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, Budget Voting, Tesla Supercharger Team, Elon Musk, Adam Schiff Primary Residence, MTG, Speaker Johnson, Biden's Hur Testimony, Professional Protest Organizers, Vigilantism, Japan Birth Rate, MOC Margin Of Cheating, Thinking By Analogy, Biden Palestinian Refugee Plan, Nuclear Powered AI, President Trump, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Undated Ballots Ruling, Georgia Voting Irregularities, 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
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
You know, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen right now.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
So, so good.
Well, if you were, uh, if you subscribe to the, The Dilbert comic, either on X or the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com.
You would know that, uh, Wally is trying to juggle his many AI girlfriends.
Cause if you're going to have an AI girlfriend, what would be the point of only having one?
And, uh, one of his AI girlfriends is going to learn of the others and well, it doesn't go well.
So that's all I'm going to tell you.
Unless you're a subscriber, you don't get to see Wally manages AI girlfriend, Haram.
I have a suggestion for changing the Constitution and fixing everything.
You ready?
Here's how to change the Constitution.
If you're a member of Congress, or even the President, you don't get a vote on the budget unless you're under 50 years old.
You don't get a vote on the budget unless you're under 50 years old.
Why?
Because otherwise you have people who are going to be dead before the budget needs to be paid back, you know, before the deficit.
So you wouldn't have to worry about, um, you wouldn't have to worry about your politicians being a hundred years old because they wouldn't get to vote on anything important.
They can still vote on the post office and you know, the national animal and stuff, but they wouldn't be able to vote on anything that would create a debt for people younger than themselves.
Now here's the thing.
Who would be against that?
Think about it.
Who would be against it?
Only the old politicians themselves.
Literally everyone else would say, oh yeah, that makes sense.
Because they're basically stealing the money of the people who are going to be alive so they can enjoy their final years.
Now that's what we observe.
I don't think there's any doubt that the people who are too old to care Because it's not going to matter to their own lives.
They're the ones making the decisions.
So at the very least, you should have more skin in the game.
Basic concept.
More skin in the game.
So you want younger people to be voting on the permanent debt.
They're the ones who have to work on it.
Paying it off.
Well, there's a mystery going on at Tesla.
Apparently, Elon Musk laid off the entire Tesla supercharger team.
So they would be the ones making sure there are plenty of superchargers where you can charge up.
And we don't know the real story behind it.
The, the surface story is that they weren't doing the job well enough.
So they all got fired, but I've never even heard of an entire team being fired.
Have you ever heard of that?
No, it's not like they were a startup where, you know, after a while you do have to fire the whole team because the thing isn't working.
But it's not like they don't have superchargers.
The supercharger thing is a somewhat mature part of their business.
Why would you fire every member of the team?
Wouldn't you love to know what's behind that?
There's definitely something behind that.
There's more to the story.
Now some of it could be it's personal.
It could just be personal.
There might have been something that happened that Musk just didn't like.
And just said, all right, you're all gone.
The other possibility is he said the other day, he signaled that he was going to be a little bit more brutal about weeding out the bad performers.
This might be his way of signaling to the rest of the company that there's no real limit to what you will do if you're not performing.
You'll get rid of the entire team.
So you're not only responsible for your own performance, but your team.
So it could be that he's making a dramatic statement about how the team has to operate going forward.
That's my best guess.
Could be something else.
Some therapists are warning that when they use magic mushrooms to treat patients, the patients will often fall in love with them and develop romantic feelings for the therapist.
And it's one of those things they have to worry about.
Now, I'd like to add my own layer of understanding to this.
Do you know what else makes people fall in love with a therapist?
What's the other thing that makes that happen?
Basically, the people who need therapy often don't have great relationships on their own.
Because that would be a big thing that was keeping them happy if their own relationship was great.
So you tend to get people who don't have good relationships.
Yeah, either because their mental condition causes them not to have one, or because not having one causes them to want to see a therapist.
So you got these people who are generally not killing it in the relationship department, and then you sit them in an office for one hour a week, With somebody who's got their shit together.
The therapist.
The therapist has an office, and a job, and wears good clothes, talks to you politely, never insults you, never gossips about you, and listens to all of your problems with interest.
You don't really need mushrooms to fall in love with that person, because they're signaling everything that people fall in love with.
Financial stability, you know, mental health.
They're helping you.
They're interested in you.
Yeah, I'm sure the mushrooms make it worse.
But how do you not fall in love with your therapist unless they're just hideous?
They'd have to be hideous for you not to have a little bit of interest.
All right.
So my big theme for today is that Trump's third act is working out.
And you'll see that in a variety of ways.
The Gateway Pundit is reporting that Adam Schiff might have more problems than you think.
There's some resident, just some citizen, who has found out that Schiff has, allegedly, he had a home in Maryland and a home in California.
For voting purposes, he said he was a resident of California, but for his mortgage loan in Maryland, He claimed that was his primary residence.
So the allegation is that he's claimed that Maryland is his primary home when he's getting a loan, but California is his primary home when he's voting.
Now, what are the possible things that could be going on here?
Well, ironically, one of the things that it looks like is bank fraud.
Because he got lower rates because it was his primary residence as opposed to a second home.
Now, let's see.
He got a bank loan called a mortgage.
He got a bank loan and allegedly he inflated the value of the home by saying it was a primary residence because banks like primary residence and they would give them a higher value than a secondary home.
So it's Schiff told a bank that his real estate was worth more than it was, because of the nature of his residency, and that caused him to save money on a bank loan.
That's bank fraud!
This is what Trump was accused of, but you know it's different.
Is that the banks did not allege there was any harm.
The banks did not allege with Trump that they had lost money in any way based on any of his assertions.
But the allegation here is that the bank did lose money.
They did lose money.
That's the allegation.
Because of Schiff's lie that it was his primary residence when they could have charged him more.
And apparently he's already reimbursed.
So part of the story is that he's acknowledged it was a mistake and reimbursed.
Why does he get to acknowledge it's a mistake?
Why doesn't Trump get to acknowledge it's a mistake and just say, whoops, well, no harm, no foul.
It was just a mistake.
Isn't that interesting?
Well, I would put this back in the category of Trump's third act is looking good.
What would be the best thing that could happen to Trump?
It would be Adam Schiff.
Incredibly accused of the very crime that Trump was accused of except that in Trump's case there were no there were no victims and importantly It is normal business to inflate your value if you're in the real estate business, and you're asking for a loan It's so normal that the bank doesn't even look at your estimate.
That's how normal it is because they know it's going to be inflated But when you're getting a home loan It's not the same assumption If you get a home, a mortgage, your bank does kind of assume that you're telling them mostly the truth.
It's not like a big real estate loan where they just assume you're inflating.
No, this is the real crime.
So having Adam Schiff do a real crime that Trump was accused of, but in his case it was more business as usual, is perfect.
It's third act perfect.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is apparently trying to get rid of Speaker Johnson.
She doesn't like his Ukraine focus, and she made some hats up that say MAGA instead of MAGA, so it's Make Ukraine Great Again, and she's trying to smear Speaker Johnson with his Uniparty Ukraine-loving ways.
I'm going to say that even when I don't agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene, that happens, I just love that she's part of Congress.
I love the energy.
I love the fight.
In my personal observation, she seems to always be fighting for something that makes sense from a big picture perspective.
So even if I don't agree with every single thing she does, It's just so good to have her in the mix.
Fighting it out.
Making everybody prove themselves a little bit.
Just making everybody a little sharper, I think.
Same thing I say about Thomas Massey.
Same thing I say about Gates.
I just love the firebrands.
It's good to have them in the mix.
All right.
Judicial Watch was trying to get, I guess, the audio of, well, no, the reporting on it.
I don't know who was trying to get it.
But the Justice Department is not going to release the extra audio of Biden being interviewed by the H.E.R.
team, where the special prosecutor, is that the right name, said that Biden was an old elderly man and he wasn't making much sense.
Now, wouldn't you like to hear the rest of that interview?
Where your president, the elderly man, was credibly accused of basically having dementia.
And we're not going to be allowed to hear that.
Because of his privacy.
That's right.
The president gets privacy on a matter of vital interest to the public.
The public gets no fucking privacy for anything, for any reason.
Unacceptable.
Unacceptable.
If you're going to take 100% of the public's privacy, which you have, you don't get to hide a very important piece of information from the public, as in, your president might have serious dementia, and it's worse than you know.
No, that's not cool.
So here's my take.
If they're going to hide the evidence, it's because it's exactly what you think it is.
Now you know what's interesting about this story?
They simply said they weren't going to release it.
What do the Democrats usually do when you ask for their information?
What's their usual play?
You know.
What do the Democrats usually say when you know they have some information that would, you know, credibly implicate them in something bad?
It got recorded over.
We ran out of digital zeros and ones, so we had to reuse the zeros and ones, so we recorded over it.
Isn't that usually what they say?
Trying to get information from a Democrat is trying to get blood from a stone.
It's like, can I have that valuable database?
Sure, sure.
Here it is.
I'm getting it for you.
Oh, I pushed the wrong button.
It's all deleted.
Common mistake.
Oh, let me get that information for you.
Well, it was here before.
I seem to have lost that information.
But this time at least they had the decency to say that the information is so damning and our president Is so mentally lost that we can't even show you the information.
Because of privacy.
Privacy.
So make your worst assumption there.
I think that's appropriate.
New York City Mayor Adams is getting tough with the Columbia protesters.
Is there an update on that?
I believe maybe last night he was sending in massive amounts of police to clear him out.
Has Columbia been repatriated yet?
Do you have an update on that in the comments?
Anyway, I think something's already happened, and I think it was a big show of force.
But he did advise students involved in the protest to get out of the area.
All right.
Is this good or bad for Trump?
Let's make this political.
Do you think that it's positive for Trump and his third act that these protests are going on?
It kind of is, isn't it?
Because it just is more to the narrative that the country is falling apart because it doesn't have leadership.
Now, I don't know if, you know, Trump could have solved this overnight or something.
I doubt it.
But it's all part of that, you know, this wouldn't have happened under Trump, even if it would have.
So, this is very positive for Trump.
Now, here's the thing.
Who is behind all these protests?
None of you believe these are organic, right?
Can we all agree on that?
We know it's not a bunch of well-meaning citizens who had an opinion and got together.
It's not that.
So there's somebody behind it.
Now, the big question would be who has helped the most by it?
Who are the winners and the losers of these protests?
Are the Palestinians winning?
Do the Palestinians get anything from this?
I don't know what they would get from it.
Doesn't look like they're getting anything.
Because the thing they're asking for, they're not going to get.
Which is disinvestment.
Because it's basically every big company has some kind of connection to Israel.
So you can't really disinvest.
So the thing they're asking for isn't real, so what do they want?
What they want is the protest, I assume.
Or the chaos or something.
So I've got two hypotheses for what's behind it.
Hypothesis number one, there's a whole bunch of professional protesters and planners and motivators.
Now we know that some of the people in these crowds, because we see a few of them have been ID'd, as literally professional lifetime protest organizers.
So some of them just show up whenever there's a protest.
So some of it must be that there's some kind of machine now of Marxist trained organizers.
And whenever there's a thing, they just show up and nobody needs to tell them.
So it might not be organized in a classic way.
It could be organized because there's now an architecture and a system of trained protesters.
And they're just waiting for a reason.
Imagine if your whole deal is you're a trained protest organizer.
And there are no big protests.
Your whole life is being this protest organizer and there's no protests.
Well, as soon as you see one, you're going to jump into your car and drive as fast as you can toward it and try to put yourself in charge because, damn it, you've been training for this all your life.
So one possibility is that it's not terribly organized, except that maybe there's some Soros money.
They got to some organization so they had a little cash on hand.
That's possible.
So it could actually be self-organized, but only because there's a professional class of protesters.
But I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Second clue.
Don't you think that by now, that law enforcement entities or intelligence or the FBI in the United States knows exactly who's behind the protests?
By now.
Does anybody believe the FBI doesn't know who's behind the protests?
Do you think the FBI doesn't know where the money comes from?
Do you think they don't know that the organizers are professional organizers and what their names are and where they're from?
Of course they do.
Of course they do.
Now, if the source were, let's say, Iran, you don't think the FBI and the government would tell you?
Oh, these are being funded by Iran?
Of course they would.
Of course they would.
Because they would want you to know that.
So, what could be the answer if the FBI and your government is not telling you who's behind it?
Who could be behind it if your government won't tell you who's behind it?
Your own government.
What other reason would there be?
Can you think of any other reason that your government wouldn't tell you who's behind it when obviously they know by now?
We have no privacy.
Of course they know.
You don't think that they're monitoring every phone of every activist?
Of course they are.
You don't think they've heard every phone call?
You don't think they've already traced all of their money back everywhere?
Of course they have.
Of course they have.
Why aren't they telling you?
Who benefits?
Who's the big winner from the protests?
Say it.
Who's the big winner from the protests?
Go on.
Say it.
You're not going to say it?
This is the one time you're not going to yell Israel?
It's the one time?
Israel!
There's nobody who benefits more than Israel, is there?
Nobody benefits more than Israel because what this does is it takes October 7th and it makes it local.
What you're seeing is a theatrical version of October 7th played out in the United States that's the sort of the fictional version of what really happened on October 7th.
It allows the Jews in the United States and the media in the United States to feel viscerally what it would be like To be surrounded by unfriendly entities.
Yeah.
Now, I'm not saying that there's some evidence that Israel is behind it.
I'm just saying it couldn't possibly be the Palestinians because it's not working for them.
All it's doing is making the Palestinians look violent and unfriendly.
I don't think it's working for them.
You know, maybe in some weird way.
So it doesn't seem to me like Iran is behind it.
Because if Iran were behind it, our government would be shouting it, or at least the Republicans would.
There would at least be some Republicans saying, ah, it's alright.
You don't even hear the Republicans saying it.
Right?
So there's only two possibilities that are really the same possibility.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that our government is involved, some part of the government, and that Israel's involved, some part of Israel because nobody else benefits. Now you could say that Trump benefits, but it doesn't really look like it was organized by anybody on the right.
In your wildest imagination, do you imagine any, even a Dirty Tricks player?
You know, because both sides have dirty tricks people, right?
And do you think a Roger Stone or somebody would be like, you know, known to be like, you know, doing some good tricks on the Republican side?
Do you think, you know, somebody like that would be behind this?
Not a chance.
No, there's no chance that any Republican is behind this.
So who could it be?
I think it's kind of narrowed down to America and if they're working with somebody.
It's got to be that.
What else could it be?
So this is a diagnosis by exclusion.
So I have no direct evidence that anybody in America or American entities are behind it.
But, sure looks like it.
I don't see any other explanation.
So if you take the Mike Benz explanation of the world, that there's this Atlantic Council that is led by the CIA, and maybe they're either puppets of the Democrats, or the Democrats are puppets of them, it's a little unclear.
But if the belief is that the Atlantic Council wants war, because it's good for business, this would be a pretty good way to support Israel continuing the fight.
So the military-industrial complex should want things to look worse, not better.
Because the last thing our military-industrial complex wants is for Israel and Gaza to say, you know what?
We've both hurt each other so badly.
There's no way either of us can win.
Why don't we just make peace and figure this out?
Would that be good for America and the military-industrial complex that runs everything?
Probably not.
They probably like the trouble.
Makes a little bit more money.
So, I don't believe that these are organic.
There might be a number of elements that are going into it.
Probably there are a bunch of just pro-Palestinian people who just say, hey, it's a pro-Palestinian thing, I'll get in on it.
So I definitely think there are genuine pro-Palestinian people in the mix.
There are definitely just anti-Israel people in the mix.
But the fact that it's gone on so long and nothing's happening, I don't know, it's a little bit suspicious.
And I'm going to blame my own team first, because I can't see past that.
If the people on my team, allegedly, you know, FBI, CIA, the government, if they can't tell me who's behind it, I'm going to assume my government's behind it.
And by the way, I would also accept we're trying really hard to figure out who's behind it, but it's a little unclear.
I would actually accept that, because that sounds like the real world.
We're trying, but it's a little unclear.
Maybe there are a number of entities for different reasons, and, you know, it's not one reason.
That could be.
I'd believe that.
But total silence about what's behind it?
Nope.
Fishy.
Sorry.
Apparently Morning Joe, I hear, is having trouble reconciling the fact that the January 6th thing was a violent insurrection and fascism for sure, whereas the college protests are just free speech.
Now, I always make fun of people who reason by analogies.
Is it fair to compare January 6th to the college protests?
No!
No, they're completely different.
So, could you draw a conclusion from one to the other?
Well, you could try, but it'd be nonsense, because it's just two different situations.
So, I don't think there's a genuine argument connecting them.
However, people are not logical creatures.
And the voters are looking at this, and they're saying, hmm, looks like a bunch of free speech people doing things I don't like.
And then they think of January 6th, and they say, Huh, looks like it was a bunch of free speech people doing things I don't like.
Now below that, of course, it was completely different.
So what the protesters want today is different than what the January 6th people wanted.
One was about disrupting a process, theoretically for good reasons, and the protesters in the colleges are also disrupting a process, the college, and they're hoping to do something that they would consider positive.
So, you can make a case that any two things are the same thing or different.
But it's going to be feeding into the Trump narrative that January 6th was a law fair.
Unless the crackdown on these protesters gets a lot more harsh.
Including jail time.
All right, one of the protesters who has been identified as one of the professional Marxist, basically a professional protest organizer, was asking for food for the students, because I guess they hadn't planned well enough to have food.
So they took over some buildings and then they got hungry.
And then she tried to say, no, no, I just mean for the students to run the food plan.
Not everybody.
But if you're on the food plan and you're a student, shouldn't the college be paying you because you paid for the food plan?
To which I say, no.
Starve.
College doesn't owe you a damn thing.
The college didn't agree to deliver.
They did not agree to deliver.
So if you want the food delivered, well, maybe that was a negotiation you should have done before you went to college.
But the college you went to doesn't deliver.
So good luck.
Anyway, I think it would be hilarious if they simply let them stay in the buildings but didn't let them have food.
Just see how long they could make it last.
It gets funnier the longer it goes.
I'm hearing some people like Nate Silver say that this is the end of the Ivy League, elite schools, and pretty soon your state school will be a better deal.
I don't believe any of that.
I think it's going to go right back to where it was, where if you can get your kid into Harvard, you'll do it.
Yeah, maybe three years.
I think there'll be like a three-year pause where it looks like a bad idea, and then it'll go right back to where it was, and the people who can afford it will send them to Harvard, and the reputation will probably recover.
I don't see this as the end of the elite colleges whatsoever, but I could be wrong.
Vigilantes are finally coming.
In Los Angeles, UCLA was having their issues, and a hundred pro-Israel vigilantes stormed the Palestine Solidary Encampment at UCLA late Tuesday night, early Wednesday, and then sparked battles with the activists.
Do you think there will be more of that?
More of vigilantism?
Yeah, this is one of the costs of the low testosterone in the United States.
This is not really the country that I grew up in.
The country where I was a younger man, there was a lot more testosterone.
Like literally, not joking, our actual bodies had more testosterone.
It definitely made us more violent.
And the low level of vigilantism is giving me very mixed feelings in this country.
Number one, oh, I'm glad that people are so civilized and not taking the law into their own hands.
That's good, because I certainly do not approve of violence, you know, of that sort.
On the other hand, I say to myself, you know what would really fix a lot of problems?
I mean, I'm not going to recommend it, But I'm just saying, as a statement and as an observation, a really large dose of vigilantism would solve a lot of problems, which I do not recommend.
Literally, I don't recommend it.
Yeah, don't be a vigilante.
It's not going to work out for you.
Being a vigilante is a bad strategy.
Having said that, if this were my youth, We would have done it anyway.
It doesn't matter if it's a bad strategy.
That's what your testosterone does for you.
It makes you do dangerous things.
If you don't have enough, well, you're like, let's see if this just blows over.
I can't be sure that the tougher actions would be better.
It just is different.
I mean, it's a clear difference from my youth.
So maybe there'll be some vigilantism popping up to battle these things, but I wouldn't count on it.
Over in Japan, they have a birth rate crisis that's even worse than our own, and I saw a story talking about the reasons for that.
It's mostly economic.
But they also have a social problem, which is if the two parents are both working, the working mother is not really considered a full employee, if you know what I mean.
So I think in Japan, they don't have a social structure that is supportive of two couples and both of them working if they have kids.
I think the assumption there is that the mom should be spending time at home.
Because the Japanese might be a little more conservative in that regard.
So they basically have no system to recover from their problem.
Now that's the real story.
The story is not that the birth rate is going down.
The story is that there's nothing that's the counter effect.
Nothing.
They've tried to incentivize the people who are already married to have more kids, And maybe that works a little bit, financially incentivized.
But they're not doing anything about people who don't want to get married because they can't make it work economically.
There's a photo of some vigilantes protecting the American flag I saw.
Could be more of that.
Could be more of that coming.
Anyway, so Japan is like the canary in the coal mine for the United States.
And the one takeaway I would have is, if we don't build a system to reverse it, our own declining birth rate, don't expect it to reverse.
We're not going to just sit around and change our minds.
You've got to fundamentally and really grossly change the system.
Otherwise, it's just going to be the end of us.
And when I say us, I mean you.
I mean, I'll be long dead.
That's why you shouldn't let me vote on the budget either.
Well, there's another poll saying the swing states are all two to three points in favor of Trump.
Two to three points, I remind you, is not enough to win, even in the swing states.
That is not above the MOC.
I'm waiting for you to say M.O.C.
What's the M.O.C.?
Can you guess based on the context?
A 2-3 point advantage for Trump is not above the M.O.C.
Margin of cheating.
Margin of cheating.
I believe that anything within 2-3% would be cheated away.
And that if he's not up by 10 points in the polls on election day, it's going to be dicey.
I think 10 points up on election day, on let's say the average of polls, gets you a definite President Trump.
At 5 points up, it gets sort of dicey.
At 3 or 2, I think he loses.
At 5, they've got a tough problem, because it's going to be obvious if they cheat.
But they might do it anyway and get away with it.
At 10, they just can't do it.
At 10, you're going to have to assassinate or something.
You're not going to be able to do it.
All right, we'll talk more about that.
Trump has said, I think there's a lot of paid agitators, the college protests, professional agitators, and blah, blah, blah.
And then the Hill's Nick Robertson said this, there is no evidence that any protester at Columbia University What?
What?
I didn't think there was any adult in America who thought these were organic.
Have you met even one person who thinks these are organic and not organized from the outside?
Even one?
I've never even seen that opinion in the wild.
I've never seen the opinion, except from Nick Robertson, that says there's no evidence.
Now, I'm not disagreeing with this characterization of no evidence, because I think he means direct evidence.
But how much circumstantial evidence do you need?
If the people whose faces we see, we've now seen a few faces of people who are literally professionals.
They're not involved with the school.
They are professional.
And presumably, they found some way to make a living from it.
So there must be somebody paying them.
I don't think that they're doing this because they feel it.
Think about all the issues in the world that you could protest about.
No protest.
You think that this is, of all the things, this is the one that everybody's like, oh, I'm going to protest this.
No, it's not organic.
So I'd be suspicious of anybody who says it is organic.
And I would believe anybody who said it's obviously not.
Trump talks about the hand paint.
He goes, where are the hand painted signs?
Cause hand painted signs are a pretty good indication of an organic thing.
They've all got professional signs and all that stuff.
Anyway, I saw an opinion that the protesters at the colleges will look right in the future, and the argument there is that the Vietnam protesters look like dirty hippies when they're protesting, but by today's light they look like they were the smart ones.
The Iraq War protesters look like un-American troublemakers, but now in retrospect they look like they were correct.
I would add to that opinion the The people who resisted the most in the pandemic looked at the time, at least to the press, like the crazy people who were science deniers.
But today, they look like they were the correct conscientious objectors to the vaccinations and the shutdowns and stuff.
So the question was, will the protesters in the colleges Look like the enlightened ones in 20 years.
To which I say, that's not how thinking works.
There's no such thing as thinking by analogy.
We just imagine it.
No, the fact that this reminds you of Vietnam protests doesn't mean it's predictive.
The fact that it reminds you of the Iraq war or reminds you of the pandemic doesn't make it predictive.
It doesn't tell you anything about the new thing.
Do you know why history doesn't repeat, even though all your teachers told you it did?
Here's why history doesn't repeat.
It can't.
It's not even an option.
Because everything before that is different.
If only the fact that we know it happened before You know, something like it.
That's enough alone to make it not repeat.
Because people will say, well, we don't want to do that exact same mistake, so we'll do something different.
So there's always something different.
It just reminds you of other things.
Don't imagine that if you're reminded of something, it's telling you what the future is.
It doesn't work that way.
History does not repeat.
Now I know what you're going to say, because I know I got some NPCs in here.
History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
Okay, I'm actually reading that, but I told you it was going to be there before I read it.
Every time I say this, somebody says, history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
No, it doesn't rhyme.
Just some things remind you of other things.
That's it.
If you're trying to say, well, but it repeats a little bit, you know, the rhyming.
So, it does repeat a little bit.
No, it doesn't.
It doesn't.
Sometimes things go the same way.
Sometimes they don't.
When it goes the same way as something that you're reminded of, you say, well, there's history repeating.
No, it isn't.
It's just that it was, there were probably two ways that something could go and it just went that way.
It doesn't mean it was predictable.
It just means that it reminds you of something.
Don't be confused with reminded of something.
Biden's talking about allowing in a certain specific class of Palestinians to the U.S.
that would be limited to, he says, people who are already in Egypt, so they've already left the war zone, and they have U.S.
connections, so they have family in the U.S.
So there would have to be two conditions, probably three if you assume that they'd be vetted to make sure they're not terrorists.
But if they're not terrorists, at least there's no indication of it.
They've got a family in America and they're already out of the war zone.
So let's say they're in Egypt.
There's a report that's not confirmed, but not denied, that Biden is considering some of them in that special case to be allowed into America.
The answer to that is hard no.
Oh, hell no.
Do I think that these specific people who are being considered for allowing into the country are bad people?
No.
No.
It's not about them at all.
It's about a government we don't trust to open a door a little bit.
Are you with me?
We don't trust our government to know how wide to open the door.
If there's anything we know we can't trust, It's your government to know how wide to open the door.
If this were true, first, let's say it were true.
Let's say they could vet them and saw no connection to any Hamas activity.
Let's say their family had been living here for a long time and, you know, all peaceful Americans and, you know, so they had a way to financially support themselves if they came because their family would be here.
You could imagine a situation, hypothetically, In which you'd say to yourself, you know, that is an exception.
That's definitely an exception.
And we're not bigots, we're not racists, and this is just an exception.
So why not?
No way!
I'm sorry, we don't have that government.
We have the government who plays games to get the door open a little bit so they can swing it open.
Have you seen our border?
Have you seen our border?
We don't open doors a little bit.
We opened a little bit so that you won't be surprised when they open it all the way.
It's to get you a little bit pregnant on the idea of bringing in Palestinians.
No.
Hard no.
Is it unkind to these specific Palestinians?
Yes.
Is it bigoted?
I don't care.
Is it racist?
Who cares?
Who cares?
I don't care.
When it comes to physical defense, which is what this is, you could be as racist as you want.
You know that, right?
You could be as bigoted as you want.
If you're doing national security, you can be as bigoted as you want.
There's no rule against that.
It's not illegal.
In fact, you would require it.
I would require it.
On an individual level, Bigotry is unethical, immoral, unwise.
It doesn't do anything for you, because people are so infinitely different that judging them on their immutable characteristics is just denying yourself access to, you know, the beauty and intelligence of most of the world.
So it does make sense on an individual basis to just say, you're one of those Elbonians, so you're all alike.
That doesn't make any sense.
But on a population level, If you say that letting in a whole bunch of people from a country where there's a large percentage of them who don't like you, perfectly fine.
Perfectly acceptable from a self-defense perspective.
So in this case, hard no.
Does this play to President Trump's or ex-President Trump's narrative in his third act?
Yes, it does.
It's kind of perfect.
All the stories seem to be pro-Trump.
He's having the best week, and I'll talk more about that.
Yeah, this couldn't be better.
The college protests are totally good for Trump.
The Biden talking about allowing Palestinians in, good for Trump.
The overfunding of Ukraine, some would say, the permanent funding of Ukraine that's under consideration, all good for Trump.
Gas prices are up again, all good for Trump.
It's basically, it's just one thing after another.
Adam Schiff, Getting in trouble for a banking fraud, alleged banking fraud.
Perfect.
It's perfect.
Now, what would you expect to happen if everything was going right for Trump and the news cycle was turning against Biden?
What would you expect to happen?
Take a prediction.
What would be kind of a pattern you've seen before?
All the news is bad for Biden.
What do we see when that happens?
Well, let's get to our next story.
See if this looks familiar.
There's a story in the news by Merrick von Reinenkamp, who served as an analyst for the State Department's Bureau of International Security and Non-Proliferation.
He was an Obama administration appointee at the U.S.
Department of Defense.
So he's, he's going to tell us that the UFOs are definitely real and, uh, the, uh, aliens must be here.
We don't know where they're from, but according to this, uh, article that coincidentally happens when the entire news cycle is against Biden.
Hmm.
And it's against that Ukraine funding.
Hmm.
Um, suddenly all the UFOs are real.
Let me tell you, there's a whole bigfoot UFO.
Yep, UFOs all over the place.
Don't go outside.
You'll probably trip over a UFO.
UFOs are not real.
There are no aliens.
There's only bullshit.
And I'm reading this story, and listen to the story.
That this guy is trying to sell to us.
That there was a specific jet that picked up these three entities, and the three entities were flying, and they acted in ways that no technology can act.
And then, it gets weirder.
As they approached, As the plane approached the three mysterious items, the plane lost its electronics, so its tracking turned off as they got near it.
Now, how do you interpret that?
Let's see.
One possibility is that aliens have crossed the universe, and they're flying around Earth, and they have a technology that can turn off your tracking and electronics when you get near them.
That's a possibility.
Let me give you another possibility that's slightly more possible.
We know their electronics were bad, because they failed, and the only evidence that these were mysterious was those same electronics that failed.
So the evidence that UFOs are real comes from electronic devices that we know didn't last for another five minutes.
That sounds a lot like the electronics weren't working.
Now, I'm not saying that's the answer.
I'm just saying there's nothing about this story that sounds credible to me, and the timing of it is a little bit on the nose, if you know what I mean.
So... There's a Rasmussen poll.
I want to see if you can guess, of likely U.S.
voters, How many people think that the New York trial that Trump's in will make people less likely to vote for Trump?
What percentage of voters say they're less likely to vote for him because of the lawfare against him?
26%.
Very good guess.
A lot of you were within 1% on that guess.
Smartest audience in all of politics.
I don't know how you do it, time after time.
I ask you at the poll, you get it every time.
Amazing.
Yep, 26%.
But 32% say it's made them more likely to vote for him.
40% say no difference.
Well, over at the World Economic Forum, I guess they're meeting, guess who loves nuclear power now?
The World Economic Forum.
Oh, they love their nuclear power now.
Do you know why?
Is it because, for many years, nuclear was the only solution to climate change?
Well, no.
But they are coming around on nuclear for climate change, if they're still worried about climate change.
But it turns out there's a new reason for nuclear.
You can't do AI without it.
There's no way to have AI, the robust, you know, full industry, full-on AI, unless we have something like six times more electricity in this country than we have now.
Six times more.
Sort of the minimum electricity we'll need to develop our AI industry.
So suddenly Larry Fink and BlackRock are saying, oh, we're going to need a whole lot of nuclear power, and we're going to need it fast.
So what's going to happen?
Because there's no way we're going to build nuclear power plants within 10 years.
If we started today, it's going to take 10 years.
And AI is sort of next six months.
So what's going to happen?
Are our electricity costs going to go through the roof because we're competing against AI data centers?
I don't know.
As I try to think what would be the situation in the age of AI and robots and how do you make money and all that, I think somebody said this before I did.
Was it Sam Altman or somebody?
That the currency of the future is electricity.
Think about it.
The currency of the future, it's actually a current, it's a current, see, is electricity.
Because electricity will be the base need for everything that matters, you know, AI and robots and whatever, and there won't be enough.
So it's a basic need and shortage.
So it's going to be the thing that you could probably pay for.
One could imagine, one could imagine a network grid that let me pay you in electricity.
Is that possible?
Let's say I owed you a debt because I bought some goods or services.
And suppose I could open up my app and say, I'll tell you what, I'm creating more electricity than I need for my house.
I was going to sell it back to the grid, but instead I'll just transfer it to you in payment.
I'll just send you electricity.
If the grid allowed you to do that, and in theory it could, it's not built to do it now, but in theory it could, if you built it out to do that, you could actually pay your bills with electricity.
Hey, I'll give you some electricity.
Now I've also wondered, given that electricity will be the, apparently, the number one valued asset in the future, do you think there's a way for you individually to make money from this?
Because if you're going to need a massive, massive electrical upgrade everywhere, suppose you decided on your own to buy a few acres, And then you got a bunch of solar panels and a bunch of solar batteries because it's all commercially available now.
Could you build your own mini electric plant and just sell it to the grid?
Now, right now, I don't think that's an easy thing to do.
There's probably regulations and blah, blah, blah.
But regulations for electricity should fall like crazy if it becomes a crisis.
And it will because we don't have any.
We're not even close.
We're nowhere in the neighborhood of having a fraction of what we need.
So it's going to be a crisis.
It's going to happen fast.
Is there any way you individually could become a power plant for your town?
And just say, I'll tell you what, you know, the city isn't going to give you electricity, but I'll run a line to your house or something like that.
Now I'm sure all of that's illegal for a hundred reasons, but everything's going to loosen up when you run out of electricity.
Right?
You can have laws when everything's working, but if we run out of electricity... Oh, Chamath has a startup that lets you sell your electricity at scale if you're a homeowner, so you can group together and sell it.
Well, that's a pretty good idea.
That's a heck of an idea.
I like that idea.
All right.
So, the World Economic Forum, they love nuclear power.
How much do all of you like being right?
Probably every one of you listening to this has been saying for, I don't know, 10 years, we need more nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.
And now you're not just right, you're right to the point of survival.
I mean, you're so right.
You could not be righter.
How does that feel?
How does it feel to be that right for 10 years in a row about what turns out to be the most critical question in the country?
That's pretty good.
Imagine if you'd been wrong about this for 20 years.
A lot of people had been wrong about it.
The people who were wrong about nuclear for 20 years put us in this situation.
The dire crisis and probably the inability to get AI scaled up as much as we want.
However, I'm going to give you a counter hypothesis, and it goes like this.
How can it simultaneously be true that we need massive energy for AI, at the same time it's true that we can run AI locally on our phones without any performance problems?
Can they both be true?
Is it not likely the AI will be good enough, fast enough, that you don't need any extra electricity?
I feel like that's a possibility.
I'm going to go out on a limb.
I'm going to say that the projections of monstrous needs for electricity will be solved without monstrous new electricity.
I think we'll find a way to do it cheap.
So that's going to be my... Yeah, I know you need training and service.
I get it.
It's not just the model.
I do understand.
When I said it, I did understand that the training is the big thing.
But here's the thing.
I think the training might hit a wall.
In other words, I don't know if infinite training is what they need.
I think they need to be trained to be good enough to do whatever it is they need to do.
And we might get there faster than you think.
Now, keep in mind that we also don't have a market for training material yet.
In other words, if I train my robot with a set of data that I have, and you wanted your robot to be trained on the same data, is there two ways to do that, or only one?
Is the only way to do that to give somebody else the data, and then they use their own mechanism to train on it?
Here's my question.
Given that somebody is already trained on the data, the patterns and the programs and the algorithms, I don't know what the right words are, that are created from the data are not the size of the data.
So if the data you're training on is a gazillion gigabytes, once you've trained on it, everything it knows can be compressed into, you know, one gigabyte or something.
So it's like maybe one to a hundred.
Once you've done the training.
Is it possible that I can sell the trained module and not the data?
Has anybody ever asked that question in public?
Is it too stupid to say in public?
You know, the trouble with a new field is that it's easy to be stupid because we're all just learning AI.
But I don't know a reason why you couldn't sell the trained model Versus selling the raw data.
There just isn't a market for it yet.
Now, if you have different AI models, it might be that if you buy a trained OpenAI module, it might not work with your, you know, Gemini technology or something.
But it will!
There will be translators.
I mean, at some point somebody's going to write a thing that takes a A trained module from one AI and remodel, you know, reworks it so it works with the other AI.
And in fact, the AIs will write that program themselves.
You don't even have to wait for the humans.
The AI will figure out how to share its own programs because that's what it does well.
So I think that the massive energy, the 30 gigawatts that we need according to Larry Fink, It's probably what we need based on current technology and current markets.
But I think we might be even one and a half years away from just not needing that electricity.
Chamath explained how the value of training models will go to zero.
Correct.
Because they will tap out.
Let me put it this way.
If you trained Your model on all the writings in America.
And then you added what we wrote today.
How much smarter would it get?
It wouldn't.
It sort of maxed out.
It would learn new facts, but that's more of a search engine thing than an AI thing.
So yeah, I think that they'll be artificial.
So a lot of the training is now, what's the word for it?
They use artificial scenarios to train it.
So the AI is training itself.
It's creating scenarios that don't exist, and then it's observing the scenario, and then it's baking it back into the model and repeating.
Wouldn't that lead us to history repeat?
I'm going to ignore your questions.
The troll questions I'm just going to ignore.
I think you all know that things that have happened before do happen.
The trouble is prediction.
I'm not saying that things that have happened before don't happen again or that they look like they happen again.
Of course, things that look like they happen are happening again.
It's just if you can't predict it, it's not a real thing.
Yeah, looking at it after the fact doesn't tell you anything.
All right, how's Trump doing on his gag orders?
As you know, Trump got gag orders from Judge Mershon, and it's working great.
It's totally shut Trump up, so now he doesn't say anything about anybody involved with the trial.
Let me read his two truth social things.
This is a total witch hunt.
Hours of sitting down and listening to nothing except exoneration and lies.
The trial is going like a speeding bullet because the judge is working hard to make all of his friends happy.
Mershawn is rigged, crooked, and above all, without question, conflicted.
It's a disgrace to our country.
They've taken away my right to free speech.
Election interference!
And then, truth post number two, this judge has taken away my constitutional right to free speech.
I am the only presidential candidate in history to be gagged.
This whole trial, in quotes, is rigged, and by taking away my freedom of speech, this highly conflicted judge is rigging the presidential of 2024 election.
Election interference!
So, he's pretty gagged.
He's all gagged up.
So, whoever is posting the random stuff, you can stop doing that.
The random characters.
Yeah.
Random character guy, please stop.
Let's see.
Yeah, just block them.
I don't have a way to make this private when I'm going through the studio.
All right.
So the gag order isn't working quite as well as the judge had hoped.
Trump is pressing him and forcing him to put him in jail.
And it's not going to work because the judge is not dumb enough to put him in jail for free speech.
So I love the way Trump is handling this.
Do you?
This is one of those few times When I watch what Trump's doing, the whole lawfare thing and the way he's talking about it, the way he's pressing on the gag order and just pushing it as far as he can, every bit of that I like.
So he paid $9,000 for the gag order?
Was that the best publicity ever?
That was the best $9,000 he's spent all year.
I mean, it was a great news cycle.
To say that he got gagged for his free speech.
Now, I would say that the gagging Trump for free speech is also reminding me of January 6th.
January 6th, people were put in jail for free speech.
Trump's trying to use his free speech about the trial, and they're threatening to put him in jail.
So again, it works perfectly with his narrative that the system is rigged and trying to put him in jail.
It works perfectly with his narrative that the election was rigged, because you can watch them rig this election while you watch.
There's no question the election is rigged for 2024.
You're watching it every single day.
It's the headline news.
The headline is that the election is rigged, they just don't say those words.
The headline is that he's being law-fared.
Yeah, Peter Navarro is still in jail.
That is correct.
So MSNBC, they're trying to make a story out of it, and the best they could come up with is that Trump is bored and he keeps falling asleep at the table.
How in the world do you not fall asleep during a trial like that?
First of all, there's nothing that any of the witnesses are going to say that make any bearing on the trial, because there's no crime.
It doesn't matter what people talk about.
There's not even an alleged crime involved.
No.
I don't think Trump needs to pay attention.
And I love the fact that the way he's treating it is like so much bullshit that he can sleep through it.
And it won't make any difference.
It doesn't make any difference.
And by the way, I don't believe there's a law that says he has to be awake.
I believe the law says you have to be there.
And he is.
So yeah.
He can sleep through the whole damn thing.
If you see him looking sleepy at a rally, well, I'm gonna get worried.
If you see him sleepy when he's talking outside the court, when he's talking to the press, okay, I get worried about that.
But no, you put him in the most boring situation in the world, and keep in mind, Trump's regular life is the most exciting life anybody's ever heard of, ever.
I mean, he's running for president, to be president again, and he's already Trump.
He's starting as Trump!
And he's also running for president.
Every moment of his life is fascinating.
And then they make him sit in this complete, you know, absence of stimulation, because none of it's relevant to anything.
Even the facts of the case are certainly irrelevant to anything.
And yes, I want him to sleep.
I want him to close his eyes.
To disregard and disrespect the entire system and just get some sleep.
And if he snored, better.
Oh my God, would I love it if he were a snorer.
I would love to hear every single day that they had to wake him up from snoring during his lawfare bullshit trial.
That's a perfect news cycle to me.
So yeah, let's keep talking about him falling asleep because that's working for him, not you.
Trump also said that he warned that Biden and his family could face criminal prosecutions when they leave office if the Supreme Court doesn't give Trump immunity.
Is that fair to say?
Is it fair to say that if Trump doesn't get presidential immunity for what he's done, that it would open up Biden to the same types of criminal prosecutions?
Yes.
And indeed, we should make a list of what those would be.
We meaning the opponents for Joe Biden, of which I count myself.
The opponents for Joe Biden should already have a list, and they should publish it, and it should be the subject of an article, of what the potential charges would be.
Now I'd love to see somebody who is, you know, not a crazy person do this.
I'd love to see a Jonathan Turley just say, You know, without the provocation, because that's what he's good at.
He's good at just giving us the facts.
I'd love to see a Jonathan Turley say, all right, well, here's the deal.
If Trump doesn't get immunity, I can think of six different things that people could come after Biden for, even if unfairly.
So it doesn't mean that Biden is guilty of any of those things, but here are six things that they could easily make a case out of and take it forward.
I want to see the list.
And by the way, if the list is nothing, well, I'd like to know that.
That would be important.
But if there are a half a dozen things that you could conceivably go after Biden for and his family, I want to know.
That's really, really important.
Speaking of Jonathan Turley, he was the, uh, uh, I guess the guest, uh, liberal in the liberal chair of the five.
And, you know, they have rotating people.
Um, he's really good.
Yeah.
Uh, my, my vote, if anybody from the five is listening, bring him back.
Yeah.
He's a good dad.
I like, uh, um, Charlie, but I'm sorry.
Uh, Jessica, why am I forgetting her last name?
Um, Jessica on the five.
Why am I forgetting your last name?
Oh, you know who I'm talking about.
I like her too, but Turley is a superstar.
All right.
CNN had a focus group on of what they called undecided women.
Uh, from some southern state, was it Georgia or South Carolina or someplace?
One of the southern states.
And I think this was in response, Tarlov.
There you go.
I couldn't sort out Turley from Tarlov.
That's why I was having a problem with it.
Yeah.
So Jessica Tarlov, I apologize to Jessica for forgetting your last name, but it's cause I was talking about a Turley.
It's hard to go from Turley to Tarlov.
My brain wasn't handling that too well.
All right.
So CNN has this focus group of, it looked like about 10 or 12 women.
And they were talking about Trump and they were not happy with Trump.
And they were saying stuff like he's going to be, he only cares about himself.
Now I assume the CNN had this focus group because the last time they tried to get a focus group, Of independence.
They all said they were going to vote for Trump.
And I think there were more men, more men than women in that group.
So they get a bunch of women because I think they'll probably get a better result that way.
So they've got a bunch of women and it didn't work out for CNN.
So here's what I saw.
I don't know how they got so many unhealthy-looking women to participate in one event.
But I didn't see anybody who looked like they could jog a mile, if you know what I mean.
Didn't see anybody who looked like they could jog.
Didn't see anybody who looked like they had a gym membership.
So it was a bunch of people who looked like they were killing themselves with food, complaining about Trump in a way that He only cares about himself.
I didn't hear them say this, but I'm sure somebody said, he wants to be a dictator, a fascist.
He wants to end free speech.
He's stealing democracy.
Do you know why you say stuff like that?
You say stuff like that because there's nothing else to say.
So you try to make something out of words.
Given that he already has a full term as president, you don't really have to wonder how he's going to act.
And all the things he did are very popular compared to Biden.
So if you look at the actual real things that Trump did when he was president, and totally pointed this out today, the real things, people like Trump's real performance better than Biden's real performance.
So on everything that's measurable and real, the economy, immigration, blah, blah, Trump wins.
So they have to get to something you can't measure and isn't real.
Because anything you can measure and is real, Trump is winning by a mile.
So they've got to come up with, well, I think he's going to take my free speech away.
That's what they said on MSNBC.
Take my democracy, take my free speech.
He only cares about himself.
These are not the opinions of somebody who thought about it carefully and reached their own opinion.
Here's the real tell.
He only cares about himself means you've been brainwashed.
That's not an actual opinion from a human being.
That's brainwashing.
Why?
There are no politicians who don't care about themselves.
The entire design of the presidency is that you can take a person who is really, really good at being selfish And put him in the job and it works perfectly.
Do I have to explain why?
The design of the presidency, by design, you can take the most selfish, egotistical, only cares about himself person and put him in that job, it works fine.
It works great.
Do you know why?
Because it's transparent.
The only way Trump can have a good day is if he does a good job.
The only way Trump could have a good legacy is if he does a good job for the country.
The only way Trump's family name can be redeemed from the horrors of being in the political process is if he does a great job.
The only way.
And it's all transparent.
We're going to watch it all.
We're going to measure it all.
We're going to know what the economy did.
We're going to know how much money went to Ukraine.
We're going to know if the war ended or it didn't.
We're going to know.
And, um, anyway.
So all the things you can measure look good for Trump and all the things that are complete bullshit, like he's going to take my democracy.
He only cares about himself.
These are not real reasons.
And these are not the reasons that people who even follow politics use.
These are the reasons that you heard somewhere.
And cause you had a vague feeling that you don't like him and you want to be popular with your in-group.
You say, Oh, he only cares about himself.
Do you think Adam Schiff cares about you?
Seriously.
Right.
You think you can name a politician who cares about you more than they care about themselves?
And would you even want somebody that crazy in the presidency?
No.
I want somebody who has a complete understanding of their self-interest.
And then you put them in the most transparent job in the world, and there's only one thing that's going to happen.
They are going to be my bitch.
Right?
If you don't do the job while I'm watching, you don't get the good reputation, you don't get re-elected if that's what you're trying to do, your business doesn't do well in the future, your family is embarrassed.
Right?
The egotist in the presidency is my bitch.
Because you can't do anything that's unpopular.
I'm watching.
I mean, everybody else is watching.
So no, these are not real opinions.
He only cares about himself.
These are things people saw on TV.
They're not paying attention, but they got their little moment on CNN and they sat there full of cookies and dessert and whatever shit they put in their bodies to look the way they did.
And, uh, it's hard to take their opinion seriously.
All right.
By the way, if you didn't know this, let me give you a brutal truth that will be really useful to you.
I don't believe in fat shaming.
So that's not what I was doing.
Um, because I don't think that, I think there's just too much going on with the addiction of the food.
So I think it's really hard to lose weight.
So I don't make fun of anybody for having weight, but I will tell you for sure.
That people will judge your opinions on other things more harshly if you haven't taken care of your body.
Is that fair?
Your opinion on any topic will be judged more harshly if the things you can see aren't working.
In other words, if I look at you and I say, how did you not figure out how to get to a gym and eat right?
Because everybody else kind of knows how to do that.
I mean, they're not doing it.
But we all know how to do it.
Why am I listening to your opinion on this other topic when the thing that's most basic to your very happiness and survival you're not really even working on?
How would I suppose that you know what a priority even looks like?
How do I suppose you know how a system works or even what's important in life?
How could I take anything you say seriously if you're presenting yourself as a physical failure?
And I realize that's harsh.
I realize that's harsh.
A lot of you are listening and saying, oh shit, you know, you're making me feel bad because I should try harder.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to do.
I'm trying to make you feel bad about not trying harder to take care of yourself.
And I'm not going to apologize for that a bit.
So I don't do fat shaming.
There are all kinds of reasons that people are the way they are and it's not all under your control.
But yeah, there should be social pressure on you to get that part right, because that's good for you.
Social pressure isn't all bad, right?
It does keep us at least a little bit walking down the middle of the road.
So that's my gift to you, is that if you want to be taken seriously, make sure you take care of your highest priorities.
You take care of that stuff, I'll take your next opinion seriously.
All right, there's an election app, Turning Point, the Turning Point Action Group have an app, TPA, TP Action, brand new app.
So I don't know the full details of it, but it's creating what they call a relational approach to politics, to getting people to vote.
What it looks like from the images, and I don't know for sure, is it looks like it's trying to get you to basically be acquaintances or online friends, With other people who are likely to vote and live near you.
So it's trying to connect you to people with like-minded voting preferences so you can encourage each other to vote.
That's what it looks like.
It's a good idea.
Good idea.
Now, execution is everything.
So if people aren't interested in the app and they don't like it after they use it, then it's nothing.
But I am encouraged The people on the right are doing things.
And this is a thing.
Like, whether this works or doesn't work, it was the right thing.
Right?
It was the right thing to try.
And I think somebody mentioned there's some other app that might try to get at it a different way.
Is it free?
I assume it's free.
Yeah.
It might not be.
Maybe it also takes donations.
I don't know.
I don't know anything about it.
But...
Yes.
So we know that the Republicans are trying to respond in a number of ways to what they thought were election security issues.
And, you know, maybe the mechanism of the election, the mail-in voting wasn't working for Republicans.
So they're trying to work on that.
They're trying to get more observers at the election places.
So there does seem to be visible action in all the directions that make sense.
So at least the conservatives and Republicans are acting like conservatives and Republicans.
How much do you like the fact that the political right is taking sort of a free market, you know, they're learning from their mistakes, adjusting.
I like it.
There's something going on positive.
I don't know if it's enough or not.
All right.
The Gateway Pundit is reporting that there was an appeals court that denied a request to ignore the lack of dates on mail-in ballots.
All right, so that's too many negatives.
Let me see if I can put this in a simpler term.
Pennsylvania wanted to be able to count its ballots even if they didn't have a date on them.
And apparently that's a pretty big problem that they come in undated.
And An appeals court, 3rd U.S.
Circuit, ruled that the mail-in ballots with no dates cannot be counted.
So that's a change.
So all of those many ballots that came in for the prior elections would actually be thrown out by law.
The ones with no dates on them.
That could be a big difference.
Now this is a case in which the Republicans appear to have done a good and useful job.
So they took a specific problem, they took it to the courts, and they got the victory they wanted.
Very good.
Very good.
Jeff Fulgham is reporting that there's apparently overwhelming evidence of the Georgia vote being, let's say, imperfect.
So, let's see, according to vote data, From a number of years, 2012, 2020, a block of over 120, about 126,000 non-voters, typical non-voters voted.
So in other words, a six-digit number of people voted who don't normally vote.
That's one-fourth of Atlanta's entire population voted when they don't normally vote.
Does that sound real?
No, it doesn't.
It turns out there are a whole bunch of ballots that appear to have been scanned more than once.
Now, we do have really solid evidence that ballots were scanned more than once, so it's really a question of how many of them, and it turns out it might have been a lot.
Anyway, so yeah, the irregularities from Georgia are to the point where a reasonable person, I think, can conclude it was rigged.
Would you agree?
Based on what you've heard from reports, could a reasonable person conclude that, at least in Georgia, the election was rigged?
Is that fair?
I think it's fair.
Based on the evidence we've seen.
Now, I don't independently have a claim.
I'm saying that a reasonable person could look at the claims that have been made and say, yeah, that looks definitely rigged.
Yeah.
But I remind you that nothing has been proven in court that would have changed the last election.
Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi and Alex Gutentag are working together and they have confirmed the following.
That the CIA ran the Russia collusion op and they ran it the same way that they run the ops on other countries.
And that Dan Bongino is reporting, and he's giving credit to Shellenberger, Taivi, and Guntag.
But Bongino wants us to know that the Ukrainian operation was also about taking down Trump, and that the Mar-a-Lago document situation might have also been about taking down Trump, and that all of it might be a CIA op.
And that our country is indeed not run as any kind of a republic or democracy, but rather the CIA is running it as a banana republic.
Now, is there anybody above the CIA?
Is there the Atlantic Council or Barack Obama?
I don't know.
I don't know about that part.
But what I do know is that the evidence seems overwhelming.
That the CIA has been running ops on the American people to affect the outcome of elections.
And that we have not been anything like a democracy or a republic.
And maybe we haven't been that.
I think the 60s is when it all ended.
Now, could we get it back?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe.
If we ever had it.
But it hasn't been here since the 60s.
We've been a fake country since the 60s, at least.
That's my take.
Fake country.
All right.
Are the Republicans doing better because Rana is gone from the RNC?
Well, I don't know.
I mean, she might have started a number of these initiatives.
It's too hard to say.
Think Eisenhower tried to expose it.
Yeah.
I think so.
Do I miss Arafat?
Yeah.
So, everything is exactly what it looks like.
But here's the thing.
Did you notice that all of these stories work well for Trump?
Basically, everything in the headlines is working for Trump.
And the only things that are not working Are literally manufactured.
So I told you about the focus group on CNN of the unhealthy looking women who don't like Trump.
They had to manufacture that.
That wasn't news.
That was the news people creating an event that they could call news.
Because there wasn't any.
Do you know why the Patriot Front exists?
You know, the guys who march around in the khakis and everybody thinks they're feds?
It's because they couldn't find any real white supremacist organizations that have any juice.
The reason the Patriot Front exists is because there weren't any real ones.
When they looked for the white supremacists in the military, they didn't find them.
It's all been fake.
Everything's been fake for years.
Everything the government told you was bullshit, for years.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my comments for the larger audience.
I'm going to say some words to the Locals people once I wrap up here.
They're special.
They subscribe.
And if you'd like to subscribe scottadams.locals or on X, you can see the Dilbert comic on X. By the way, the The Dilbert calendar for 2025 is, it's in production.
You know, the design and pulling it all together part.
And there will be a Dilbert calendar for 2025.
So you can slow me down, but you can't stop me.
And goodbye to everybody except the locals.
People hang around for a minute and I'll say, say hi to just you.
