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, Nicole Shanahan, RFK Jr., Speaking Technique, Hum Happy Birthday, Trump Washington Poll, Stormy Daniels, President Trump, Disinformation Blob, Censorship Blob, Joel Pollack, Munitions for Israel, President Biden, Fake Crime Statistics, Fake Violent Crime Statistics, Boeing 737 Africa, DEI Goal vs System, J6 Political Prisoners, Jeff Clark, Harry Litman, CNN Scott Jennings, Steve Cortes, Erin Burnett Biden Interview, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Mike Cernovich, Deal Maker Trump, Trump Israel Support, 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
To multiple platforms and having one piece of software with no hardware, extra hardware.
Just open your browser, go to the Rumble Studio.
It's amazing.
Well, welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, a highlight of human civilization.
If you'd like to take your experience up a notch, and I know you do, because that's the kind of people you are, all you have to do for that is grab yourself a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called a simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Ah.
Oh, I can feel the goodness all the way down in my body.
Now, some of you were here when I had author Carmen Simon on about her book, which you've already seen, Made You Look, which is full of all kinds of psychological information about what would hold somebody's attention.
And I heard this morning that it's number one in the marketing and business category on Amazon.
So, Oprah, you think you've got power, Oprah?
No.
You don't have power.
I can move some books on this program.
Anyway, so congratulations to Carmen Simon, or Book Made You Look, number one on Amazon in the business and marketing category this morning.
Well, speaking of fun things, if you are subscribing To the Dilbert comic on X, see my profile, or on Locals, scottadams.locals.
So you would know that you also see, in addition to the daily comic, the digital version of the calendar, which has a comic from 10 years ago.
And 10 years ago, so this was before I was doing any political stuff.
I want you to see if you can see the seeds of my thinking in this comic.
So it's something that you've heard me say a number of times.
I'll say it again today, actually, later.
But you can see the germs of it in the comic ten years ago.
So it's a comic in which the CEO and Wally are at a table.
There are other people, but the CEO says, Studies show that people who exercise are healthier.
And Wally says, That's because people Who are in poor health don't exercise.
And the CEO says, why does it seem as if you ruin every meeting?
And Wally says, is it because I only attend the ones that are stupid?
Now, you can probably see my philosophy coming through, which is that science is usually backwards.
The people who don't feel good are the ones who don't go for a run.
It's a little hard to suss out cause and effect.
I mean, I do believe, obviously, that exercise is good for you.
There's no doubt about that.
But when you see a specific study that says that the healthiest people are the ones who exercise, I'm thinking, yeah, the people who are able to exercise are more likely to do it.
That's true.
Anyway, here's some breaking news.
Google and CNN have reached Some kind of agreement.
They're going to launch a new video sharing product.
So it'd be like YouTube, except in this case, uh, more adult content.
So Google and CNN are getting together on that.
The name of the new venture is, uh, YouTubin.
YouTubin.
No, it's not.
I made that up, but really most of the news is made up.
So the best you can do sometimes.
Is that the made-up news is funny?
So this is basically the best news you can get.
It's not true, just like all the other news, but at least it's funny.
I call myself the king of the naughty dad jokes.
Anybody can do a dad joke.
But if you can do a naughty dad joke, well, that's a little higher level.
All right, there's a story that says ultra-processed foods are linked to Shorter lifespans, so people who are eating more ultra-processed foods are not living as long.
Now, I believe that that is very likely a true correlation, causation.
In other words, I'm sure that eating processed foods is not the best thing you can do for your health.
However, do you trust a study that pretends it can isolate that variable?
Don't you think there are a whole bunch of things that people who eat more processed foods also have in common?
I mean, I'll just throw in a few.
Don't you have to have a lot of spare time to not eat processed foods?
I think the main reason people do it is convenience, right?
There's just not enough hours in the day.
The reason that I can eat a good diet If I may be completely obnoxious in the interest of information, it's because I'm rich.
I don't know how you'd have a good diet if you weren't rich.
Not because it costs more, but because I literally have help.
If I had to feed myself, you know, instead of using DoorDash or something that can give me like a prepared food that I can choose, so it doesn't have a lot of additives, or have an assistant who can do some shopping for me and some prep.
If I didn't have that, I'm sure I wouldn't do it.
So how do you isolate the convenience factor?
Because if you took the people who don't have enough time to eat well, You'd have a lot of people with stressful lives, and the stress isn't good for you.
So how do you sort that out of the study?
So I'm going to say I believe the results, but not the study, because I'm pretty sure that our food supply is, you know, suboptimal.
I think it's actually poisoned.
But I don't know.
You can tease it out in the study.
I just don't know that that's possible.
I'm skeptical.
Here's another study.
That says psychopathic women tend to move their heads very little when talking to other people So if you see a woman who's talking to you and her head is not moving as much as you expect your head to move She might be a psychopath Now you're probably wondering Oh, I know what it looks like when your head doesn't move like that's easy to imagine But what exactly does it look like if you're not a psychopath and you're a woman?
and your head is moving in a way that is perfectly natural and healthy.
Oh, I so want to do this impression on camera, but it's going to become a meme.
Do you know how funny it would be if I did this impression on camera?
No, the normal women who are not psychopaths, their heads will move like this.
All right, now it's a meme.
Now it's a meme.
Sorry!
It's called Chicken Head, and it's what normal women do, not psychopaths.
Now I have a theory why psychopaths do not move their heads as much when talking to people.
Here's my theory.
If you were a normal person and you were talking to an object, literally you're talking to your printer, would you move your head a lot?
Probably not, because it's just an object.
You would just say, you stupid printer.
Why are you always out of paper?
But if you were talking to a person, you would want to impress them.
Yeah.
With, with how engaged you are, you'd want to hold their attention.
And so maybe you would have a little more movement.
So my theory is that psychopaths don't move their head when they're talking to people because to them, people are objects.
So that actually makes sense to me.
I don't know about the study.
But the concept makes sense.
I'll look for that.
I've never noticed it, but I'll look for it.
Well, the California wine industry is in a crapper.
It's a $55 billion industry, and it fell 8.7% in 2023.
Wait a minute.
and it fell 8.7% in 2023.
Wait a minute.
I didn't notice this the first time I read it.
It fell in 2023.
Do you want to?
Do you want to complete the story for me why this is fake news?
Go.
The headline is that alcohol consumption went down in 2023.
Go.
What's wrong with the story?
It's the year after the fucking pandemic.
You can't compare anything in 2023 to anything in 2022.
How in the world did I not notice this?
I was going to tell you that the story is that people are drinking less alcohol, but I didn't notice the date when I first looked at it, or I didn't think about the date being relevant.
Yeah, you can't tell anything.
2023 is in 2022.
The whole pandemic thing is just an outlier.
Every statistic that compares anything to that time is ridiculous.
However, I do think that alcohol consumption is going down, this study notwithstanding.
And I think alcohol is poison.
And I think people are feeling it.
I think it might be a little bit of substitute effect.
But I've got another hypothesis.
About why wine consumption might be going down.
I heard somebody say online that they might be using a type of fertilizer that might be causing people problems.
Have you ever heard that?
I don't have any evidence to back that up.
It's just a comment I saw.
And I wonder if That whatever is poisoning the food supply in general, and I'm sure it is, is affecting the wine as well, or the grapes.
Makes me wonder if people are just not feeling as good after they drink.
The reason you drink is because it feels good.
But what if people are drinking and they're not feeling as good as they used to feel?
Because the product has changed.
Well, let's say there's a difference in fertilizer.
That's what people are alleging.
I don't have any information to back that up, but Yeah, it makes me wonder if they're just either more allergic to it or something.
Could be.
Speaking of things put in your body that might be poison, AstraZeneca is withdrawing its vaccine globally, saying it's just for commercial reasons.
It's economic reasons.
It has nothing to do with Admitting recently that his shot can cause potentially deadly blood clots.
That's probably coincidental.
What the real reason is, is just basic commercial reasons.
Come on people!
It's just basic commercial reasons.
Don't act like it's some kind of conspiracy and they found out that their product might be more dangerous than they hoped.
It's not that.
It's just basic commercial reasons.
Now what are the odds That two completely different vaccine platforms, because the AstraZeneca stuff was not the mRNA stuff.
So this is what the Brits and the Swedes, and I guess it's a British-Swedish company.
So this is the one they were taking.
Two and a half billion people took it, I guess.
So what are the odds that two completely different technologies that were both introduced on Roche In completely different countries and different companies, we're both seemingly effective, but had this blood clot problem.
It's a weird coincidence.
Would it be true that maybe all rushed vaccines would have these problems?
Because two out of two?
I don't know.
Of course, I'm only speaking hypothetically, because I don't know for sure.
Anything scientifically.
But it would seem that a lot of people are complaining about the risks of two completely different platforms.
I'm not sure how to understand that.
It's telling us something, but I don't know what exactly.
Well, there's a new poll by the Babylon Bee.
Now, this is an important poll.
You're probably listening to polls from Gallup and Zogbees.
They're okay, too.
Rasmussen.
You know, you've heard of them.
Uh, but the Babylon Bee has the good stuff and, uh, they're going to poll results here.
It says, uh, the dead worm found in RFK Jr.' 's brain is already polling higher than Biden in 11 States.
Now we don't have information yet on the swing States, but I think it's looking good for the dead worm.
Uh, RFK Jr.
yesterday offered, uh, that he would eat five more brain worms and, and still debate, uh, Biden and Trump.
That's one of my favorite political posts of all time.
Of course, nobody can match Trump for political speech, but for someone who's not Trump, that's one of the funniest political posts I've seen.
I do like, nay, I love, that RFK Jr.
runs directly into danger.
Like, instead of saying, oh, it was no big deal, it was just a little brain worm, it's all taken care of, He says, I'll eat five more brain worms and debate Biden and Trump.
That's kind of perfect.
Kind of perfect.
Now, I don't know for sure, but I don't think he's being advised.
Like that, that sounds like something he probably just came up with on his own.
And to me, humor is, of course, I'm very biased, a sign of competence.
One of the reasons I think Trump is capable is because he's funny, intentionally.
And when I see RFK Jr.
being funny intentionally, it improves my opinion of his overall capability.
It's just a natural bias you have when you hear somebody being that funny.
You think, well, if you can be that funny, you're probably kind of clever.
Well, this brings me to my theme for the rest of this presentation.
My theme today is that Democrats are realizing that they're the bad guys.
And it's really going to be uncomfortable for a while.
Now, I'm going to support that with the following stories.
But remember, the overall theme is that Democrats are waking up, watching the news, and having this kind of feeling.
Oh, crap.
Have I been supporting the bad guys the whole time?
Yes, you have.
Yes, you have.
All right, here's some stories for the day.
Google is allegedly, they, I think they're complaining about this, but Google allegedly took down some mega pro-Trump ads that were critical of Biden.
And it's not like the ads were, you know, over the top or against the rules.
It wasn't anything like that.
It was just an ad, pretty normal ad.
But Google allegedly took it down, but they say it was a technical error or just an error.
There's a lot of errors.
I feel like all the errors go in the same direction.
Oh, oh, we accidentally suppressed some Republicans.
Well, we certainly weren't trying to do that intentionally.
It was an error.
Oh, you caught us!
No, you didn't catch us, but thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Yeah, completely, totally an accidental error, kind of a thing.
Now, I don't know if any Democrats will hear that story, and if they do hear it, are they going to say to themselves, oh, it's probably just an error.
Probably just an ordinary mistake.
Means nothing.
Unless, It was part of some larger pattern.
A tapestry, if you will.
Let's see if it is.
I shall continue.
But before we do that, I'll give you a little update.
Yesterday, I was a guest on a podcast by Nicole Shanahan.
You recognize her as the VP Choice for RFK Jr.
And I'll tell you when the podcast is out.
It should be pretty soon.
I think you'll want to hear it.
It actually wasn't very political.
We got into almost no politics, a little bit at the end.
But it was more general stuff, Dilbert-y stuff and things about my life.
But there was one thing that happened.
That I like to put into a story that I like to tell everybody, sort of an advice.
You saw this advice first in my book, how to fail almost every time and still win big.
So here's the advice.
I like to have at least one thing going on that would change the world.
Not very likely, you know, it'd be a really sort of a unlikely event, but at least one thing.
A project, or there's an app you're working on, or maybe there's some persuasion I'm doing to try to change things.
I like to wake up into a world in which it's possible something amazing will happen.
Now, it doesn't have to happen, but it really feels good to know that you've put something in motion, even if it's just buying a lotto ticket.
That's probably why people do it, right?
I don't do it, but it's probably why people do it.
Because they've got at least one thing that could really go right.
But it would be even better if the one thing that could go right you did intentionally as opposed to pure luck like buying a lotto ticket.
So here's what I did in a break after we were done on air.
I taught Nicole a speaking technique How to produce voice up in the mask of your face instead of down in your, your throat.
And I asked her to pass it along to RFK Jr.
And simply ask him the question, had he ever heard that you can produce voice in the mask of your face as opposed to your throat?
Now I have a hypothesis and it's not, it's not, it's a very low percentage play, but if it worked, His voice would be normal in 24 hours.
And let me tell you the technique just so you can hear it and judge for yourself whether it make any difference.
So before I got the surgery to correct my own spasmodic dysphonia, similar to what RFK Jr has, and he's had a procedure on his vocal cords to a different one that gave him some relief, but not total.
The technique is this, and I learned this from a voice doctor, somebody who I spent a week with.
And what he teaches you is to produce voice in the mask of your face, which is the sort of the mouth, nose area.
And the way you do that, the way you find it is you hum a happy birthday.
So if you go, you can feel it humming in your mouth and your nose, right?
And then you immediately take the hum into words.
And that's how you learn to speak up in the mask.
It helps if you go up a tone.
So, um, you've actually never heard my natural speaking voice because when I do presentation style, I take it up a tone and, uh, and I also bring it up into the mask of my face, uh, intentionally.
Let me see if I can even produce my natural voice anymore.
My actual, my normal voice is deeper.
So my actual normal voice is a little bit deeper, but it's not good for producing good voice over a long period of time, because I'm using my vocal cords.
Now I'm speaking from my throat.
That's where the problem was.
My vocal cords were the problem.
As with RFK Jr.
But now, I'll go up a tone, and I'll bring my voice up into my face.
So now you can see that I'm producing perfect language.
I'm supposed to hit an F, but I don't get as high as I can.
I'm a little below F, the musical note F. But that's what I trained on.
I trained with a tone machine, In which I would try to talk and the machine would tell me if I'm hitting F and that would help you keep your voice up and your mask.
So, I shared with her in 60 seconds the technique and asked her just to ask him, just ask him if he was familiar with it.
Now that wouldn't be enough necessarily to train him to do it, but if he got an interest in it and wanted to follow up, there's a non-zero chance That in a week, he'll be speaking normally.
That's a very low chance.
Very low.
If I had to put odds on it, you know, no more than 5%.
But I like to have at least one thing going on that could change somebody's life.
Doesn't have to be everyone's.
But to me, that's why you wake up.
That's the reason you wake up.
Is to see if you can change somebody's life, do something big.
Most of life is a bunch of little stuff you got to get done, but you should have at least one thing brewing that could change somebody's life.
All right.
There's a poll on a Washington state, which we don't think of as a red state, but Trump just pulled ahead of Biden 46 to 45.
And if that result held.
It would be the best result a Republican got in Washington State since 1984.
Now, is Washington State a signal?
Is it the first robin of spring?
It might be.
Because we do think Washington State is a lefty left.
And if Trump pulls ahead in the lefty left state, It's a landslide.
I used the word landslide today for the first time, in a serious way.
I've talked about it being potential, but now all the signals are landslide.
It just went from, I don't know, it might be a landslide.
Possibility.
Remote possibility.
And now it's just flashing hard.
Landslide, landslide, landslide.
And I'll tell you more of the signals, but it's unmistakable at this point.
Anything could happen.
You know, there could be some big new news, or somebody has a health problem.
Anything could happen.
But if you straight line it from this point, it's landslides.
And not just landslides.
I'm talking the landslide of all landslides.
It might be the biggest in history.
I don't know if the biggest has ever been Reagan, I guess.
But I think he could beat that.
It's within the realm of possibility.
Let's see.
Who said this?
The International Monetary Fund has said that a surge in immigration has made the U.S.
economy more competitive by preventing wages from rising more than they otherwise would have.
Yeah, that came from the head of the International Monetary Fund.
Yeah.
Yep.
That's all good news that we kept our wages low by bringing in other people to take our wages.
You know, I have a similar feeling about muggers.
When I see a mugger gets a really good score, like a nice fat wallet, I say to myself, well, that's good.
That's stimulative to the economy.
Because that mugger's income is going up.
So it always makes me happy when a mugger makes a good kill.
Oh, wait.
Wait.
Have I been analyzing that mugging thing wrong?
I just now realized that the person who gets mugged is losing exactly the same amount of money.
Well, now that makes me look at this immigration story completely differently.
If the immigrants are getting the wages, there's somebody not getting the wages.
Huh.
I'm starting to doubt experts.
Well, more good news for you.
Stormy Daniels will be We'll be back on the stand.
Could there be any happier news than another day of Stormy Daniels?
After we know that Trump literally fucked her until she was unconscious and she says she might vote for him.
Now, I don't think he could have had a better day in court, honestly.
And I'm going to tell you this story without a name.
This will be an anonymous story.
But a woman messaged me laughing that after hearing the Stormy Daniels story, that the Democrats are trying to make Trump look like a less good leader.
By proving he's the ultimate alpha male.
I'm sorry, but everything about that story made me like him better, period.
Let me ask you this.
You got two choices, and the only thing you know about him is this.
One shit his pants on the way to the helicopter and eats ice cream because it's easier than talking.
The other one Fucked a porn star until she was unconscious and has gold-plated nail clippers.
Which one of them do you want to negotiate with Putin?
I'm gonna take golden nail clippers.
Fucked a porn star until she was unconscious.
Gonna take it every time.
Yeah.
I'm gonna pick that one every time.
It could not have been a better day.
This is when the Democrats have to learn the term, already baked into the cake.
Yes, Trump is a billionaire who's had some sex.
It's true.
People, believe me, it's true.
I know, I know, you're all surprised.
It was a little bit baked into the cake.
Don't you think?
And finding out that Trump is exactly who you thought he was, even behind closed doors, that's not hurting him.
I love this story.
More Stormy!
More Stormy!
Anyway, we hear that the misinformation blob is back.
So you know the Twitter files and Mike Benz in particular have been telling you about this vast network of You know, FBI and CISA and all these bad people who are trying to manage the information architecture of the world so that they can send you a bunch of bullshit, which they called correcting misinformation.
But of course they were a misinformation entity.
But it looks like they're all reconstituting now.
So the Democrat Senate Intel Chair says that they're reorganizing, the FBI says, and the Democrats are reorganizing again, to once again create a disinformation blob to control the elections.
And it's not even hidden, because this came from the Democrat Senate Intel Chair in public.
Nobody's hiding it.
It's just that the Democrats haven't heard the news that it's all for the purpose of misinformation.
Creating it is not so much to reduce it.
That's my take on it anyway.
That's my opinion.
But that story is going to get funnier in a minute.
Okay?
Just wait for that.
Just hold that one in your story.
Hold that in your mind.
That the Democrats have created this massive misinformation entity.
Just hold that thought.
We're going to do some other things, but don't lose that one, OK?
Keep that there.
It'll be funnier later.
All right.
I saw a very funny post by Joel Pollack.
I'll just read it.
He says, worth remembering.
That Barack Obama also tried to withhold weapons from Israel during the 2014 war, also started by Hamas.
The Pentagon ignored him and sent weapons anyway.
I don't think the Secretary of Defense enjoyed explaining Joe Biden's crazy policy to Congress.
A few bombs might go missing.
Do you think that might happen?
That the military might just say, this is just stupid, we're going to send them some bombs.
Nobody knows where they came from.
I don't know.
It's possible.
I mean, I didn't know the story about that happening in 2014, but I trust Joel has those facts right.
And maybe, maybe we'll find out that some bombs got to Israel anyway.
If any did, it would be the precision munitions that you could defend.
You could defend having sent them by them saving lives.
I mean, you could make the case.
You know, you could make the case against it, but you could make the case that the precision munitions would be better than not having them.
All right.
According to The Hill, Joe Biden is saying again, I promise you Donald Trump won't accept election results if he loses.
Now that's called priming you so that you're primed to think that what happened is the election results were accurate and that he's a big old insurrectionist.
That's priming.
To make sure that if it happens, you see it under that condition that it was a good election and he's a bad person denying them and trying to take over the country.
But here's what I would tell you.
Common sense says that the level of corruption that we can all observe suggests that we couldn't possibly have a fair election.
So yes, if Trump is ahead in the polls, clearly ahead in the polls on Election Day, and he loses, he's not going to accept the results, and neither will I.
How many of you would accept the results if he's ahead in the polls and he loses?
Would any of you accept that result?
I won't.
Now that doesn't mean I'm going to storm the Capitol.
I'm not going to be cleaning my guns or anything.
Nothing like that.
But don't ask me to accept bullshit.
Right?
The first taste, I'm going to spit it out.
Don't try to shove it all the way down my esophagus.
No.
If the polling says Trump should win, and he loses again, I am not going to think that was a legitimate election.
And you're going to have to get rid of all the machines after that.
And you're going to have to make sure that you have paper ballots, and you better make sure that you fix this fucking shit.
Because the country is going to get a little upset if it happens again.
Now, do you think that the Democrats are starting to notice A little bit.
Let me give you some examples.
Apparently Biden said the deflation was 9% when he got into office.
The real answer was 1.4%.
It makes me wonder if Biden gets his own fake newspaper in the morning because they can't trust him with real information.
Like, I don't think they could go to him and say, you know, All of the data is bad now.
So it's probably a bad day if they did.
I feel like they've got a fake Washington Post that looks like the real thing and they put it on his desk, but it's all just made up shit.
Cause everybody's so used to him thinking all the, all the numbers are wrong.
And it'll be like the headline Snickers candy bars, 24% smaller than before.
And he'll be like, Oh, Oh, I'm going to be all over that.
Gonna be all over that.
All right.
Rasmussen has a poll here on crime issues, and of course, it's exactly what you'd think it would be.
53% of likely US voters trust Republicans to handle crime and law enforcement issues.
Only 35% trust the Democrats more.
A gigantic difference.
Now, why do you think The public, by a large percentage, thinks Republicans would do better.
That could only be because the Democrats themselves, or at least all the independents, have noticed that the Democrats are lying about the crime statistics.
How else could this be true?
How else would so many people be supporting the Republicans on the crime unless Democrats themselves, or at least, like I said, at least independents, don't believe any of the crime statistics that Biden is saying.
So I think this is indicating that people are trusting their eyes and their own experience over what the Democrats are telling them.
That's a big deal.
Because I think that they used to think the Democrats were telling them the truth and the Republicans were lying.
I think they figured out that nobody's telling the truth ever.
That's like the next level of awareness.
The lowest level is that your side is telling the truth and the other side is lying.
It feels to me like at least the independent voters have actually gone to a higher level of awareness where they see what their own team is doing to them.
That's what it looks like to me.
Let me give you some more, also from Rasmussen.
It's also an increase, and that increase of six points in the GOP since February.
What would cause the GOP to look better since February on crime?
It's the campus protests, right?
The main thing that happened is the campus protests, because the city crime is probably the same in February as it was in April.
But I think people turn on the TV and they see the campuses and they see that it's not being dealt with and they say, um, I'm pretty sure Republicans could take care of that because they do.
They're actually watching the Republican, the Republican governors just take care of it.
Am I wrong?
Would it be true to say that every Republican governor took care of business?
Everyone.
Is that true?
I need a fact check on that.
I'm not positive.
But I feel like 100% of the problems were in blue areas, and every time it looked like it would be a problem in a red area, the governor just shut it down.
Am I wrong about that?
Give me a fact check.
That's what it looked like to me, but just anecdotally.
All right, well, I'm waiting for that.
I think that's true.
Also Rasmussen, by almost a 4 to 1 margin, more voters believe the problem with violent crime in America is getting worse.
Democrats told them The leaders told Democrats that it was getting better, but by 4-1, more voters believe the violent crime is getting worse.
Again, it would strongly suggest that Democrats have understood they were being lied to by their own team.
In other words, they went up to the next level to realize their own team can lie to them.
That's sort of when a child realizes that Santa Claus isn't real, and you say to yourself, wait a minute, my parents are supposed to be on my side, and they told me something that is quite obviously bullshit.
And then you go to the next level of awareness as a child, that anybody could lie to you.
Even your parents.
And that's very useful.
Now Democrats apparently didn't fully get that lesson, the Santa Clause lesson, and they were believing that their preferred news sources were telling them the truth, and their non-preferred news sources were lying.
They were half right.
And they're just realizing their preferred news sources were lying too.
That's a big deal.
And it's great for the country.
Great for the country.
It's a hidden greatness.
But there could be nothing better than Democrats realizing they've been lied to.
Basically, it's the one thing I want for Christmas.
If I could have one thing for Christmas, it would be for Democrats not even to change their minds.
I'm not even asking them to change their preferences or their minds.
I just simply want them to know that their news sources have been lying to them massively and forever.
I'm not telling them to go look at Fox News or something else to get a better view.
I would tell them to triangulate.
You should at least check out both sides.
You know, that's good.
Doesn't mean either one of them is telling you the truth.
The full truth, right?
When I say, when I say they're not telling you the truth, it's usually a context thing.
Some context being left out.
All right, let's move on.
Boeing 737 crashed after failing to take off at an African airport.
Do you think that if a story happened that sounded like other stories that have happened recently, a Boeing 737 problem, do you think that if the story was that it was a Boeing 737 and it had a problem after takeoff at an African airport, do you think somebody is going to say this is a DEI problem?
Yes, they are.
Is it a DEI problem?
I don't know.
I have no way of knowing, no information, so I don't make that allegation.
I think that would be too far.
However, I do point out that DEI does make your brain go first to, that's the problem.
Because it's simple to understand.
And that has always been the risk of DEI.
It's easy for everyone to understand.
So when things go wrong, what does your brain go to first?
It goes first to whatever's easy to understand.
Now, we don't know anything about the Boeing 737 Transair African operation.
We don't know who they employ or what they do or how they train.
Nothing.
We don't know their overall safety record.
Maybe it's great.
The story doesn't say their overall record.
Maybe their overall record is terrific.
You know, that would be important to know.
My take on the story is not that we know anything about the cause of the crash, either Boeing or the pilot or anything else.
The only thing I'm telling you is, if your first thought was it's a DEI problem, that's the problem with DEI.
It's your first thought.
Now, I gave up my entire career to make this point.
Essentially.
If you don't understand the impact of DEI on the non, let's say on the white population and the people who are not benefiting from it, that would be the Asian American population as well.
If you don't understand the impact on your fellow citizens and how it changes their thinking and their actions, then you haven't fully evaluated the cost benefit of DEI.
I don't think anybody, well somebody does I'm sure, but the population in general is sort of on board with diversity being a good thing.
I don't know anybody who disagrees with that at the concept level.
Yeah, there are some.
There are some.
But generally speaking, the country is way on board with we are a diverse country, we should look like it, but how you get there should be natural.
That would be my take.
How you get there, Should be by fixing it at the children's education level.
If you fix that, then the pipeline gets stronger, you've got more choices, and in a very natural way, the free market will choose, you know, good employees who are well trained and, you know, so it should work out.
But we're not even, we're not even approaching it like a system problem.
Remember I told you that systems are better than goals?
The goal is more diversity, but there's not a system.
There's no system to support it except punishment.
Punishment is not a system.
I mean, this is sort of the last resort system, I guess, but the system would be, oh, let's fix a young education so that there are plenty of, you know, black engineers and every other kind of engineers and women are going to STEM.
And if they don't want to, Let's just say there's any kind of, you know, natural inclination.
Let's say that fewer women want to go into STEM just because they're less interested.
I'm not saying that's good or bad and nobody else should either.
It might just be a difference.
And if there are fewer women in STEM, after you've completely fixed as well as you can, the, you know, the early educational system.
So everybody's got all the, all the possibilities and nobody's shut out.
And then it doesn't happen.
Well, you don't have as much to complain about then.
If you've done everything that makes sense and it didn't work out, that's just, then that's just nature coming through.
All right, um, RFK Jr.
was on MSNBC, and it was quite a fun thing to watch.
But one of the things that he said, RFK Jr., is that He wouldn't rule out any January 6th pardons.
I don't think he used those words.
What he said was he would look at them individually as a trained lawyer and make decisions individually.
And then it would be unwise to make a larger statement about releasing them all.
I think he got very close to nailing that point, but here's how it could have been better.
I don't argue with the point that you have to look at them individually, although there are thousands, so I don't know how practical that is.
I think the stronger message would have been this.
It looks to me like there's a political prosecution element to this.
Now, you don't have to say it is.
You don't say, I guarantee you these are all political prosecutions.
You could simply say, I and many other people who are observing it are very concerned that these are political prosecutions.
But I don't want to make a blanket statement because you can look at these individually and decide if anybody was violent, for example.
So that would have been a way better answer because Republicans would be happy knowing that he sees it the same way they do, which is this looks political.
And I'm pretty sure he does see it that way.
I haven't, you know, I don't have any inside information.
But I would guess, like everybody else who's not crazy, it looks like a political prosecution.
So say it.
Say it looks like a political prosecution, but you're not going to treat it like they're all the same.
That's a message that everybody can accept.
And then he wins both ways, right?
You're not going to see the Democrats complaining because he looked at every case individually.
Where's the complaint?
Where's that complaint?
So he was almost perfect on that, but a little tweak would have gotten him there.
So Jeff Clark is talking about Harry Lippman.
By the way, if you don't follow Jeff Clark on X, highly recommended, because a lot of the lawfare stuff, especially, is hard to sort out.
So there are probably half a dozen people who are tremendous at sorting it out, and Jeff Clark would be one of them.
It's always a little deeper analysis, but also simple and clear.
But what he says about Harry Littman, I'll just read what he said.
He said, one of MSNBC's leading journo-lawfare dark arts practitioners.
That's a good turn of phrase.
That he's one of their journo-lawfare dark arts practitioners.
That's kind of perfect.
Uh, so apparently Harry Lippman was on MSNBC and confessed, well this is Jeff Clark's word, confessed, that Stormy Daniels' testimony yesterday does not matter for the case against Trump, and he said she's just there for the, quote, feeling.
Now as Jeff Clark says, take that in.
That somebody on the Democrat side, who is really deeply, let's say, knowledgeable about it, says it was just there for the feeling.
Now, which justice system are you aware of in which somebody's feeling that's not related to the case is accepted in the case?
Now, don't you think Democrats see this?
They're watching CNN, and they're watching one of their Do you think they hear it?
I mean, they're saying it pretty directly that she was put on there just to make the jury feel bad about Trump and it wasn't related to the case.
I think they see it.
it? I mean, they're saying it pretty directly that she was put on there just to make the jury feel bad about Trump and it wasn't related to the case. I think they see it, not all of them, but I feel like they're starting to see what's going on outside of their little bubble.
This is going to get better, by the way.
You don't want to turn this broadcast off yet.
I got a big close.
Oh, I'm going toward a big finale.
You'll want to stay for that.
All right, well, I think that's completely true.
But there's another story where Scott Jennings on CNN, who I have mixed feelings about Scott Jennings on CNN.
Number one, you know, they always try to put at least one voice for Republicans, but they try to pick somebody who's not going to destroy them.
They try to pick somebody that they feel like they can best them in arguments.
So remember when Steve Cortez was sort of their designated Republican and he got fired when he called them out for the fine people hoax?
Steve Cortez, a little too capable, a little too capable, a little too honest.
They couldn't have him.
So he's out of there.
But Scott Jennings, Does seem to have a good control of the Republican arguments.
However, he seems—this is just my impression, all right?
I don't mean this to be an insult.
It's just an impression.
He seems to understand his job better than Steve Cortez did, and I mean this as a compliment to Steve Cortez.
Like, he just went there and told the truth, and it didn't work out.
But Scott Jennings, the vibe I get from him is that he understands he can't go too far.
Like, I don't think you would ever see him say, you know, the bleach thing was a hoax, and it's all just a bunch of hoaxes.
I don't think he would go that far, because he would get kicked out of your job.
So this is also not a criticism to him.
Because I'm going to give him the biggest applause in a moment for what he did, what it feels like.
And again, this is just an impression.
So I'm not a mind reader.
I don't know what anybody's actually thinking, but here's what it felt like.
It felt like Scott Jennings was just waiting for his moment and it just came.
Here's his moment.
Now keep in mind that he's been rope-a-doping for years.
You know, the rope-a-dope strategy.
So, it feels like Scott Jennings rope-a-doped CNN, and here's what happened.
the guy, punch him and punch him and punch him and he wouldn't punch back, but he was just tiring the guy's arms out.
And then when the guy was tired, he'd just take him out.
So it feels like Scott Jennings rope-adopted CNN.
And here's what happened.
He said that Trump being impeached for withholding authorized aid to Ukraine in return for a political favor, the political favor would be he wanted Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and he was going to withhold support.
Now, he didn't actually withhold it, which is also important to the story, but he was impeached for it.
So, Scott Jennings points out that Biden is withholding authorized aid to Israel, Also, for political purposes, to placate his base because there's an election coming up.
So, Trump withheld aid from Ukraine in return for a political favor that would help him in the election, and Biden is withholding bombs from Israel to placate his base to win an election.
So he says this, which is the ultimate knockout punch.
But David Axelrod, who's sitting next to him, you know, sort of a famous mouthpiece for the Democrats, he's totally knocked out.
He's laying on his back on the ring.
Scott Jennings is standing over him with not a bruise on him.
He's looking down and poor Axelrod is like, The analogy doesn't hold.
Do you know when the analogy doesn't hold?
Always.
That's why it's an analogy.
If it were exactly the same thing, he'd say, well, it's exactly the same thing.
But here's the problem.
The Democrats have been teaching their base that analogies is how you think.
Hold on.
Just put this together.
The entire Democrat base has been trained for years that analogies are how you think.
Let me give you an example.
That Trump, he talks like a mafia boss.
Therefore, by analogy, logically, he's also a mafia boss.
Trump sometimes uses some language such as, you know, dictator for a day.
So, he's acting like a dictator in some minor ways.
Therefore, logically, by analogy, he must be a dictator!
People protested on January 6th, and sometimes when violent things happen, it's an insurrection.
So, by analogy, it must have been an insurrection!
They've trained their entire base to think that analogies are thinking.
Scott Jennings comes in, drops on them the analogy of all analogies.
The killer knockout punch of all analogies.
David Alexrod can only say, the analogy doesn't hold.
Oh my god, Scott Jennings.
I hope you enjoyed your time at CNN, because your ass just got fired.
It might take a while.
Might take a while, because I don't think they want to do it the same week he knocked out their entire network.
But good job, Scott Jennings.
You waited.
You waited.
Hold.
You know, this is exactly the same thing that Trump got impeached for.
And we're done.
CNN's Erin Burnett had a long interview with Biden in which she absolutely crushed him.
He was destroyed in front of the public.
Do you think the CNN would have destroyed Biden?
The conversation was about the Uh, economy, and I'll give you some details.
Do you think CNN would have destroyed Biden unless there was a shift happening?
Let me, let me tell you some of the things that happened.
Um, Aaron Burnett says, uh, voters by a wide margin trust Trump more on the economy.
Are you worried that you're running out of time to turn the economy around?
Biden says, we've already turned it around.
The polling data has been wrong.
Wow.
Then grocery prices are up 30%.
That's a real day-to-day pain that people feel.
That was CNN.
Aaron Burnett.
Biden responded.
They have money to spend and their Snickers bars are getting smaller.
So it's really the corporation in the greed.
Imagine being a Democrat.
And you've chosen your champion, the best of the best.
Biden's representing you.
He's like an accessory.
You know, you know, if you were to wear earrings and the earrings were stupid and ugly, well, that would make you look bad.
But Joe Biden is your earrings.
And how would you like to know that your champion was sent out to make his best case about the economy and the only point he could land was My snicker bars look smaller.
My snickers bars are smaller.
That was all he had.
His candy was smaller.
Wow.
So let's see.
These are things that Aaron Burnett pointed out on live TV.
Voters trust Trump more on the economy.
Housing prices have doubled.
Real income is down after inflation.
GDP is down.
Consumer confidence has hit a low.
She destroyed him.
If you could have seen his face, you have to watch his face.
He knows he's dying right in front of you.
His face is, I'm dying right now.
It's funny to watch.
Now here's what's funny.
That they left him in the game.
The Democrats couldn't figure a way to take him out of the game, so they're leaving him in the game.
And he is destroying their party.
Absolutely destroying it.
At the same time, remember those 91 counts against Trump?
91 counts.
My God, what a felon that man must be.
Well, let's do a little update on all of the lawfare against Trump.
Let's see, you got four cases and three of them have been delayed, probably until after the election.
Three of them will be irrelevant if they continue to be delayed past the election.
So three of the cases that made up the 91 indictments look like they were so weak that in one case, the Mar-a-Lago Boxes case, The thing has been delayed indefinitely because there are so many sub-issues that have to be worked out.
Some of those issues are that the prosecutor apparently faked the photos of classified cover sheets on documents.
Apparently, there are some real issues of faking evidence.
Then the January 6th case is delayed until the Supreme Court rules on immunity.
Then there's the prosecutor, Fannie Willis, who's being considered for being removed from the case.
But, hey, at least the Democrats have one left.
They have one case left that might, you know, maybe get a result.
It's Stormy Daniels.
It's the one everybody's going to remember.
Let me summarize this for you, because I'm a good summarizer.
Summary.
91 indictments.
Summary.
What do you remember?
I remember that Trump has gold-plated nail clippers and fucked the brains out of Stormy Daniels.
That's all I remember.
And then blah blah something about paperwork.
Even on CNN their guests are saying there's been no evidence of a crime and that they're bringing her up there to make him look bad.
No evidence of a crime.
She said she'd vote for him.
Maybe.
She hasn't ruled out voting for him.
Now, Trump has two accusations of sexual impropriety.
One was that E.G.
and Carol, who said she might vote for him, and after the alleged incident, said that The Apprentice was her favorite TV show.
Does that sound to you like a victim?
A weird kind of victim.
Do you think that Democrats are so thick that they're not noticing any of this?
They haven't noticed any of it?
They don't see that the 91 counts are completely falling apart, and the only case that's even, you know, going to be proffered before the deadline seems to be the stupid one, the one that literally has no evidence.
If you are going to create a situation To prove that the Democrats are corrupt and using lawfare to take out Trump, this would be it.
They have demonstrated everything he claimed about them to be true.
You don't think they noticed?
They might have noticed.
Polls are suggesting.
And CNN's turn is certainly making a difference.
I would say MSNBC has not made the turn.
So MSNBC still thinks the economy is great and Joe Biden is just, just ideal.
CNN couldn't take it anymore.
I think CNN just broke and they just said, okay, we can't, we're going to have to start telling the truth a little bit here.
So who do you want dealing with Putin?
I'll tell you.
Now here's my big close.
Trump has come out recently against the effort to oust Speaker Johnson, and he also came out, which surprises people, in favor of a huge expense for the FBI's new headquarters.
Now the FBI, as you know, was seemingly a mortal enemy of Trump and involved, some say, such as the news, And trying to remove him from office with, you know, fake claims.
And he's still going to build him a big old office.
How do you explain that?
How do you explain that he's not in favor?
He says he loves MTG, Marjorie Taylor Greene, but he's not in favor of ousting Johnson.
Well, Mike Cernovich had a hypothesis, which I find provocative and likely.
Which is that the people who really run the country, you know, the people in the intelligence groups and the military and whoever really is calling the shots behind the scenes, have already told Trump that he's going to get the job.
And that they've decided to release on Biden.
Why would that happen?
Israel.
Yeah.
It's probably exactly what it looks like.
Biden is not as pro-Israel when, when it comes to war.
Which is the time you really need to be on their side or not.
Right?
It's time to decide who your allies are.
And Trump knows who his allies are.
You could disagree or agree, but he knows who they are.
And it would look to me that the powers behind the scene have decided that they're going to take Biden out.
And it looks like they'll just use the media to do it.
CNN could do it by itself.
So probably just a few newspaper articles, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC might follow, but they don't need to.
And there would just be enough to guarantee that Trump gets in there.
So my take is that's probably true.
Look for the signs.
The indications are that whoever the real powers are in this country, Have decided that they can work with Trump, and they probably made a deal.
I think they made a deal.
Now, if they did, and if Trump made a deal with the bad guys, is that a problem?
Well, a lot of people would think it would be, and I'm going to go counter to that.
The reason that you like Trump, if you like Trump, is that he's a deal maker.
The reason you like Trump is that he could make a deal with Putin.
The reason you like Trump is that somehow the Mafia couldn't even influence Trump.
Apparently.
I mean, according to one of the Mafia people, he was like the one guy they couldn't influence.
Right?
So, you want a dealmaker.
You want somebody who could go shake hands with Kim Jong-un.
That's why people like him.
If you want a dealmaker, you want a dealmaker.
If he made a deal to keep the bad guys off his back so he could go into office, because the bad guys have decided he's the better play, especially in regards to Israel.
If that's what happened, and it has every indication it looks like that, then is that bad for Trump to essentially agree to an arrangement in which he would have power, come back into power, But that he would maybe build the FBI a new building.
Maybe he wouldn't dismantle everything that should be dismantled, according to you.
Maybe he could get in there and fix a bunch of things he could control.
For example, you know, the animal spirits of the economy.
He has good control of that.
So it might be that the powers that be care about Israel enough, especially during war, That they can't take a chance of a wishy-washy Israel supporter being president, and that the other stuff is lesser priority.
Now, the real tell will be if Trump says something about Ukraine that you weren't expecting.
That would be the confirmation.
For example, if Trump came out and said tomorrow, yeah, we've got to fully fund Ukraine, Uh, because that's the only way we'll prevail or something like that.
You'd say to yourself, hmm, has he said that before?
So here's what I'd be looking for.
I'd be looking for whether a deal has been struck.
Let's call it the Mike Cernovich hypothesis.
And the, the early signals are that that's exactly what happened.
I don't think that's a problem because you have to, you have to compare it to the alternatives and the alternatives Not good.
Biden is president.
Not good.
Not good.
So I think they would allow Trump to close the border.
I don't know if Biden even has control of any of that, really.
So it could be good.
I wouldn't hold it against him, necessarily, if some arrangement has been made where they'll allow him to get into office and not rig the election.
I do believe that there are entities in the United States, if they haven't rigged an election, I guarantee you that it exists.
Because I can't believe that our intelligence people would be so pathetic that they wouldn't know at least how to rig the election.
They should at least know how, and how to get away with it.
Whether they do it is a separate question.
But they should know how, and I would think that at this point They may have told Trump that they're not going to rig the election against him, and that would be enough for him to know he's going to get it, and that would be enough for him to get a little flexible about some of the things the deep state needs, such as more weapons for Israel, more support for Israel, and build an FBI building, maybe a few other things.
Maybe.
The other possibility is, let's say it's not that.
The other possibility is just Trump being smart.
If Trump plans to go hard at the FBI leadership when he's elected, wouldn't it be better if he had also approved a giant new headquarters for all the people in the FBI that he's not mad at?
Wouldn't that be better?
That would be a very Trumpian approach to make sure that you've satisfied the same group that you're attacking.
That's how he did North Korea.
North Korea was, hey, you're my friend, you know, but I'd have to kill you with a nuclear weapon if things went too far.
Right?
So he does, I'm your friend at the same time.
I will, you know, obviously I'll crush you if I have to, but you're my friend.
You're my friend.
Hey friend, what can I do for you?
Can I build you a new building?
I'm going to crush your leadership.
Yeah.
So that would be very Trumpian too.
And that would not require that he reached any deal.
What about the Speaker Johnson thing?
Well, that would be a case of him just siding with the majority, wouldn't it?
My understanding is that most Republicans don't want to remove the Speaker yet.
So, would it be a problem if you're running for President as a Republican and you side with most Republicans?
Well, you might say, hey, but he should fight on principle.
No, not really.
The time to fight on principle is when you're not running for office or you're already in office.
Right.
If you're running for office, winning's pretty high on the list of things you ought to get right.
And if you can't win by being fully transparent, well, it's not a perfect world.
All right.
So ladies and gentlemen, I contend that the Democrats have figured out that their guy is gone.
I think the CNN is completely, and largely because of Israel, I think CNN has turned on Biden.
I think that at this point, if nothing changes, which is a silly thing to say, because everything will change between now and November, a million years will pass and a million things will happen.
But if nothing changed from this moment, it's a landslide.
And Trump is guaranteed to be president.
If nothing changes.
But again, a lot's going to change.
So I will keep my option to update that.
But at the moment, he's got a rocket on his ass, and he's going to be your president.
I don't think anything could stop it, short of something really extraordinary.
Which might happen.
Which might happen.
Alright, that's my take.
And it does assume that the election will be fair or fair enough.
Or that he has such a lead that it's an unbeatable, uncheatable lead.
I'd like to say again how much I appreciate that RFK Jr.
is in the race.
And I don't know what he thinks about his ultimate odds of winning.
But I told Nicole Shanahan yesterday that she's three heartbeats away from the presidency.
Because you've got two people at a certain age, and you've got one person who doesn't have security.
You know, he doesn't have the Secret Service protection.
So, she's a lot closer to being president than any of us want to admit.
You know what I mean?
Now, it would take some extraordinary It would take a sequence of extraordinary events to happen, but all of those extraordinary events are within the field of probability.
They're not most likely, but they're within the reasonable realm of things.
Biden could be taken out just by quitting because he just can't make it.
That's possible.
RFK Jr.
could be, at the last minute, the only Democrat hope.
That's possible.
At the same time, he wouldn't have security, or sufficient security.
So he's a risk that way.
Trump is a risk just because maybe he's got some enemies who have something terrible in mind, or because he's also a certain age.
Anything can happen at that age.
So, yeah, there could be tons of surprises between now and November, and they're not necessarily all going to be good ones.
So that's my take.
Democrats have figured it out.
They know they have a losing candidate at the moment.
Trump has a vice grip lock on the election, and I think it's such a lead that they can't cheat it away from him, but don't want to.
I believe that the events in Israel and the Scott Jennings framing of this being an impeachable offense for Biden is very persuasive.
And if the Republicans are smart, they're going to take the Scott Jennings framing and just go crazy with it.
And by the way, I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of it.
Why did, why did it take Scott Jennings to mention that?
Have you heard of that before?
Has anybody said that before he did?
I didn't hear it.
I didn't hear anybody else say that it's a, it's sort of a perfect analogy as analogies go.
Very strong.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for you today.
Today's going to be an awesome day for all of you.
You're really going to enjoy it.
And so go forth and be prosperous.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately in a moment after I shut down this feed.