing the DEI.
So I'm not sure I agree totally with the thesis that DEI itself is racist against black people, but his larger point that we have these set of assumptions about people thinking and acting in a similar fashion are very much racist.
Very much racist.
So that's a good point.
And one of the other points is that if you're a black academic and you write a thesis or a paper, It's expected that you would write your paper with a black angle.
In other words, if you write, the example given was, if you do a paper about Plato, uh, in order to be a proper black academic, according to other people, the expectation is you'd have to write the impact on black America of Plato being taught at school.
Like you gotta add the black angle or else you ain't black as Biden would say.
So yeah.
I would say I hadn't really thought about it, but there is this whole system of expectations about how you're supposed to think and act if you're black, and that's pretty racist.
Pretty racist.
All right, here's my pro tip for black people.
I'd like to give, this could be my segment I would call, White People Give Advice to Black People.
Can you imagine anything that would be more obnoxious?
That's right.
I'm going to do it right in front of you.
White people give advice to black people.
Doesn't that just make the hairs in the back of your neck go up if you're black?
You're like, are you serious now?
Are you serious?
You're going to give us advice?
Yes, I am.
Best advice you ever got.
That's how helpful I am.
And it goes like this.
I understand white people, and here's something you might not know.
Racism only lasts until you start talking.
Racism only lasts until you start talking.
And then it's about you.
Then it's all about you.
Let me give you the visual example.
You're a black person, you're going to a company that has a lot of white people working there, your manager's white, the one you want to work for, and you walk into the situation.
If you walk in wearing a nice suit, let's say it's a job that calls for that professional dress, and you make eye contact, you shake hands, you've got a little American flag pin on your lapel, And you speak perfect English, and it's obvious that you care about grammar and just coming off well.
How long does the racism last?
Less than a second?
Now, I don't know if anybody black even knows that.
Does anybody black know that?
That the racism disappears.
And in fact, there might be even a reverse effect.
Where if you hit a racist and you walk in and you're presenting yourself in the most professional, you know, cool way, even the racist wants to hire you.
Do you get that?
I'll bet that's completely unknown to anybody, anybody who's black.
I'll bet nobody black knows this.
I'll bet nobody, like literally nobody, even the racist white guy We'll prefer you if you walk in and you just nail the first impression.
Why?
So he can prove he's not a racist.
Did you not know that?
The racist wants to prove they're not a racist.
So if you walk in and you've got the goods, yeah, you got the job.
Because you solved two problems.
One, you're a good employee, or it looks like it.
And two, hey, you made the racist look like not so much of a racist.
Look, I hired this guy.
So, I don't think black people are taught this, probably the most valuable lesson you'll ever learn in your life.
Racism only lasts until you start talking.
Now, I would add that a professional appearance would help.
If your pants are sagging, but you're talking perfectly, that's going to be a mixed message.
But if you put yourself together, and I don't mean dressing like a white person, Right?
You can have your own, you know, version of style, etc.
That's fine.
As long as it's professional.
And nobody knows that.
Because if you knew that, the whole thing would fall apart.
The whole DI, the whole everything.
It all depends on the white person not being able to judge people as individuals.
How long does it take you to form an opinion of another person?
10 seconds?
10 seconds, right?
Somebody makes eye contact, gives you a good handshake, looks good, and you can tell by the way they talk that they care about talking in a professional way.
You're all good.
You're all good.
Suppose you come in and somebody knows that you're religious.
I don't know how you do it, but let's say you drop a hint or something that you're very church-going.
It takes somebody about one minute to say, what did you say?
Go to church every Sunday?
Excellent.
All right.
Now I know more about you than I knew by your race.
See, the race is this weird proxy where if you don't have any other information, you're tempted to use it as the only information you have.
People never say, I don't have any information, therefore I will form no opinion.
We don't do that.
We form an opinion.
And then sometimes we go looking for the information.
So, if you don't have any better information, yeah, you might be a little prejudiced.
You might be a bigot.
But the moment you open your mouth, all gone.
It's the magic trick of white people.
If you want to manipulate white people to get what you want, Show up on time, good handshake, eye contact, dress well, speak well, say what you're going to do for the company.
You'll get every job.
Every job.
You'll never even not get an offer.
I mean, basically, it's that easy.
So there's your pro tip from a white guy giving advice to black people.
By the way, that's the most useful thing you'll ever hear if you're black.
Literally, it will be the most useful thing you will ever hear if you're black.
All right, Nancy Pelosi was on MSNBC and a funny viral moment happened.
So she was talking to MSNBC's Katie Tur, and Pelosi said, Donald Trump has the worst record of job losses of any president.
And then Katy Tur just sort of, in a low voice, just sort of slips in.
There was a global pandemic.
Pelosi, she freezes.
Her eyes become saucers because she doesn't believe what's happening to her.
Then she's on MSNBC and she just got called out for the biggest lie the Democrats are telling lately.
That Joe Biden was good for jobs when really it was just coming off of a pandemic.
That's all it was.
And what did Pelosi do?
She repeated it.
Like you're not supposed to say that.
Trump lost jobs and Biden gained them.
Oh.
And it looked like she was literally gonna, like her head was gonna explode.
And then finally Pelosi attacked Katie Tur.
She says, if you want to be an apologist for Donald Trump, that may be your role, but it ain't mine.
An apologist.
All she did was add the context that you were coming out of a pandemic.
Now, isn't that context a little bit important?
A little bit relevant?
Like it would be the news, like it would be Katie Ter's entire point.
And then it gets worse.
By the way, here's the part of the story.
If you saw this story, this is the part you didn't see.
Then Katie Ter says, after being called an apologist for Donald Trump, she said something like, well, you know, that nobody would ever call me that.
In other words, Katie Ter's defense was that she's anti-Trump.
On the news.
So not only did Nancy Pelosi completely reveal that she's expecting them to basically just agree with whatever she says, but then Katie Turner basically confesses that she doesn't plan to be fair because, you know, nobody would call her pro-Trump.
The entire Democrat machine is just falling apart, and it's glorious.
Uh, the White House, uh, officially claims, I think this was the, uh, was this the Daily Wire?
Somebody did this.
Uh, but the, uh, White House has corrected Biden 148 times during 2024.
148 times.
So 148 times, he said something that was incorrect.
during 2024, 148 times.
So 148 times he said something that was incorrect and after the fact they had to issue a clarification, 148 times in 2024.
The year is new.
Thank you.
So, got that working for him.
Here's a question.
Have you wondered why the big Wall Street firms were buying all these private residents?
You ever wonder that?
And then I read the news about why they're doing it, and it says they're doing it to rent them out.
So that these gigantic entities like BlackRock and others are buying all these, like one in four new homes are being bought by these big entities and it says it's to rent them out.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that they think that's a good business model to buy a new house and rent it out?
Let me tell you something that I know because I have a degree in economics and maybe you don't.
That's not a thing.
You can't buy a new house and make money renting it out.
You all know that, right?
But this is the news.
The news just told me they're buying them to rent them out.
Now they are renting them out, but don't you think the story should include that there's no way to make money doing that?
Do you think you could go buy a new house and rent it out and make money?
No, they're priced so you can't do that.
There's no way in the world.
Our rents are completely on a whack with the home purchase.
You can't buy a new house and rent it and make money.
But the news is telling you you can.
Do you know why they told you that?
Because they don't know anything about economics.
They don't know anything about business.
That's not a business model.
So why are they doing it?
Why are the biggest, smartest people, the richest people buying tons of private residence?
It's not to rent it.
There is a reason.
Okay, you're right.
Asset storage, exactly.
It's an inflation edge.
Because if inflation is out of control, your money will become worthless, but your houses will go up in value, probably at least keeping up with inflation.
And that's what's happened so far.
So no, it's not about renting out the houses.
It's because they think your dollar will become worthless, but people still have to live someplace.
Yeah.
It's, uh, it's the worst case scenario that the smartest people think that money will become worthless, basically.
They would put it in financial instruments if they believed otherwise.
So that's what that's all about.
I think, I mean, unless somebody has a better idea.
Those of you who know economics agree with me, right?
Is there anybody who knows this field who disagrees?
That it's not about renting them.
I mean, renting them is better than not renting them, but it's all about just not losing money to inflation, I think.
All right.
MSNBC's Nicole Wallace had a batshit crazy moment That's right.
Donald Trump is going to end the White House Correspondents Dinner.
thing and said that if Donald Trump wins in November, there might not be a White House Correspondents Dinner or a free press.
That's right.
Donald Trump is going to end the White House Correspondents Dinner.
How in the world can our republic survive not having a dress-up dinner where the people, the press are supposed to be covering objectively, have drinks with them and have a lot of jokes with them?
Thank you.
Yeah, that would be the end of democracy if you couldn't have that one dinner.
What?
But also that he would get rid of the free press.
Have you noticed that the argument in favor of Biden is now so bankrupt That all they have left is putting words together.
Literally.
How's he doing on the economy versus Trump?
Oh, terrible.
Immigration versus Trump?
Terrible.
Who had the better performance as president?
He's looking terrible.
You go right down the line and Biden looks like a disaster.
So the only thing you can come up with are things that you can concoct out of nothing with words.
And ifs.
If Trump gets elected, aliens from the Nebula 6 will attack and kill us all.
So whatever you do, don't vote for that Trump because the aliens will attack.
Because that's true because the words make sentences that make sense.
Look, watch me put some words together.
Trump will steal your democracy.
There, look at that.
I put words together.
Watch me do it again.
Trump will shoo somebody on 5th Avenue.
Maybe all of you.
He'll shoo you all on 5th Avenue.
That's all they have.
Batshit crazy women with big saucer eyes scaring you with words.
Oh, he's gonna take away our free press.
My democracy's going away.
Yep.
Good mental health there.
Well, did you know this?
James Freeman at the Wall Street Journal opinion piece tells us that there are more never-Biden voters than never-Trumpers.
Substantially.
There are more never-Bidens than never-Trumpers.
Have you ever heard the phrase never-Biden?
Nope.
Nope.
Have you ever heard the phrase a never-Trump voter?
Every single day.
Why is that?
When there are more people who say they would never vote for Biden than Trump.
Well, that's exactly why you think it is because the press is illegitimate.
My favorite story that's not yet confirmed, but it's looking interesting is about the Mar-a-Lago boxes and Julie Kelly's all over this reporting on it.
And so apparently there were some boxes that the GSA packed and had in their own possession.
They were not yet at Mar-a-Lago that the GSA kept trying to get the Trump Organization to take possession of.
Now, the interesting question is, could it be that the ones that the GSA had and they tried to make Trump take were the problem ones?
Is it possible that if there are any classified documents at all, and I'm not sure about that, That all of them are in the ones that the GSA packed for him and then suspiciously forced him to take.
It's a little bit suspicious, like a setup.
Now, if we had never seen the Russia collusion hoax, it would be hard to imagine that the government could run a setup like that.
If RFK Jr.
were not claiming to know with certainty that his uncle was murdered by the CIA in an elaborate plot, well, you wouldn't think it's some kind of a setup.
If you hadn't seen 50 former and current intel people put a letter together that they knew was fake, saying that it looked like Russian interference, if we'd never seen that, then we would not think, well, the government can't do these Massive, coordinated, you know, frauds.
Sure they can.
If we never lived through the pandemic, do I need to say more about that?
You wouldn't think that the government could pull off a massive global fraud.
Sure they can.
If we didn't know about the Gulf of Tonkin, you'd never think that the government could start a whole war over something they made up.
Yes, I can.
Yes, I can.
So you go right down the list and you see that the Democrats do have a pretty good history of doing setups.
If you look at the lawfare against Trump, I would say all of that looks illegitimate.
So would it be unusual and out of the normal for the GSA to have set up Trump by stuffing things in those boxes?
No, unfortunately that would be right down the middle of what is normal.
Wouldn't you love to say that wasn't normal?
Wouldn't you love to say, Scott, you know, if you make an extraordinary claim like that, you better have extraordinary proof, right?
Carl Sagan, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
I don't have any extraordinary proof.
But this is not an extraordinary claim.
This is a claim that things are working, in this case, the Mar-a-Lago boxes, exactly the way everything else worked.
Fraudulently.
The claim is that this was fraudulent, and my claim is that would make it like every other thing in the news.
Just the same.
You do not need extraordinary Well, Zuby is weighing in on the question of young men having a lot less sex.
He was looking at a graph and he interpreted it this way.
He said that, so basically a lot more men are virgins than young women.
He suggests that it means a lot of young women are sleeping with the same men, Which of course they are, you know, the high value men, but also older men.
And I think both of those are true.
Let me tell you something that I've heard many times as an older man during my, during my times that I've been single.
One of the most common things I hear is that younger women can't stand men their age.
Can't, just can't stand them.
And that they're looking for somebody who, they don't say this, but maybe reminded them of their dad a little bit more.
You know, a little bit more classically male.
You know what I mean?
A little less sensitive, a little less effeminate, a little less beta.
And there are a lot of young women who have figured out that the only way to find one, a man, who meets that standard that maybe they picked up from their parents, Is an older guy.
So it's definitely a thing.
And I can tell you, obviously money has something to do with it too.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't ignore that.
But no, there's, in addition to the money, um, there is very much a preference for older people.
I'll tell you years ago, Many years ago, I was seeing a much younger woman, nobody you've ever heard of, so not anybody I married, nobody I've heard of, and I broke up with her because I didn't think she should be with somebody my age.
This was quite a while ago, but I was substantially older and I didn't think it was good for her.
So even though things were fine, I broke it up because I thought, you know, I can't do this to her.
I don't want her to waste her young, young years on somebody that doesn't make sense.
She broke up with me and her next boyfriend was several years older than me.
And she married him.
And it was a great marriage.
You know, he passed away eventually because he was older.
Um, but, uh, they did not get divorced.
And as far as I can tell, it was a perfectly happy marriage the entire way.
Except for one of them goes too soon.
But I don't think that was unusual.
I think that there is a fairly large percentage of young women who just can't stand young men.
That's a real thing.
Yeah.
And in the case I explained, it wasn't about the money at all.
I mean, there was no indication of it whatsoever.
So, Christopher Ruffo is having fun with these college protests, because it works very well for his messaging.
And he says that the right, the political right, should let the college thing run out.
Just let it run.
Because every day that there's a protest on the college, and it looks like a bunch of crazy liberals, it makes the conservatives look good.
And so the last thing the conservatives should want to do is stop it.
Because it's the liberals eating the liberals.
So it's basically driving a wedge in the left.
So even if the people on the right could do something productive, I don't think they can.
I mean, what can you do?
I mean, what are you going to do, really?
It's the left versus the left.
I mean, you're basically just watching if you're on the right.
But Rufo is saying that it's great because the left is tearing itself apart, and the longer the encampments stay, the more the left will fracture.
I believe he is right about that.
One of the funniest stories is the Pentagon says it can't calculate how much they're spending for diversity training because Congress defunded their DEI offices.
The Daily Caller is reporting this.
So the Pentagon told Congress it could not provide the required accounting of diversity training, just didn't have enough people working in DEI to do the accounting for how many people are working in DEI and what they're spending.
Now, is that the perfect Dilbert story?
Oh, it will be a Dilbert.
The Dilbert Pentagon.
We don't have enough DEI people to do the accounting for how much we're spending on DEI people.
Oh, that's a real thing.
Yep.
That's a real thing.
And then, what entity was it the other day?
Was it a company or a university that had 177 people under DEI staff?
Can you imagine being any organization that has 177 people under DEI staff?
Just DEI.
And as I commented, that seemed like a lethal dose.
Oh, it was a I think it was a medical school or something?
I don't know.
Yeah.
So, that would be a lethal dose of DEI.
In a related story, the government, your federal government, is looking at opening up some shuttered nuclear power plants.
And federal energy officials said that there are a number of them, two in particular, but there might be more.
That could be unshuttered and reopened because nuclear is good clean energy.
Do you know what the problem with that is?
Suppose you had a shuttered nuclear power plant.
What are the chances you can hire back all the people who worked there in the first place?
None.
Because time is gone, people are retired, they moved.
You're not going to be able to hire the old staff back.
So what are you going to do?
You're going to have to hire new people.
And let's say you start this program that's going to cost you, I don't know, $10 billion to reopen a nuke.
It's going to be billions, but let's just say $10 billion.
You're going to spend $10 billion on it, and all you need to do to make it successful is hire good people.
But because of DEI, you have to hire diversity.
But because of supply and demand and the numbers, And this has nothing to do with anybody's genetics or race or their culture.
It has nothing to do with their gender.
There shouldn't be enough people to hire who are qualified and also hit the DEI mark.
So, you're going to put $10 billion into it.
Are you going to say, wow, thanks for the $10 billion, but we can't open this after all because we can't hire enough people who are both diverse and qualified.
Do you think that's going to happen?
No, not in any world will that happen.
In the real world, here's what happens.
They take the $10 billion, because of course you take the $10 billion.
You hire as many qualified people as you can, because of course you want to hire qualified people.
And then you quickly run out.
And you say, oh shoot, I've got to fill this with bodies or else I don't get my $10 billion of which I'm keeping part of it.
And so you say, well, this person isn't exactly qualified, but maybe we could train them on the job.
And then, well, this one isn't as qualified as it used to be in the old days, but I really need this diversity.
So I'm going to take my chances.
How much of that do you think will happen before there's a nuclear meltdown?
Literally just because they can't, Get access to a pipeline of qualified people.
And again, nothing to do with anybody's race, nothing to do with genes, nothing to do with culture or gender or LGBTQ, none of that.
None of it has anything to do with this conversation.
It's just thrown enough.
Just not enough.
So I would say that we should put this in our hold as long as DEI is still the dominant factor.
You can have the, you can reopen a nuke.
I like that idea.
Or you can have DEI.
But don't tell me you can do both.
Because we know you can't.
And if you're gonna DEI me some nuclear power plants, no thank you.
I'd rather sit in the dark than believe that my nuclear power plant was insufficiently staffed just because there was a shortage of people who were qualified.
Nothing to do with your genes, nothing to do with your culture, nothing to do with your gender.
I just have to say that every five seconds.
So yeah, I'm not in favor of reopening these nukes while DEI is also active.
I think if the government says you can't have DEI in a nuclear facility, then I'm all in.
But if it's legal to have a DEI group and you're hiring for your nuclear facility, I don't want it near me.
And I'm very pro-nuclear, by the way.
But, I mean, let's be reasonable.
You just don't combine DEI and nuclear power.
You just don't.
And if they're going to do it, I'm out.
I can't support that.
Well, Trump continues to look better the more he is out of office.
So now just over half of Americans say they support mass deportation.
Can you even just hold that in your head?
How in the world is this election going to be close?
Half of the people are now in favor of Trump's most radical idea.
His most offensive radical idea.
It was the entire reason he got, you know, branded as a racist.
And now it's sort of standard opinion.
Do you know what else could happen between now and election day?
There could be a terrorist event that's because of somebody who came through over the border.
Now, I'm not predicting it, but it's definitely in the possibility set.
You know, given what's happening with Iran and Hamas and all that, the odds that at least one terrorist got through the border and at least one of them is going to do something bad between now and election day is pretty good.
I would say it's a solid 30 or 40% odds.
It's pretty high, right?
Because normally your odds of a terror attack would be much lower.
Now, I think the reason we haven't had more terror attacks in the United States is because we have zero privacy, and that the government is just scooping up every conversation everybody's having everywhere, and they just absolutely know who's going to do a terrorist attack.
I think the government doesn't want us to know how good they are at stopping terrorism, because I think they can basically catch it all at this point, just by taking away all of our privacy.
But not our democracy, which was already taken away a long time ago.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to offer you some positivity to get your day going.
Anybody want some positivity?
All right, here it comes.
Everything that's happening right now that looks bad is really bad.
But every part of it guarantees that the current administration will be swept from power, and we're going to have a real good chance of fixing stuff.
Now, that assumes they don't rig the election, and as I've estimated before, I don't think Trump can win unless he's got a 10-point lead going into the election.
He needs a solid 10 points.
At 5%, I think they'd cheat the election away from him, because their incentive is so high.
If you have an incentive that high, trying to stop Hitler, he's taking our freedom, our democracy, then yeah, of course they would cheat.
It would be crazy not to, under those conditions.
If they believed that to be true, it would be crazy not to cheat.
They're not going to get away with it if there's a 10 point difference on election day.
They just can't cheat that much.
So the whole game is to get Trump above 10 points.
And I really think 10 because it's double digits.
You know, you got to hit double digits before you can reasonably claim there's no way that election was real.
If you're within two, 4%, anything's possible.
Maybe the polling was flawed.
Maybe.
But 10 points?
10 points gets you a President Trump.
And right now you've got the colleges completely falling apart, the college students going home and Zooming with their parents, who are the Democrats that sent them there.
That's not going to be popular.
It seems to me that every single trend is pro-Trump at this point.
There's nothing that isn't pro-Trump, is there?
Can you think of anything that isn't pro-Trump in terms of the trend that you're observing?
I can't think of anything.
Am I missing anything?
There must be something that's anti-Trump.
Anything?
The only trends that are happening that are anti-Trump are artificial ones.
For example, there does seem to be an uptick in January 6th prosecutions, like Trump's lawyer, etc.
Now, maybe it's just my impression, but it seems like Democrats are trying to create some kind of a news trend out of their own bad actions of law-fearing Trump people.
Because they can turn that into, look how criminal all these Trump people are.
So they can literally illegitimately prosecute them, selective prosecution, and then claim that it's a sign that they should have been prosecuted because there's so many of them that were prosecuted.
Look at how many we prosecuted.
That's proof they should have been prosecuted.
That's where they're heading on that.
He has a need.
All right, I feel like there was at least one thing that I want to tell you that I forgot.
Let me just check here.
College protests, never Biden, got that, got that.
Yeah, I think I got it all.
DEI is racist is my favorite story.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
What about Operation Warp Speed?
Well, Operation Warp Speed, I think, is history.
And the thing that can save Trump is that he did not mandate.
How many of you think that Trump is in the clear on vaccinations because he didn't mandate and you had basically the information that you needed?
Everybody knew that the vaccination was rushed.
Everybody knew that it had not been tested for five years.
What else did you need to know?
Was that enough?
See, as long as it wasn't mandatory, and they say, we rushed this thing, and, you know, it'd be great if we could test it for five years, but we didn't.
You had a choice.
Now, you were not well informed, because you didn't know the actual risks, but you knew It was a situation which had to be high risk.
It had to be.
Every one of you knew that.
So he gave you a choice of two risky situations and let you pick.
Here's your risky situation.
Take your chances with the COVID and we don't exactly know what's going on there because it's, you know, may have been made to be a weapon.
So maybe there's some tricks in there we haven't seen yet or Take your chance with the vaccination, which some would say is taking your chance with two things, because it didn't help you with the with the COVID enough.
So I feel like he can sell that, because he's selling freedom with information.
Now if he said What he couldn't claim is that you knew from the scientists what the risks were.
That would not be the right claim, because we did not know from the scientists what the risks would be.
But we knew from the news.
We knew that they rushed, and we knew that they could not possibly have time to check it for five years, because it had only been one.
All that was known to everybody.
It was just the forcing you to take it that was the problem.
That was the problem.
And he wasn't behind that.
Yeah.
He wasn't for closing schools.
He wasn't for mandatory vaccinations.
I think he can make that work.
Trump hasn't tried hard enough to sell it.
What he has done is said that the vaccinations saved lives.
And here's the problem with that.
How many of you do this?
I saw somebody smart did this the other day.
Cernovich.
So even Cernovich did this.
I think.
Well, I don't want to blame him if I'm thinking of somebody else.
So let me make this more generic.
So it's not about Cernovich.
How many of you would agree with the following statement?
The vaccinations did not work against COVID.
In any way.
Not only did they not stop transmission, that part we all know, but that they didn't reduce your odds of hospitalization or death.
How many of you would say it's true that they had no value, and in fact had negative value?
How many embrace that?
Negative value from the first day.
Now here's the catch.
From day one.
So many of you would say it had no value from day one.
All right.
Now let me ask you a follow-up question.
How many are aware that the virus morphed from something that was close to what the vaccination would help with to something that was irrelevant to the vaccinations?
How many of you knew that COVID is not one thing, it's maybe several things?
And that the claim from the people who disagree, and this is not my claim, this is the official claim, is that it worked great against the Alpha and maybe the Delta.
But then as soon as Omicron came by, it was worse than, it was more negative than helpful.
Now, in my observation, most people don't make that distinction and they act like it was always Omicron.
Omicron is just a cold.
Omicron is just a cold.
And they act as though the only reason that there were excess deaths are ventilators.
That's clearly not the case.
That's obviously not the case.
Yes, maybe people died being put on ventilators.
Didn't need to be.
But there's no fucking way that the excess death rate was from the ventilators.
It wasn't just the ventilators.
So, here's what I think.
I think that among the political right, there's a refusal to understand that Omicron was just a cold, and Alpha and Delta might have been bad shit.
Definitely not just a cold, in my opinion, based on observation.
But the left seems to think that the COVID started bad and stayed that way, Because you see so many of them still wearing masks, when now it's definitely just a cold.
So I think that both sides, and this is just sort of an average thing, I know lots of individuals have figured it out, but the left is in this fantasy world where it was always the same virus, and the right is in the fantasy world where it was always Omicron.
And then we pretend that we're having a debate, when those are both ridiculous points of view.
So I try not to even debate anybody who has the point of view that it was always Omicron or the point of view that it's always and still Alpha and Delta.
None of those are based on any kind of thinking.
So, but overall, were the vaccinations more bad than good?
I don't know.
I don't know.
And I'm sure you don't know as well.
You could certainly say that if you're getting a third booster for Omicron, that's clearly a mistake.
Would you all agree with that?
If you got a third booster because of Omicron, that's a medical mistake, in my opinion.
In the beginning?
I'm not so sure I would say the same thing.
All right, that's what I got for you today.
I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube and Rumble and X people.
I'm going to chat with locals, and they'll stay on here in theory.
