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, TikTok Brain Rewiring, Tesla, Political Polls by Party, Jeff Daniels, War on Democracy, Battery Capacity, Democracy Stealing Biden, Anti-Trump Lawfare, President Trump, Biden Satan Reincarnated, Michael Shermer, Chris Cuomo, Axios Inflation Benefits, MIT DEI Hiring Statements, Jailed Peter Navarro, NYC Discrimination Settlement, President Biden's Character, President Trump's Character, Presidential Election Control, Anti-Protester Lawsuits, Lab Grown Meat, Governor DeSantis, W.H.O. America Control, Muslim UK, 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
Margarita glass of tanker gels assigned the canteen jug of glass vessel by the kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now and the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine is in the day the thing makes everything better It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now go Thank You Paul, oh I always appreciate your your audio confirmation and
Ladies and gentlemen Let us go to the stories shall we The stories.
Well, now there's some talk that there's an ozempic personality.
Some people are saying that when people take that ozempic weight loss drug, they get ozempic personality, and the symptoms appear to be a worse mood, increasing feelings of depression, anxiety, lack of interest in familiar activities, and decreased interest in sex.
Now, who could have seen that coming?
Let's see.
You take away from people the only enjoyment they have in their life.
What would that do to their mood?
You know, this might be one of those examples where they could have saved some money by asking me, Hey, Scott, what will happen if you take overweight people whose primary interest in life is eating too much and you take away their primary enjoyment?
And then I say, well, At least they have all that sex.
But then I read the news and realized nobody's really having sex.
People have given up on that.
So, well, at least they can enjoy watching the movies.
No, really can't enjoy watching a movie.
But at least you have the new news.
Okay, that's not going to make you happy.
But at least you can put your mask on and go for a run.
No, you wouldn't put a mask on to go for a run.
You're not crazy, people.
But yeah, if you take away somebody's dopamine source, their primary source, they're gonna have a little trouble adjusting.
It doesn't mean that it won't be worth it.
But I'm pretty sure there would be a little mood change if you take away people's primary source of dopamine.
One of the best reframes you could ever adopt.
is the dopamine filter on life and it's becoming my primary filter.
So if you're trying to figure out how are people going to act, especially in your personal life, how are people going to act or how are you going to act if you've been trying to predict yourself?
Think of it in terms of dopamine sufficiency.
Now when I say dopamine, I mean you know, all of the chemistry that makes you happy, right?
I'll just simplify it by saying dopamine. But if you got that going for you, you're going to be in a good mood. Now, if you look at the world in terms of thoughts and ideas and politics and science, you know, You're going to miss the bigger picture that we're just dopamine chasing fools.
And if I don't get enough dopamine doing what I'm doing, I'm going to do something else.
See if I can get some more dopamine.
You will find that just about everything can be described as a chase of dopamine.
Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
It sort of takes a lot of the mystery out of life.
It also is reinforcement for the no free will idea.
Do I have free will if I've got a choice of something that hurts versus something that will make me happy?
Not really, because I'm going to pick the happy one every time.
All right.
Wall Street Journal is reporting that TikTok is rewiring young brains.
Oh, how far we've come.
How far we've come.
Do you remember when I was a lone voice saying, TikTok is reprogramming the brains of young people?
And people would say, bah, bah.
You know, all the social media does that.
And, you know, it's just boomers complaining about stuff.
But now it's a common language to say that TikTok is rewiring young brains.
They actually use, they use the word rewiring young brains.
And the story is about, uh,
Rewiring their brains in terms of money and they make a pretty good point here in the Wall Street Journal that Imagine being on tick-tock all day long and apparently you're bombarded with two types of messages quite a bit One type of message is that the economy is terrible for young people you will never own a home and You're gonna have to work in a slavery job and you know have a roommate all your life And you'll never do as well as your parents
Now, apparently, that's what people are hearing on TikTok.
Now, it's not too different from what you're hearing, but usually young people are not fed a continuous diet of, your economic future is bad.
Would you agree?
I've never been, I don't remember any situation where young people were, every single day, taught that their personal situation would be bad in the future.
And then on top of that, Then they're fed a continuous diet of people who appear to be these influencers who are just killing it in life.
Oh, look at me all beautiful in this resort.
Oh, look at me in this expensive car and with this nice bag.
So imagine what would happen to your young brain.
Most of you are not 19 years old.
But imagine when you were 19, if all you saw was people who looked like a better version of you, and they had all this money and wealth and stuff, and at the same time, people are telling you you can't possibly have all that stuff.
So your envy would be at an all-time high, because your frame of reference would be these influencers.
At the same time, your potential is at an all-time low.
We've never had that before, where your envy is at an all-time high, while your own potential, you're being told, is at an all-time low.
So yeah, that should cause massive mental health and social disruption.
Now, do you think that China can control that?
Well, I don't know.
There's a reason that Wall Street Journal says that TikTok is rewiring brains.
It could have been a story that said social media is rewiring brains.
But maybe it's not happening everywhere, at least at the same degree.
I think Instagram's probably a similar problem, though.
Warren Buffett was asked about, he's got a lot of insurance businesses, and people wondered if his car insurance business might be injured if the Tesla self-driving cars are way safer.
And to his credit, Warren Buffett said, yes, his insurance business would probably suffer quite a bit if there are half as many accidents and therefore they have to lower the rates.
But he says we want what's good for society, not what's good for the insurance business.
And that is the correct public answer, which I think he believes, actually.
Here's the thing I don't understand.
All right, I should disclose, as I have many times, I do own some Tesla stock.
Not enough to be life-changing or anything like that, but it's a good chunk.
It's enough of a chunk that I disclose it because it should be enough to change my opinions, right?
In theory, because I have real money on the line.
So it should be distorting my point of view.
So I disclose that so you know my bias.
But here's the thing I don't understand.
The self-driving car feature should lower the insurance costs for owning a Tesla to the point where you wouldn't own any other car.
Am I wrong about that?
Won't it only take a little while?
I mean, it might be three to five years or something.
But in three to five years, won't Tesla drivers be paying way less?
And if they're not, will Tesla not create its own insurance company?
Right?
If you owned a Tesla and you couldn't get way cheaper insurance because of the self-driving part, wouldn't you go to Tesla and say, hey, can you lower my insurance?
I'll get my insurance through you because it'll be half the price because you're monitoring my self-driving car.
So it could be that Tesla is the only company that could give you accurate insurance.
Because I think they could tell how much you're using the self-driving feature.
If they could tell that you're using the self-driving feature at times when it would normally be dangerous, and it reduced your risk, maybe they give you a discount that's based on how much you use the self-driving.
But nobody else could do that.
They wouldn't have the data.
So you've had that.
Then you add what Elon Musk talked about, which is the fact that with self-driving, You can drive many more hours with the same vehicle.
So a vehicle which was giving you, you know, four hours of driving per day, maybe somebody else could use it while you're sleeping.
They could drive four more hours a night and you could fall asleep and it could keep driving you and you can drive your truck and the truck would keep driving even if you're sleeping.
So I don't know how the Tesla stock isn't going through the roof.
But again, I disclose I own some, so I'm completely biased on this, right?
And everything is risky, so don't take any investment advice from me.
It's not investment advice.
All right, but I don't understand.
If you add the fact that Tesla is going to have robots in a year, I mean, I just don't get it.
I think the stock should probably be three to five times what it is.
Maybe it will be.
We'll see.
I have a question.
Why do we do political polls by party?
Now, it makes sense to do that sometimes, because you do want to know what the Democrats and the Republicans are thinking.
But wouldn't it make more sense to do it by educational attainment, or even by knowledge of the news?
What does it tell you to know the average opinion?
Nothing.
But you know what would be really useful?
Is to know the opinion of all the smart people.
Wouldn't that be useful?
Wouldn't you like to know if the art majors have a completely different opinion of what's happening in the world than the engineers?
Suppose there was a big difference, and the engineers in both parties were more similar to each other than even people within a party.
Because I think that might be the case.
I have this feeling that there are There are people with certain types of educations that largely agree with each other.
And I'd love to see the difference.
Wouldn't you like to know if people with an IQ under 100 have largely different opinions than people who have IQs over 100?
Wouldn't you like to know that?
And wouldn't you like to see a poll where people with an IQ under, let's say, 120 are excluded from the poll?
Because they don't matter as much.
The smarter people will be the ones changing society and making things happen.
So, I'd love to see opinion polls where they do the smart people separately.
I have a theory about why it took so long for law enforcement to do something about the college protests.
Did it seem to you like the police were extra, extra soft on the protesters?
Did it seem like that to you?
Now, partly it could be, you know, that they were, you know, what do you call it, the BIPOCs and people of color and stuff.
That might be part of it.
But I think the bigger part is that it was mostly women.
When the protests are mostly women, I just don't think people see it as so dangerous.
You know what I mean?
If it were 75% male, I've got a feeling that the police would have gone in hard.
But when it's females, it looked like it was at least two-thirds female.
I can't really tell, but from the video that you see on TV, it looks about two-thirds female.
And I saw a bunch of video of Police clashing with a front line of protesters that were all women.
And there were a few beta males in there, but basically it was just all women.
And honestly, the police weren't in the same level of danger that they would have been if it had been men.
Right?
Now, the women were, you know, throwing small objects and stuff, but they couldn't really push them back.
Did you all see the viral video?
of the protesters that made little shields out of parts of plastic garbage bins and and they thought that they would they thought they would take down the front line of the police and there's a one viral video of that that looked like a young man who was running full steam at a police officer and the funniest part is that the police officer instead of getting out of the way or tripping him or doing something or shooting him or doing something like that the police officer must have been good at physics
Because the protester is running at him at full speed, and the cop, instead of getting out of the way, pushes him in the chest, which was exactly the right move, because it took his feet out.
So the cop just leans into him, pushes him in the chest, the guy goes completely upside down.
There was probably a difference in weight of probably 50 pounds.
The cop was a normal size, he wasn't overweight or anything, but the protester was kind of small.
And here's what I ask, do you think that protester was working in engineering or physics?
Not a chance.
That protester was either not a student or was some kind of an art major.
Because I'm pretty sure any engineer and anybody who would do anything about physics would have not run at a police officer with a quarter of a plastic garbage can, thinking that's all going to work out pretty well.
So anyway, I think the response was gentle, relative to what it could have been historically, because there were so many women in the group.
And I think that might have been the right choice, actually.
Which is not to say they shouldn't have acted more aggressively, but they didn't have to act more violently.
I think going soft on the students, because they are students.
Their brains are not developed.
A lot of them are women.
I feel like, yeah, and they seem to be partying more than they seem to be overthrowing the country or anything.
So I guess I'd be in favor of them going light on it.
The colleges themselves have more to answer for it.
All right.
Actor Jeff Daniels, The Hill, is reporting.
He said he hopes the... Why do we care what Jeff Daniels thinks about the election?
Wait, I guess I skipped a part.
Where's the part where we care about this one person?
Because he's an actor?
Because you heard of him?
Is that why we care about his opinion?
Well, I'm going to talk about him because his opinion is not that different from other people.
What was his opinion?
Actor Jeff Daniels says he hopes the 2024 general election will choose Biden because he calls it, he says, we're in a war on democracy.
So of all the things he could say as to why he was in favor of Joe Biden, the one thing that stood out Because he wanted to make sure the war on democracy was won by Biden and that mean old Trump didn't steal his democracy.
Because he's coming to take my democracy.
Didn't anybody tell you?
Trump came to take your democracy.
Yeah, he's going to steal it.
Well, here's what I think.
I think if you're going to do a story that you hope would be positive for President Biden, Normally, it would be good to say that there's a public figure who's in favor of it.
I would say an exception would be, oh, if your most famous movie role was to play the dumbest guy, the second dumbest guy in the world, because there's Dumb and Dumber.
I don't remember him in anything else, do you?
If you said Jeff Daniels, most famous movie, you'd all say Dumb and Dumber, right?
And do you remember what you remembered about him in that movie?
What do you remember about Jeff Daniels in the movie Dumb and Dumber?
You watched the entire movie thinking he was poorly cast in the movie.
Did you have that?
I watched the whole thing and I thought, you know what?
If you can just take Jeff Daniels out of this movie, well then you'd have something.
To me, he ruined the whole movie.
Because he might be the worst actor ever.
He's a terrible comedic actor.
But, yeah.
I mean, the writing was good, so it saved it.
But if you're famous for being the dumb guy, you probably shouldn't talk about politics if you want to help your person.
And let me say this as clearly as possible.
The only people who think Trump is having a war on democracy Are morons.
Are morons.
There's no smart person who thinks that.
You're either completely gaslighted, in which case you could have a high IQ, but you could be gaslighted, or morons.
There's no other possibility.
So let's talk about what I call Biden's war on democracy, because you know the Democrats always accuse you of what they're doing.
So we'll get into that in a minute.
Bjorn, the New York Post has an article, Bjorn Lomborg is talking about it.
It says that there's a new study that says to achieve 100% solar or wind electricity with enough backup, the U.S.
would need to be able to store almost three months worth of electricity every year.
I assume that means that you'd have to store it up in the summer when there's a lot of sun to make it through the darker months.
I assume that's what the three months is about.
Currently, how close are we to having three months worth of storage?
We're up to seven minutes.
Seven minutes.
So we'd have to get from seven minutes to three months to make that work.
You know, I assume that the nature of the article is to show it's impractical.
Is that what it says to you?
When you read that we need three months of storage, but we only have seven minutes, does that read to you like, oh, that's impossible.
We'll never get there.
Here's the problem with news about trends, and you've heard other people say this, the thing that the human brain can't conceive of is that the pace of something might increase dramatically at some point.
So if it's true, and I keep telling you about all these battery breakthroughs, almost every day I tell you there's new research, they've added materials to Double the storage and now there's a water battery, some water-based battery that's really promising.
It's much more dense and everything else.
So I think what's going to happen is that battery storage in the electrical grid will be completely inadequate until suddenly it isn't.
So for example, if you double the capacity of the batteries, Then the same facilities would be already at, you know, 14 minutes.
But, but if you double it again, it's 28 minutes.
So it's sort of like the checkerboard, you know, if you put a penny on one, one blocks on a checkerboard, but the next one was two and the next one was four.
By the time you got to the end of the checkerboard, it's, you know, a gazillion dollars.
So I think that's the situation here, that it looks impossible.
But it's only because your brain can't hold, how do you get from seven minutes to three months?
And the answer might be a whole, you know, several years of not much happening, followed by two years when it all comes together.
Maybe, if the technology keeps improving.
Here's one possibility.
If more people put battery storage on their own home, Actually, here's a better way to say it.
If you have a Tesla charger on your house, a battery, you'd get pretty close to at least being self-sufficient.
I don't think you'd get there, depending on where you are.
But you'd get pretty close.
So it could be that having big old batteries in the network isn't going to be the thing that changes everything.
It could be.
Imagine this.
Imagine they pass a law that says when you buy a house, You know, above a certain dollar amount, you have to put a battery in it for your solar.
You have to have solar and you have to have a battery.
I think there are already laws about new homes needing solar, right?
Give me a fact check on that.
Is it true in California, if you built a new home, you'd have to have solar on the roof?
I think it might be a law.
I don't know.
People do it anyway, because it makes sense economically.
But I could easily see the law saying you can't buy a house unless you add a battery to it.
You could easily imagine that.
So we might be able to get there, but we're way far away.
Joe Hoft at joehoft.com is writing, and I think the Gateway Pundit was reporting.
I think Joe came up with the term election industrial complex.
So it's a long, complicated story, and that's the story itself, that it's long and complicated.
So since 2017, there's this Higher Ground Labs organization that's working with all kinds of other private organizations.
They've invested in dozens of companies, and in 2020 alone, Their company has reached 7,500 campaigns and 7 million voters.
So it's basically this mass network of non-governmental entities that have a common mission, but they're all doing different things to get there.
And the common mission is to get Democrats elected.
But I don't think Republicans have anything like it.
So, the Democrats have quite cleverly built an entire network of influential outside government things that support their election industrial complex, as they call it.
So, that's a new term that I think is useful.
Election industrial complex.
If you think about it, it explains everything.
You know, it would include stuff like, I think, Zuckerberg putting 400 million into things and Mark Elias changing laws and some states for the elections and all that stuff.
So there's just a whole bunch of moving parts.
It'd be hard to fight against.
So if you know that there's an election industrial complex, would you say that that is supporting democracy or thwarting it?
An election industrial complex.
Well, to the extent that it gets in between the government and the news and the voters to interfere with that process, this would be subverting democracy.
This would be Joe Biden trying to steal your democracy and the Democrats.
But thank goodness that's the only example of it.
Am I right?
Thank goodness there are no other examples of Joe Biden trying to steal your democracy right in front of you.
Well, let's talk about the other news, just to make sure there are no other examples of that.
Well, CNN is reporting, at least their experts, that Alvin Bragg, the DA, has yet to show any real evidence in the Stormy Daniels case.
One of the panel attorneys said, and I quote on CNN, I've seen very little evidence of Trump's direct involvement in getting this accomplished.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
And somebody else said, it's a great point, David.
There hasn't been much evidence yet of Donald Trump's involvement and knowledge of the alleged criminal activity.
So there's an entire case against somebody who's running for president that allegedly was organized by Joe Biden's administration that has quite clearly doesn't have any evidence of a crime.
And even CNN can't see evidence of a crime.
Would you call that trying to steal democracy?
I would.
If you're trying to lawfare your opponent, and there's literally no law there that would put him in jail, but you're doing it anyway.
Yeah, that's lawfare.
So Jeff Daniels, the dumb of dumber, that would be called trying to steal your democracy.
And if this were reversed, And I were watching Trump lawfare the hell out of Joe Biden while Joe Biden was running for office.
I would not be happy about it.
Imagine what I would be telling you if we got to this point and Joe Biden was sitting in court every day and no evidence of any guilt had been presented.
Do you think I'd be okay with that?
Because he's a Democrat and maybe I don't like his policies so much?
No, I would not be okay with that.
No, you can reverse this one, and I'm going to have exactly the same opinion.
This should not be happening in America.
But thank God it's only this one case, am I right?
Oh.
Well, there's more evidence that in the Mar-a-Lago box lawfare case that Jack Smith is pushing, The government has said this, quote, the government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what government counsel previously understood and represented to the court.
What that is, is Jack Smith and his people admitting they lied and that they faked photos to show that it was more classified than it was.
They put their own cover sheets in the photo.
The cover sheets say it's classified.
They admit that the cover sheets were not what they found.
The cover she used to say classified is what they put there that they say were placeholders.
So they didn't lose their place.
And then they photographed it and told you that was what they found.
No, that was not what they found.
That's what they staged for the photograph.
That should be illegal.
Every one of them should be in jail if they did that intentionally.
But it also seems that maybe the contents of the boxes were packed by the GSA and forced upon Trump, and he probably doesn't know anything about them.
And on top of that, something about the order of the information has been faked.
So now we know they faked the source of the boxes.
They reversed it.
They said it was, you know, Trump had them and the GSA wanted them.
It turns out that at least in the first phase, the GSA had them and wanted Trump to have them, which looks exactly like a setup.
Because it was done by the same people who do all the other hoaxes and setups.
They do ops.
They do ops that look exactly like this.
This is the op they do.
They would put something in his box and then force him to take it and then find it in his box.
Now, I don't know that that was an op, but it sure looks like one.
And even if it's not an op, even if it's just, you know, total fuckery, it's not the justice system the way you think it ought to work.
This is Jack Smith and the Democrats trying to steal your fucking democracy.
But thank goodness there are only two examples of that.
Over in Georgia, the state representative Misha Maynor, who's suing the DA Fonny Willis, oh, Oh, Fonny Willis, where have I heard of her?
Oh, she's that corrupt DA who is trying to lawfare Trump over his choice of words.
Yeah, he used a normal English word.
It's called find, F-I-N-D.
And Fonny Willis is trying to put him in jail because she thinks that the word find means rig the election.
Well, it turns out that according to Georgia State Representative Misha Maynor, there's a pattern of corruption in her office, and that she's proven to have falsified evidence, and according to the state representative, that they tried to get his son to take a 20-year plea deal by falsifying evidence.
That's the claim.
So, it's the father of Casey Whatley, who's been incarcerated, For five years, and apparently there's some allegations that evidence was planted and this was a pattern of it.
So, let's see, that would be three obvious lawfare cases in which any observer can see that they're simply trying to steal the democracy.
Right.
Joe Biden and his goons are trying to steal your democracy.
Try to take your democracy.
So, let's see.
These are the things that Trump is in trouble for, legally.
Boxes he didn't pack and didn't know what the contents were, so he might go to jail for that.
Paying Stormy Daniels that isn't a crime and there's no evidence of a crime presented, so that's his other risk.
There's the one where he had a poor choice of words, according to them, But what they had to do was define a regular word to mean some weird thing, and then read his mind and turn it into a crime.
And of course, the fourth one is where he did totally normal business of inflating his assets that the bank ignored, so it was never a problem and never a crime.
Those are the four things.
So, Jeff Daniels, if you're paying attention, That is how you steal the democracy.
Now, what about January 6th?
What did Joe Biden say in his dementia way?
He looked into the camera and said, what did he say?
You could call me Satan.
I got to get this.
He said, I don't care if you think I'm Satan reincarnated.
The fact is you can't look at that television and say nothing happened on the 6th.
You batshit, crazy, democracy-stealing, fucking idiot.
The TV is the thing that fools you, not the thing that tells you information.
Who told you that the TV is a source of knowledge?
No, the TV is your brainwashing tool.
And you brainwashed us into thinking that you could see an insurrection happening on January 6th.
You know what you could see?
You could see a protest.
Now I don't know what you see, you gaslighting bag of shit, but I don't see an insurrection.
I see a bunch of people who went home when they were done.
So is that because I'm in the bag and I'm a total Trump supporter and I'm just filtering things through my perception?
Well, let's get a second opinion, shall we?
Let's see what Michael Shermer thinks.
Michael Shermer is a famous skeptic.
So his identity is skeptic before it is Democrat or before it is Republican.
I don't even know what his party is, right?
So that's a good sign.
He's a public figure and I couldn't tell you if he's left or right.
And I follow him and I see all of his stuff.
I can't tell because you know what he does?
He's a skeptic.
So he just looks at the actual information.
It's very confusing because people don't do that.
All right, so here's Michael Shermer looking at the actual information about whether Trump's going to steal your democracy.
I'm going to read his post, because it's kind of brilliant.
And you should follow him, by the way.
Even when you disagree, he's got the good argument for the thing you disagree with.
And you should see that, right?
Don't miss the good arguments on the other side.
All right, so Michael Shermer says this.
He says, you all know I'm not a Trump supporter.
This is very important.
This is coming from someone who's well known as not a Trump supporter.
But I don't get the argument that if he's re-elected it will be the end of our democracy.
How would he do that exactly?
Yes, Michael Scherber, you have now put your dagger into the heart of the issue.
How exactly would he do that?
And he goes on, he says, Trump doesn't control the Supreme Court.
They refuse to hear his case about the 2020 election.
Trump doesn't control state county courts.
He lost 60 cases over the 2020 election.
Many Republican judges were also part of that.
Trump doesn't have the military to back him if he loses in 2024 or if he wins and refuses to leave.
Trump doesn't control voting precincts.
Even Republican-run ones declined to overturn the 2020 results.
Trump's own loyal VP, Mike Pence, refused his demands over the 2020 electoral college count.
He said, I can imagine riots with mega-extremists and their guns causing regional violence, but wouldn't police, the National Guard, or the military put those down as they always have historically?
As bad as January 6th was, Trump left and we had a peaceful transfer of power as usual.
The retort, as he's saying what the retort will be to his own thing, the retort next time will be different.
And Schirmer says, how?
How exactly?
How's it going to be different?
What, did Trump get control of the military since last time?
Did all these judges and all these precincts, did they all change their mind?
No, they're all happy with what they did.
Every member of this story was completely pleased with their own actions, which suggests that it would look like this again.
Yeah, I mean, if there were any problems, it would look like this again.
Now, the only quibble I will put on this is that Michael Schumer said, quote, I can imagine, imagine is the keyword, I can imagine riots with MAGA extremists and their guns.
I can't.
I can't.
I can't imagine that.
Because here's what I think the left doesn't understand about gun ownership.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
The real gun owners know that you don't use the gun unless it's your last resort.
And that's not really what's happening here.
You know, we always think voting is going to help.
You know, we'll get them next time.
Maybe we'll be smarter.
Maybe they gave them the rules better, so we'll give them the rules better.
Maybe they use mail-in.
We'll try to address that.
Now, there's nobody who's cleaning their gun and waiting for the election results to go the wrong way.
That would be a complete misunderstanding of gun owners.
The gun owners are the ones who don't take it out unless it's go time.
And we're not really close to that.
I mean, I don't hear any talk about that.
Not privately, not publicly.
It's not a thing.
But I do appreciate Schumer's take on it.
And he did say, I imagine, so it is imagination.
Apparently, Trump campaign people believe they have a chance of flipping Minnesota and Virginia.
Now, why would they be able to flip Minnesota and Virginia when he's trying to steal their democracy?
It's almost as if The voters in those two states don't believe that he's trying to steal their democracy.
Could it be the complete lack of evidence to suggest it?
Could it be that he's already served four years, as a number of smart people have pointed out?
He didn't steal a lot of democracy then.
What would make you think he'd do it now?
Well, the gaslighting.
Nothing else.
Can he flip Minnesota and Virginia?
Well, I guess there's some private polling that say he's within striking distance.
But I do love that whenever you're talking about the Trump campaign, you're talking about something kind of bold, like trying to win New York.
I just love the fact that the conversation—he's making you think past the sale, basically.
He's making you think past the sale that he'll get like all the states he's supposed to get.
He's making you think all the way to, how many of the states he's not supposed to get is he gonna get?
That's good technique.
You should be putting out the message that, of course I'll get all the states I'm supposed to get, but I might make the deepest cut into the ones I'm not supposed to get of all time.
So that's interesting.
Well, Chris Cuomo's in the news.
I think this news is confusing or wrong.
So I think this is fake news.
Fake news gives the context.
And the headlines are saying that Chris Cuomo has a vax injury that he thinks is from vaccinations, and that he was a big proponent of the vaccinations during the pandemic.
And now he's saying that he got vaccination injury.
However, I don't think I need a fact check on that.
I don't think that's the real story.
Cause I was listening to him the other day and I could swear.
I heard him say he had long COVID, which would suggest that he doesn't know if he has a VAX injury or COVID injury or either.
And that what he really has is his health is not what he wants it to be.
And he's got some questions about what caused it, but it seems to be timed with the pandemic.
And he says, Cuomo says, with the other guest on, he said, we know that vaccines can have unintended consequences, aka side effects.
But nobody's really talking about it, because they're too afraid of blame, and they just want it to go away.
But the problem is, people like Sean, his guest, and me, and millions of others, who still have weird stuff with their blood work and lives, and their feelings physically, are not going away.
And then later, Cuomo said, I'm sick myself.
So what was missing in the story, is it was a story about his guest had vaccine injury, But I guess in that case it was pretty obvious because it happened as soon as he got the vaccine.
Um, but Chris Cuomo didn't say that he has a vaccine injury.
Did he?
He said that he also has blood work irregularity, but separately he's also suggested he might have long COVID if such a thing exists.
By the way, I think it's, there's a question whether long COVID even exists.
Um, So, I would appreciate the fact that he's looking at this objectively at the moment, so I'll give him credit for that.
And then there's, apparently the New York Times is admitting there's some vaccination injury, and that seems to be a big step.
Anyway.
Axios has a story.
Here's the headline of an Axios story.
Now, Axios, if you don't know, is associated with Democrat Stuff.
So Axio says, the pain from the Fed's rate hikes is surprisingly elusive.
So they're saying that the public is not really suffering from the rate hikes.
Well, aren't they?
And the story went on to say that rich people are thriving because the value of their homes are up 50%.
So that the inflation is actually helping them and if they're not looking to buy another home, they already have one, they're in good shape.
And they're saying that the poor people are not doing as poorly as people imagined because the employment situation is still good.
Is it?
Is the employment situation still good?
Or was it a bunch of people who got part-time jobs?
I don't know.
It's a little unclear whether the employment situation is as good as they say.
But it's interesting that Axios would try to spin it as, oh, these high interest rates and the inflation doesn't even bother the rich people, and as long as the poor people have jobs, well, they're good too.
Yeah.
I don't think having a job that doesn't pay for a home you can live in and gas and food is exactly good news.
All right.
Meanwhile, MIT has banned the use of DEI statements for faculty hiring.
So I think they used to say, say something good about DEI or you won't get hired.
There must have been enough qualified people who wouldn't do it.
Here's my take.
I'll bet there were enough people who came in for an interview that they said to themselves, I would really like to hire this person.
Man, you are qualified.
You are exactly the kind of professor we want teaching at MIT.
Now, all we need is for you to give us your DEI statement.
How many people were they interviewing who just said, well, thank you for the interview and thank you for saying I have all the qualifications?
And by the way, you can take your DEI statement and shove it so far up your ass that you could probably see it well because your head's up there.
So I've got a feeling that they wouldn't have changed the use of the DEI statement unless it was clearly preventing them from hiring people that they wanted to hire.
I don't think anything else would get that done.
I don't think they just sort of, you know, looked in the news.
No, thank you for reminding me.
Peter Navarro is still in jail.
Now that's stealing your democracy.
Right there.
Peter Navarro is in jail.
Still.
You know, I would worry about him when he gets out of jail.
When he gets out of jail, he's going to be pissed, and he's not going to be afraid of anything.
And he's going to be a lot of fun when he gets out of jail.
We'll boost him as much as possible.
Try to make it worthwhile, if that's even possible.
Try to make sure that his sacrifice is honored with the respect that it deserves.
Anyway.
And meanwhile, in New York City, they're going to pay, the city will have to pay $2.1 million to three white teachers who sued the Department of Education for discrimination and won.
So all three teachers were demoted and in their place.
What they claimed to be less qualified people of color were put in those positions for DEI-based stuff.
And here's the part in the headline.
So the headline was, three white teachers.
Do you think that covered it?
There was three white teachers.
What is it about those three white teachers that was not mentioned?
They're all women.
It was three women.
Was it three white people, or was it three women who won a discrimination suit?
Because it's not until the white men start winning the discrimination suits that it counts.
Women could always win discrimination suits.
That's business as usual.
No, I want to see three white men win a discrimination suit.
Now, clearly, they deserve to win this, by the way.
They absolutely deserve to win it.
And it took them five years.
So five years ago, the awokeness wasn't nearly as bad as it is now.
So I wouldn't call this some big trend.
But maybe there's more coming.
Bill Ackman and others are wondering why we're letting foreign countries contribute to American colleges.
Do you know there are a number of countries, China and, you know, Qatar and some of these countries, they give, you know, millions of dollars to individual U.S.
universities.
And you might ask yourself, why?
Why are we even taking that?
Why do our colleges take that?
But I think it's worse than that.
I need a fact check on this, but some time ago I heard that it's the foreign students that actually pay the salaries of the colleges.
Because the foreign students don't get any discounts.
You know, there's no scholarships.
So the foreigners, they want as many of the foreign students as possible, because they pay full price.
And the locals, not necessarily.
So, don't the foreigners pretty much keep the colleges running?
And aren't they the ones that bid up the price so that the Americans have to pay what the foreigners pay?
It does bid up the price, right?
If you took all the foreign students out of the colleges, they would be non-competitive.
They would just go out of business.
So they have created a situation where they're dependent on countries that are not as friendly to the United States as we want them to be.
So good job there, colleges.
All right.
So Trump's going to steal your democracy.
So ABC News is reporting that six months out from Election Day that Trump is winning in the polls for handling most issues.
So if it's a political issue, Trump is winning just about all of them.
So you might say to yourself, wait a minute, the presidency is a political job, and one candidate is winning all the important policy things, except abortion.
And yet the polls are kind of close.
Well, here's what Joe Biden has working for him, according to ABC News.
Joe Biden scores competitively on key personal attributes.
His personal attributes.
They're saying he has better character than Trump.
What kind of news are they watching?
Are they watching their own news?
Let's go down the line.
Let's do a character analysis.
Forget about the policies.
Let's just do character.
So you've got Trump allegedly raped a woman in a changing room of a department store.
Now, I doubt that happened.
I doubt it happened.
I don't know for sure.
I mean, it would be defamation for me to say that I know it didn't happen.
But I listened to the evidence.
I don't think it happened.
So he's accused non-credibly, non-credibly of raping an adult woman in a changing room.
Joe Biden is accused credibly in the diary of his daughter of showering with his daughter, who was a little too old for that business.
Now, which one wins on the character?
A sketchy claim of a sexual assault on an adult or showering with your daughter?
And by the way, Biden also has a credible sounding accusation of sexual abuse in his office, Tara Reade.
Yeah, Tara Reade.
So how do you score that?
I would say that is not an advantage in character on that dimension.
If you ask people why they don't like Trump, these days they don't say policy.
Have you noticed that?
Talk to any Democrat, About why they're not going to vote for Trump.
Will they say, we don't like his immigration policy?
No, no, they won't say that.
Will they say we don't like how he treats wars?
No, no, they won't say that.
They will not say that.
They're going to say, I'm not going to vote for a rapist.
I'm going to vote for the accused rapist who showered with his daughter, according to the daughter.
And they're feeling some moral superiority about that.
I don't know if that's the place I would go for my moral superiority.
But how about the honesty?
Because Biden ran on honesty.
And the honesty he ran on was pushing the fine people hoax, the January 6th insurrection hoax, and the drinking bleach hoax.
The Biden campaign was run completely on three tentpole lies.
His honesty campaign was based on known, confirmed, debunked lies.
Now let's look at Trump's fact-checking.
Did Trump do any better in the fact-checking?
Not if you count the numbers, no.
But what is the most untrue thing that Trump said that actually mattered?
What is it?
I remember he said that your television would go off if the wind stopped blowing.
Is that one that mattered?
Because it was obviously a joke.
What exactly mattered that Trump ever said that was wrong?
Nothing.
It never mattered.
But do you think that it mattered that Biden ran on three major hoaxes?
It mattered a lot.
Yeah, it changed the course of the world.
It mattered a lot.
How about Ukraine?
Does Trump look like the one who is doing all the double dealing and making money from foreign countries?
Nope.
Nope.
Apparently Trump is the most vetted politician of all time.
And there's no evidence whatsoever of any collusion or double dealing or money laundering or, you know, weird deals with other countries.
None.
And they've been looking for them for years.
Nothing.
And the only allegations they had have been proven, you know, proven to be fake.
But what about Joe Biden's business in Ukraine?
Well, to me, that looks totally corrupt.
So you've got the most corrupt politician of our day, The most dishonest politician of our day, and somebody who's got quite the sexual impropriety accusations against them.
And that's who they're picking for their character.
They're going for a character play.
Un-frickin-believable.
Here's another lie about Trump and abortion.
Apparently the Democrats who are all about the honesty have been lying about his position on abortion.
And Trump is clarifying, I never said that, quote, some states may choose to monitor women's pregnancies to possibly prosecute for violating any abortion bans.
This was made up by Democrats and the fake news media.
Of course it was made up.
Of course that was made up.
No, of course that was never part of his thinking.
Yeah.
No, the Democrats are completely a, uh, and it looks like they're just working with the Intel people, the CIA, and they got rid of our democracy in the fifties.
Not just Democrats.
It must've been a little bit of both, but here's a little experiment for you.
Run through the presidents since Kennedy, right?
So Kennedy allegedly taken out by the CIA.
Incredibly, incredibly accused.
So then the vice president becomes president, so you got Johnson.
So Johnson doesn't run for the second term that he could have, which sounds a little bit like he got taken out.
Then after Johnson you get, who was it, Carter?
Jimmy Carter, right?
Am I skipping one?
Oh, you got Nixon.
So Nixon gets taken out by the Watergate thing, which as Tucker Carlson points out, eight of the nine Watergate people were CIA employees at the time.
So it looks like it was just a CIA op, and Woodward and Bernstein don't look like they were necessarily organically journalists.
The source was the number two guy, the FBI.
So it looks like Nixon, who was the most popular politician at the time, was taken out by the CIA.
Then who replaced Nixon?
Gerald Ford.
Gerald Ford, I believe, was on the Warren Commission.
Does that tell you anything about Gerald Ford?
He was on the Warren Commission, the commission that found that, no, it wasn't the CIA that killed JFK.
No, Ford probably seems to be part of the CIA structure.
Right?
So then you got Jimmy Carter and Jimmy Carter tried to dismantle the CIA.
And then suddenly there was this terrible Situation with Iran and, you know, the hostages, it all went wrong.
Very much like the CIA set him up to take him out of business.
Then we got Reagan.
You love Reagan, right?
He's an actor who became weirdly successful in politics.
Like Zelensky.
Are there any other examples where the CIA likes to promote an actor because they're really good at saying the lines?
Well, it kind of looks like they got their president they wanted, because Reagan wanted to build up the military to make the Soviet Union give up the two things that the military-industrial complex and the CIA wants the most, spend more on weapons and beat the Soviet Union at the time.
So they did.
Who was the vice president for Reagan?
Oh, it was George Bush Sr., head of the CIA.
Who became president after Reagan?
Oh, ex-CIA head.
And then who was going to be president after Bush?
Well, he gets taken out after one term, but taken out by Bill Clinton.
Would you say, given the passage of time, that Bill and Hillary Clinton are the deepest of the deep state, and whoever it is behind the scenes are definitely working with them?
So that looks more like inside job, doesn't it?
And then suddenly Hillary's got all these good jobs like, oh, JFK Jr.
dies in an airplane crash suspiciously so that Hillary can become a senator from New York.
The next thing you know, she's Secretary of State.
The next thing you know, she's the obvious presidential candidate.
Because somebody's wife is going to be president because they were president.
Never made sense.
So it looks like the Clintons were part of that, you know, deep state network.
Then Trump wins, surprisingly, because the polls didn't have him winning, but he did, surprisingly.
So that suggests that maybe they could have cheated him out of office if they had more time or more notice, but they weren't ready.
So he wins.
Then the entire deep state turns against him and plots against him in the most obvious way possible.
And the Russia collusion thing.
Followed by the Hunter laptop thing.
Hoax after hoax after hoax.
Controlling the media.
Hoax after hoax after hoax.
And finally, they get rid of Trump.
And they put in Joe Biden.
Do you think the Democrats didn't have a better candidate than Joe Biden?
Of course they did.
But they didn't have one more controllable.
Because Biden was so dirty with Ukraine, which is a CIA operation, that they had all the receipts.
And, you know, there's talk that maybe Hunter was CIA.
That would make sense given what he was doing in Ukraine.
But does it seem to you that we have a republic?
Because it seems to me that the deep state military industrial complex slash CIA Has been firmly in charge since the 50s, and every now and then when a Jimmy Carter or a Trump breaks through, they get slapped down with one term.
And then immediately replaced.
I forgot Obama.
In Obama, Obama suspiciously went from junior senator to president with basically nothing in between.
Does any of that look like that's organic to you?
Doesn't look organic to me.
It looks like the powers that be are really good at picking somebody who's good at talking.
And then they can do the rest.
All they really need is somebody good at talking.
They don't need anything else.
That's why Reagan was so perfect.
Good at talking.
All right.
Ellen Dershowitz.
says that it's likely that there's going to be a bunch of lawsuits against the protesting students at the campuses themselves.
So there might not be lawsuits against the campuses, or there might be, but he thinks that there'll be more luck going against the individuals who protested and prevented Jewish students from getting to class.
So I think there's going to be a massive lawsuit, legal effort from the Jewish lawyer community, which is pretty massive.
And it's going to take a while because that works slowly, whereas protests can work quickly.
But in the end, I think most of those protesters are going to be pretty sad that they were involved.
I think the law, I wouldn't call it lawfare because it will all be completely within the law.
But I think the legal challenges to the protesters are going to be unprecedented.
Meanwhile, DeSantis has banned lab-grown meat in Florida, which doesn't make everybody happy.
I saw Ashley Sinclair saying, DeSantis just banned lab-grown meat in Florida, but will allow McDonald's chicken, in quotes, chicken nuggets and Taco Bell quote beef.
And, uh, She calls that internet brain policy lacking any real principles, and it'll stifle a new industry, and it's dumb.
So apparently the lab-grown meat industry is quite advanced at the moment.
There's quite a bit of action happening there, and success.
So it looks like there will be lab-grown meat available to somebody.
Now, what do you think of DeSantis' ban?
Now, he's banning it until there's more long-term testing.
Now, I would say this is a pandemic hangover.
Pandemic hangover.
If there'd never been a pandemic, do you think a Republican governor would be banning an industry?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I think that DeSantis was such a winner for banning, or not banning, but not mandating vaccines and, you know, sort of fighting the man on the pandemic.
I feel like he might want to just be consistent because it would be terrible to allow the lab-grown meat if it turned out to be a problem.
So, do you like the fact that DeSantis is being conservative, let's use that word, about this new stuff?
Or do you think he's being anti-Republican because he's stifling an industry?
Well, I don't know what he knows, and I don't know if there's any evidence that suggests there's a problem, but it's a very good point that if you're going to allow fast food and sugary food that we know is killing us, it's hard to imagine that the lab-grown meat is going to be worse.
I definitely think we should be tracking it to make sure it's not worse.
But I'd be really surprised if it's worse than our normal diet.
I mean, the bar is so low that you could introduce mud and it'd be better than half the food we legally eat.
Anyway, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is posting about the fact that 49 Republican senators wrote to Biden demanding he withdraw U.S.
support from the World Health Organization pandemic agreement.
Because these two documents would, they would have three problems.
They would give the WHO Director General the authority to unilaterally declare health emergencies.
No.
No, we're not going to give some foreign guy power over our country.
No.
Number two, expand the WHO's authority over nations infringing on their sovereignty.
No.
No, no, no, no, no.
How about no, no, and no?
And number three, interfere with free speech?
Of course, because they'd want you not to be able to say things that they don't want you to hear.
No!
No, no, no, no, no.
But here's what Kennedy asked.
I think it's every Republican.
49 Republican senators.
That's everyone, right?
Yeah, that's every... No, who didn't?
There must have been somebody missing there.
But 49 of them.
And there were no... Oh, every Republican senator signed the letter.
But there were no Democrats.
There was not a single Democrat Interested in keeping sovereignty in the United States.
So, uh, which party wants to steal your democracy?
Is the party that wants Americans to be in charge of America, or is it the ones who wants to give the, uh, control of America in this most vital category, uh, over to the World Health Organization?
There's only one party trying to steal your fucking democracy, and they're doing it in every place, everywhere, all the time.
It's a full-court press to take your democracy, certainly your freedom of speech, at the very least.
They want that.
All right, here's a post from Lawrence Fox.
He's talking about the growth of Islam in the UK.
And he says that the mayor of London is Muslim, and the mayor of Birmingham is Muslim, and also the mayors of Leeds, Blackburn, Sheffield, Oxford, Luton, Oldham, and Rochdale are all Muslims.
And this was achieved, he says, with only 4 million Muslims out of 66 million people.
That's 6% of the public.
With 6% of the public, the Muslims got their leaders in a lot of the big cities.
And Lawrence goes on and says, today there are over 3,000 mosques in England.
There are over 130 Sharia courts.
What?
Wait, what?
There are 130 Sharia courts?
What?
Really?
That tells you everything you need to know, right?
It's over, isn't it?
It's over.
And 78% of Muslim women do not work and they receive state support and free accommodations and 63% of Muslims do not work and they receive state support and free housing.
Hmm.
States supported Muslim families with an average of six to eight children, so population will be growing quickly, receive free congregations, and now every school in the UK is required to teach lessons about Islam.
Well, I actually agree with that part.
I think the schools should teach a lesson on the major religions.
Who disagrees with that?
Shouldn't you at least know what the major religions are?
Is that a problem?
That every school in the UK is required to teach lessons about Islam?
I think it would depend on what the lesson was, right?
I can't think of anything better for school children than to be at least exposed to what the major religions are teaching, so I don't see why that's a problem.
Anyway, was it Nassim Taleb who said that when you reach 10% Muslim population, the Muslims will take over?
That's all they need is a 10% foothold.
And we're seeing it at 6%.
So at 10% you could easily imagine a complete takeover.
And obviously that'll happen, because there's nothing that would change the trend.
So the UK will be, you know, maybe the first Muslim country with nukes.
I thought it would be France, but it might be the UK.
I do think Europe will be essentially a Muslim zone.
We'll see how that changes in the future.
Meanwhile, the Israeli government voted to shut down Al Jazeera in Israel.
Now, as you might imagine, Al Jazeera was probably pretty negative on the coverage.
What do you think of Israel banning that particular platform of free speech?
Here's what I think.
I don't know if they could have done this without the college protests.
What do you think?
If we didn't see the college protests, and America didn't have such a bad feeling at the moment about the protesters, although it's not universal, there are plenty of people who back the protesters, but I feel like it gave cover to the Israeli government to shut down Al Jazeera Because in people's minds, the protests and, you know, it all kind of becomes one thing.
I don't know.
I don't know if they would have been able to do it and get away with it, at least in terms of public opinion, unless the protests had sort of soured people's opinions about what's going on over there.
And then there's reports that Israel is preparing to go into Arafat, of course.
But at the same time, there's reports of a Maybe a ceasefire.
The Hamas delegation in Egypt has reportedly made progress in discussions regarding a ceasefire.
Let me tell you something that your news does not tell you.
There's not going to be a ceasefire!
How ridiculous!
Why would Israel agree to a ceasefire and guarantee that they lose the war?
What would be the point of that?
Everything they've done up to this point is a waste of time unless they keep shooting.
They have to keep shooting until there's nothing left to shoot.
If they don't shoot everything they can shoot until there's nothing left to shoot, they lost.
Because all that happens is it builds back.
They're madder than they were before.
They have twice the reason to build up their tunnels.
Yeah.
No.
The only thing that makes sense From a rational perspective, whether you like it or not, I'm not saying I'm in favor of it, right?
Because, as you know, because the ADL has targeted me, I can't support Israel.
I simply comment on them and I can make observations, but they're on their own.
I want no moral connection to anything they're doing.
I don't want any responsibility.
And when Israel does bad things, because in wars both sides do things you don't like, nobody's going to say, well, why did you support them?
And I'm going to say, I didn't.
That's on them.
That's for them to explain 100%.
Now, if you put me in their situation, Would I act differently than they are?
Probably not.
But that's not the same as supporting it.
I mean, probably I would, but it's not the same as supporting it.
Meaning that I wouldn't allow an enemy nation that could reconstitute to reconstitute.
I would never allow that.
So whatever it is that Israel decides they're going to do, it's probably pretty similar to what I would have done if I were in that situation.
But again, they're on their own.
I have no control over what they do, I have no influence, and I'm not going to give them cover by saying that I agree with them, or that I support them.
They're just doing what they're doing, and I'm just observing.
It's just a power play.
My view is if the Palestinians had the same kind of control over Israel, as Israel seems to have over the area, that Israel would be badly abused by that situation.
And that you should see it as a power struggle and not any kind of good versus evil.
It's not the good guys versus the bad guys.
It's just power.
Now, there might be good guys and bad guys.
I'm not saying there aren't.
But the only thing that makes sense over there is who has the power.
Whoever has the power is going to be putting a boot on the people who don't have it.
Because if they didn't, the people who didn't have it would fight too hard to get it.
So whoever's in charge over there is going to put a boot on everybody who's not in charge, and that's just the way it works.
I don't have to have an opinion about that.
It's just an observation.
It's not going to change, right?
So I observed that that's happening, and that Israel did get rid of one source of free speech.
Probably from a perspective of war, it made sense.
From a perspective of freedom, obviously it did not make sense, but you do make tough choices during wars.
I don't think the ceasefire conversation is real.
I think it might be one or both sides stalling.
So there might be reasons to stall and pretend you're having ceasefire talks.
I think that Israel probably, if it's even involved in any ceasefire, it would be involved as a stalling mechanism, not because they're in favor of it.
There won't be any ceasefire.
They're going to do it until they're done.
Whatever done looks like.
But we don't get a vote.
We're just watching.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, the war on democracy, Biden's war on democracy, should be the number one theme for the summer.
Biden's war on democracy.
If there's anything that we know that Trump can do, it's if somebody tries to mug him, He can grab the gun out of their hand and mug them back.
So he's good at co-opting their messaging, you know, like fake news.
He co-opted that and made it his own.
And I think stealing your democracy is something that's so well, so well supported by the facts that Biden is in a hundred different ways stealing your democracy.
I mean, let's count the ways.
So you've got the mass election industrial complex, right?
That's clearly taking your democracy away.
You've got control over the news.
That takes your democracy away.
You've got the fact-checking entities and the vast network of fake, you know, watchdogs like the ADL and etc.
That takes your democracy away.
It takes people like me right out of the game.
You know, they tried anyway.
So you've got an election that is not found to be credible by half of the public.
Fully half of the public doesn't think our elections could be trusted.
And it's fixable, but it won't get fixed.
That's taking your democracy away.
You got three, no, four lawfare cases against Trump.
Take your democracy away.
They're not giving RFK Jr.
Secret Service protection when he's clearly at risk.
That's to take the democracy away.
They didn't allow him to run in the primaries to take your democracy away.
And they're taking all of your money and giving it to other countries Which reduces your freedom, because you don't have money to do things, and you're in a... Basically, we've all been turned into debt pigs.
Effectively, we're just getting milked for our taxes until there's nothing left.
That steals your democracy too, because if they take all of your physical possessions, and they inflate it away, and they burden you with debt, It doesn't matter how much freedom you have on paper.
If you have to work 24 hours a day to stay alive, it doesn't matter that on paper it says you're free.
So yes, the Bidens are stealing your freedom in a hundred different ways.
Stealing your happiness and your freedom.
So let's see if we can stop them from stealing your freedom.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you're keeping score, we have entered third gear.
Third gear.
Summer's coming.
Fourth gear will kick in sometime around June.
I don't know if there'll be an overdrive yet.
Do cars ever have overdrives?
Or is that just an old-timey thing?
Overdrive?
You don't even hear that word anymore.
But, uh, It's going to get really spicy in the summer.
What I do expect is that the lawfare cases will have fallen apart.
The fuckery of the Democrats will be more obvious.
Biden will continue to diminish.
Ukraine will look like the biggest mistake in the world.
And Trump's numbers should be up double digits by election.
So I'll tell you when fourth gear kicks in.
But it looks like nothing's going to stop Trump unless they use violence.
Overdrive was a hoax?
Maybe it was.
Fifth Gear is the Chicago convention?
All right, well, it's going to be a spicy year.
Very spicy.
All right, everybody, thanks for joining.
Those of you in the Scott Adams Locals group, I'm going to talk to you separately if I can.
We'll see if the button works today.
And I'll see you in the Man Cave for just the subscribers tonight.
And that's all for now.
Let's see if I can talk to just the Locals people.
