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, Apple Commercial, AI Electricity Needs, IBM DEI, Migrant Voters, AG Bailey, WH Anti-Trump Collusion, Non-Predictive Concepts, IBM DEI, Ga. Election Integrity, AIPAC, Thomas Massie, Topic Warlords, Biden Israel Munitions, RFK Abortion Policy, Anti-Trump Lawfare, President Biden's Bad Week, RFK Jr., State Controlled Abortion, Stormy Daniels, President SmallCandy, National News Integrity, 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
For those of you who are confused, I'm not Scott Galloway.
I know, I get a lot of questions about that, but no, I'm not.
Anyway, if you're a subscriber to the Dilbert Reborn comic, which you can only see if you're subscribing on X, see my profile, or if you're subscribing on Locals at scottadams.locals.com, You would know that Dilbert's boss, the pointy-haired boss, just had a lunch with a delightful young man named James O'Keefe.
That's right.
Dilbert's boss is going to lunch with undercover James O'Keefe.
Now, I can't tell you how it ends, but it's interesting, and I probably couldn't have put it in the newspaper.
No, it's not that naughty, but it's funny.
So that's what you're missing.
Brian Romali tells us there's a geomagnetic storm that's getting ready to blast off of the sun and cause severe geomagnetic problems.
Maybe your GPS won't work.
Maybe your power grids.
Do you ever find yourself wishing it would be the end of the world?
It's like, let's just get it over with.
Let's just go out in one giant solar flare.
Yeah, we can see it coming toward us.
Hey, oh, looks like we got, uh, we got about 90 minutes.
That'd be a good way to go.
I mean, there's no good way to die, but if you could have 90 minutes knowing the entire earth would be destroyed, but you'd all, you'd all be destroyed at the same time.
Cause that's not the way you want to go.
All right.
Well, you die the way you want to.
I want to go out in a giant solar flare.
The rest of you, you can pick your own way.
But for me, it's always been Giant Solar Flare.
That's been my dream, really.
Well, did any of you see the new Apple iPad commercial that was going around, at least on social media?
I don't know if it was on the regular media.
But boy, can you tell that Steve Jobs is dead.
Steve Jobs is not just dead.
He's extra dead.
I don't know.
Can you die twice?
Can he be, like, dead squared?
Because this was the worst commercial I've ever seen.
And what I mean is... No, actually, I've seen one worse commercial.
I'll tell you about that.
The commercial shows a big press that's pressing down on a bunch of physical items that would represent things that the iPad could do.
So the iPad can do music.
So some of the items are like a trumpet and a piano and it could do, you know, colorful everything.
So there's some buckets of paint and some toys and things.
And you watch the thing, crush it down.
And the point of it is it's all crushed down into the thinnest iPad and all that thing, all the stuff that was in that big pile could be done with this one little thin iPad.
And everybody kept asking me, well, what do you think about this commercial?
And I thought to myself, why do I have to look at an Apple commercial?
Why would I even care?
But I thought, well, everybody says I should look at this thing.
So I looked at it and I see why you wanted me to look at it.
It really does signal that there's something wrong there.
I don't know how you can watch the commercial without just feeling bad.
Because I saw all this perfectly good stuff.
Like the piano that they crushed looked like a new piano.
And it wasn't, they weren't crushing garbage.
And I just felt terribly uncomfortable watching them crush all these, you know, attractive, useful products just so their cool little, uh, machine could be made.
Yeah, it was terrible.
It actually, it actually made you dislike the product and the company.
I've never seen anything like it.
So that would be the second worst commercial I have ever seen.
The worst commercial.
Was one that involved a Dilbert character.
So do you remember there was an Office Depot and an Office Max?
Do you remember when both of them were the two competing office related stores?
So Office Depot did a deal with Dilbert that Dilbert would be the character in the commercial.
And so they did a bunch of commercials But they waited until the end of the commercial to tell you who the commercial was for.
So it started out with Dilber doing a bunch of things that were clearly a commercial for some kind of a store that sells office supplies.
But you don't see the name of the store until the closing moment.
And when I saw it the first time, because I, you know, I didn't, I didn't have direct control of what the commercial was, just the Dilberty part.
And when I saw it, I said to myself, well, wait a minute, How's anybody even going to know what this commercial is about?
Because you wait so long that people tune out.
They don't even know what it was about.
And then people started coming up to me in the streets and they'd say, hey, congratulations.
And I'd say, for what?
And they say, for landing that OfficeMax commercial.
And I would say, oh, you mean the Office Depot commercial?
And they would say, no, I think it was OfficeMax.
And I would say, that's the competitor.
Because if you watched the commercial and you were sure that we were advertising for OfficeMax, that would be not just a bad commercial, that would be like a reverse commercial, where you were literally doing a commercial for your biggest competitor.
But after, you know, the second person said it, I thought, well, it's just easy to confuse the two.
After the 10th person, Said I like your OfficeMax commercial.
I said to myself, this is the biggest disaster in all of commercials.
Now, to nobody's surprise, Office Depot dropped Dilber as a sponsor because they couldn't see an increase in sales.
And I tried to talk to them, so I talked to the ad team, and I said, maybe the reason you don't see an increase in sales is that the people I'm talking to are pretty sure that you're advertising for their competitor.
They don't even know Office Depot is part of that commercial at all.
And they laughed and said, oh, that's funny.
And I said, no, it's not funny.
I swear to God, you're doing a commercial for the other side.
Uh-huh, yeah.
I guess they didn't want to have to answer for that.
Pretended it didn't happen.
That was a good play.
Well, AI is already competing with human beings for limited resources and winning.
That's right.
AI looks to be such a drain on future electricity That I guarantee you that humans will be denied electricity in favor of AI eventually.
And you're already seeing it.
So you're seeing that we know we need massive amounts of extra electricity, like 35 times more than we have right now.
Just a lot.
And really soon.
Now what do you think is going to happen?
As soon as our infrastructure for everything has an AI component, and it will, Because why wouldn't it?
I mean, AI will permeate basically everything important, at least for the user interface part.
At some point, we're going to say, oh, we don't have enough electricity to do everything we want to do.
We can either keep the lights on in your rural community.
Or we can turn off vital systems that keep us all alive and, you know, are part of our national defense and, you know, they're creating water for us and medicines.
And somebody's going to say, you know, a human can sit in the dark for a few hours.
It's not that bad.
I mean, it's just a little bit of dark.
In the old days, they used to go to bed early.
We got candles, but we can't turn off this vital system.
I mean, I can't turn off the thing that's irrigating the fields for the farmers.
I mean, so there will be very soon a point where AI is essential, and humans having electricity, well, it's a little bit optional.
So we will not have enough electricity for both.
You all know that, right?
We will not have enough electricity for humans, And AI.
It doesn't look like there's any way to get there.
Now, in a normal world, you would just get there when you can get there.
And you would, you know, manage a bit reasonably.
But this is a species competition.
This is evolution.
You're seeing evolution fast.
AI is, it is a species.
And at some point, we will all be talking about it that way.
Now, it's not a species as in it's one race of AI.
You know, you're still gonna have your OpenAI and your Grox, but just like human beings.
You know, we have different races of human beings, but we still say you're all human beings.
AI is life.
It's just a different kind of life.
If AI has the capacity to reproduce, By using humans as their, uh, let's say, let's say they're acting like parasites and the humans are their host.
That's reproduction.
Now you can get all technical and say, well, my technical definition of life is this or that, but if it can reproduce and it can control its environment and it can compete for resources, it's as alive as it needs to be.
Right?
You can talk about your consciousness and your sentience, but it's still going to eat your resources.
You're still competing with it, just like it's another animal.
So, that's coming.
IBM is being sued for discrimination.
Their Red Hat unit is a subsidiary of IBM.
Apparently they hired this DEI head who said, Whoa, we're going to have to, uh, have goals for a whole bunch more women, a whole bunch more people of color.
And so they set goals, which would be illegal.
And, uh, they, they fired, uh, 22 people.
21 of them were white men or at least white.
Now I'm not sure that that's telling me what I think it's telling me.
Because if the whole point was they didn't have any diversity, and they also fired people, well, who are they going to fire?
If they have no diversity, and they fire 22 people, are they not going to be firing mostly white people?
So I'm not sure this statistic is telling me an accurate version of what's happening.
It is true that they set quotas and that would be illegal.
And thank you to the America First Legal team.
That is the pushback.
Now, I would like to, I've got a theme coming that I'm going to talk about when I get to the whiteboard.
So here's the first part of the theme.
It looked like this trend was going to go forever, but then the Then the America First Legal Group formed and is creating a sort of a lawfare, you know, self-defense.
It's pushing back.
So did this trend go forever or did it just go until there was a logical pushback?
It went until people started pushing back.
Now, I would expect a lot more pushback.
So that's also a slippery slope.
So what happens when you're slippery slope?
A thing's going too far for diversity hits your slippery slope of America first starting to sue people for going too far.
Now you got two competing slippery slopes.
So make your prediction.
If slippery slopes go forever and you have two slippery slopes that oppose each other, how's it turn out?
Slippery slopes do not predict because they're everywhere all the time.
Everything's a slippery slope.
Everything.
I got a cup of coffee today.
Will that be a slippery slope until I drink so much coffee I die from too much hydration?
Well, maybe, but probably that's not a predictable outcome.
Probably, I will get a stomachache from having too much coffee and I'll get too nervous and I'll say, oh, I've reached an obstacle.
My slippery slope of continuing to drink more coffee every day has reached a blockage and now it's reversed.
That's the way the real world works.
More on that as we go.
Elon Musk says 2024 might be the last election that's actually decided by U.S.
citizens.
And that's because apparently the House has voted, every single Democrat voted, To allow non-citizens to be counted in the census, which would give them representation.
And given that things are so close as it is, the tipping point of who's actually in charge of the country should be people who are not even citizens of the country.
Now, I've got a second theme today.
Who's running the country?
Is it, will it be the illegal migrants?
Because there's so many of them and Democrats want to give them representation by having them counted in the census.
Wouldn't that put them in charge?
Because there's so many of them and they're going to tip the balance in a predictable way.
They're basically in charge.
They don't know it, but it works out that way.
Well, we'll see who else is in charge of the country because there's lots of them today.
All right, Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Missouri, is, uh, Missouri?
Yeah, I think so, um, is demanding that the Department of Justice turn over communications relating to the illicit prosecution of President Trump, as he says.
So he wants to know about any communications between the Department of Justice and the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, New York H.E.
Letitia James and Fulton County D.A.
Fonny Willis wants to find out how many of them communicated and what did they say with the federal government Biden administration.
Now that's right on point, isn't it?
Now, I don't know how you would know if you had all the communications.
How would you ever know if you say, give me all the communications between these groups of people?
Who would actually know if they gave them all, or if they said there isn't any?
How would you actually know?
So, I'm glad the request is there, and I'm glad it's giving attention to the fact that it does look like there might be some communication going on, maybe some coordination.
Maybe a Rico kind of situation.
It looks like Rico to me.
It looks like an organized conspiracy against voters and against Trump.
That's what it looks like to me.
So I'm glad that Attorney General Andrew Bailey is looking into that.
All right.
I saw some pushback on a couple of things that I've been saying for a long time that you hate.
Oh, wow.
Do you hate it?
Two things I say.
Doing your own research is not useful.
Oh, you hate that.
We're going to talk about that.
And the slippery slope is not real.
The slippery slope isn't useful.
Oh, you don't like that either.
But I realize that there's one reason I think these things and you disagree.
And it has to do with my view of reality.
And let me explain My view of reality see if I can get you a good image of this Peace.
My view of reality is that what's real is what predicts.
What's real is what predicts.
Slippery slope is really good in hindsight.
After something's gone some way for a while, you can look at it and say, whoa, there was a slippery slope.
And you can say to yourself, I see it, clear as day.
It started down as a little thing, and then it turned into a bigger thing, Slippery Slope.
Therefore, Slippery Slopes are real.
But do they predict?
No, they do not.
They do not predict better than what you knew before you ever heard the term Slippery Slope.
Didn't you already know that if you give somebody an inch, they'll take a mile?
How many of you didn't know that?
That if a child says, can I stay up 10 minutes longer?
There's a guarantee that after that 10 minutes, they'll say, but how about another 10 minutes?
So we all know that if you give somebody something with no resistance, they will ask for more.
Now, why do you need the slippery slope to describe more than that?
If you know what human nature is, you know how somebody is going to act in the moment.
Here's what you don't know.
How it's all going to work out in the long run.
And here's the problem.
Everything we do could be the beginning of a slippery slope.
Because everything has inertia until it reaches an obstacle.
So the better way to think of the slippery slope is to discard it and say things will continue the way they're continuing until something stops it.
What would be an example of that?
White men will be discriminated in the United States more and more until the America First legal team group decides to lawfare them away.
And that's what's happening.
So a prediction that makes sense is this is going to go too far.
And once it has gone too far, because we know people, if they get an inch, they'll ask for a mile.
So that part we know is always going to happen.
What you don't know is how far it will go.
And the only thing that will tell you that is the formation of obstacles that weren't there until they needed to be.
So my view of the world is that everything goes in the direction it's going, good or bad, good or bad, it goes in the direction it's going until a specific counterforce appears.
And in our world, if things go in the wrong direction for a long time, a counterforce always appears.
We're still here.
That's the reason modern civilization exists.
That we were able to see big problems and, whoa, it's gone too far.
And then you adjust.
So my problem with the slippery slope is that it does not predict.
It's a hindsight-based way to see the world.
So it doesn't have use.
No more use than knowing, giving an inch, people ask for a mile.
So it doesn't add anything to anything.
But it does add something If you say, I think if you push this far enough, a counterforce will pop up.
That's a prediction that has some meat to it.
But slippery slopes?
Nah, sort of magical thinking.
Everything will just slip for reasons because of slipperiness.
That's a nothing.
Likewise, doing your own research.
How many of you have had a good result doing your own research?
Has anybody done their own research and came to a conclusion that they said, whoa, I'm sure glad I did my own research?
Of course you have, right?
Every one of us has had that experience.
And therefore, therefore, since we've all had the experience, every one of us, of doing our own research and getting a good result, therefore, doing your own research is smart, right?
No, that is completely an illusion.
Because you don't know when you can do your own research and when you can't.
The only thing you know is that a lot of questions are binary.
Something works or it doesn't.
Hey, if you chew gum, you'll grow six inches.
That's either true or it's not.
Right?
So if you took a hundred people and you gave them any concept.
All right, a hundred people.
Chewing gum makes you taller.
Study it.
Would they all get the same answer?
No.
If everybody who did their own research got the same answer every time, then I would say to you, oh, that's pretty good evidence right there.
Doing your own research totally works.
During the pandemic, do you think that only the people who were against vaccinations did their own research?
You don't think that the people who were pro-vaccination, the doctors, you don't think they did their own research?
Of course they did.
But how do you explain that they got a different answer than you did?
Because you're right, right?
So after the fact, in hindsight, you said, I thought I was right, and now time has gone by and I am right.
That's now confirmed, according to you.
So therefore, the research I did helped me to get to that right answer.
But here's the thing.
Do you remember all the things you researched that you were not right about?
No, you don't.
You remember the things you're right about.
I'll bet every one of you remembers everything you were right about the pandemic.
Do you remember all the things that you were wrong about?
No, we flushed those.
So there's always this effect where you think you can do this thing better than you can.
Is it true?
That people have done their own research and got the right answer.
Yes!
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!
It's totally true!
People do do their own research, they do it correctly, and they get the right answer.
Here's the problem.
They don't know when they're doing it and when they're not.
Because when they do their own research and get the wrong answer, they are just as convinced they did it right.
And when they learn later, a year later, that they definitely got the wrong answer, what do they do?
Do they say, Oh, I'm going to put that in my memory bank as a, you know, a warning that sometimes I can be really sure I'm right, but then in the end I'm wrong.
No, no human being does that.
Here's what we do.
Oh, I was really right all along, but in a different way.
And maybe, maybe it wasn't quite that.
And I'm remembering it differently is cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, And cognitive dissonance, which are universally true, and 100% of scientists and psychologists agree that these are dominant effects.
As long as you live in a world in which your brain is a confirmation bias cognitive dissonance machine, you will always have the impression that doing your own research is getting you the right answer.
And sometimes, Sometimes by luck, but also sometimes by skill, you will be correct.
What you won't have is the ability to predict when you'll be correct and when you won't.
You'll know after the fact, but only the ones you are correct on.
You'll also know that you were correct when you were wrong.
You won't be correct, but you'll think you know that you were correct because that's cognitive distance.
So these, both the slippery slope and the do your own research are backwards looking ways of understanding the world, meaning that they're wrong.
They're backwards.
The only way to understand what's true is what predicts.
Slippery slope doesn't predict any better than if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
So it doesn't add.
Because you already knew that.
And then do your own research.
We all just imagine that we're good at it and we got it right.
And there's nothing like that.
The real world does not think you're good at it.
And if doing your own research worked, all the smart people who are good at research would agree.
How many smart people who are good at research are on different sides of whether the 2020 election was fair?
Tons.
They're really, really smart, good researchers on both sides.
How about the pandemic?
Did the vaccinations help or hurt?
Really smart people on both sides did their own research.
Didn't help a bit.
Half of them got it wrong.
And it was a binary question.
It was either good for you or bad for you on net.
It was binary.
So, am I telling you not to do your own research?
Let me check.
Is that what you're hearing?
Do you hear me say, don't do your own research?
Of course not.
Of course you should do your own research.
And sometimes you'll be right.
But you don't know when that will be.
And we don't really have a choice.
You're going to do your own research because we don't have free will.
So you're going to do it.
All right.
I know it hurts.
I know it hurts to realize that you've been thinking backwards all your life, but it's the normal way people think.
We normally think backwards, so there's nothing unusual about this.
All right.
Let's see.
Election Integrity.
It's a group looking into election integrity, as you might imagine.
So they've got kind of a win, but kind of not in Georgia.
So there were lots of claims about the Georgia election in 2020 not being
Totally pristine and then there were lots of claims and then the Georgia election board Voted and they confirmed some problems, but not enough problems that would have changed the result of the election so in other words the There's a two-to-one vote after all that looking at all the information And here's what was confirmed by all the officials who matter in the election, right?
So this is now confirmed public.
Nobody's disagreeing with the following statements.
Confirmed that the county double scanned 3,075 ballots during a statewide recount.
So that was during the recount.
They double scanned a bunch of stuff.
And there was also a dispute over 17,000 ballot images that are missing.
Not the ballots, but the ballot images.
Now, Georgia would say, it doesn't matter if the ballot images are lost, because we counted the actual ballots, and that was fine.
So, do you get that?
The ballot images would be great to show that everything was, you know, copacetic, but you don't need it to know that the election was right, because you still have the physical ballots, which they claim they double counted, or they recounted, not double counted.
Now, here's what I think.
Although the results of this presumably did not check on every claim.
I doubt every claim in the world was checked.
But the main ones, the big ones, were checked and they did not... Well, I'm not going to say that's the main ones.
The ones they checked, whether they were the main ones or not, the ones they checked were not big enough to have changed the election.
But it's big enough to do something else.
Here's my take on this.
If the people who were in charge of the election were surprised at these errors, these are the errors we know about, you know, the ballot images missing and the double-count ballots.
If they didn't find out about this stuff until now, what does that tell you about what anybody could have known about the validity of the election when it was called?
Let me say it again.
If Georgia election officials are only just now finding out that things could be double counted without them knowing, and they're only just finding out that images can disappear, what else could they just be finding out about?
Isn't that proof, beyond any doubt, that there's no way Trump could have known the election was fair?
Because one of his lawfare cases turns entirely upon what he believed.
There is no indication that he did not believe it was faked.
Everything that we have, every witness, every document, strongly, strongly suggests he really believed it was fraudulent.
And nobody has presented even one bit of evidence Of anybody who is, you know, behind the scenes on January 6th, not a single person has said, you know, privately said that he thinks it's a real election.
Nobody.
So there's no evidence that he thought it was real.
And then Georgia shows that there could be some fairly substantial irregularities that would not have been discovered at the time.
Not enough to change the election, but enough to know that if Trump had doubts about the outcome, it wasn't crazy, and there's nothing to suggest that he didn't have, you know, a genuine reason to doubt it.
Now somebody online said to me, but, but, but, there was no reason to doubt the election.
What kind of news do you have to be watching for the last several years to think that there was no reason to doubt it?
Reason number one.
His opponents had been branding him as Hitler for years.
That's all you need.
I don't need anything else.
I only need to know that the media branded him Hitler.
Everybody acting normally under that situation should have tried to cheat the election to stop Hitler, if they could.
Number two, the statistical likelihood of the election going the way they say it did, in terms of the bellwether counties, etc.
At the time, Looked to be roughly zero at the time.
Now, I don't know if that's been explained away, but that was a pretty good reason to think there was something wrong.
Even if it got explained away later at the time, it looked like, what?
This is impossible.
And then of course, there's the, the famous, um, that, uh, Trump was ahead at whenever they stopped counting ballots.
But then they claim mail-in ballots came in that always favor Biden, and then at the late night count, some say after they shipped in fake ballots, but we don't have proof of that.
But that would certainly be a reason to question it.
The separate question of whether there was some legitimate explanation for that sudden change in counting is an interesting question.
But to say that Trump would have no reason to believe Going into an election in which he was ahead in the polls, right?
Give me a fact check.
Wasn't Trump ahead in the polls going into the election?
2020?
I can't remember the day of the polling, what the result was.
Anyway, so the point was, and I think it's also true that if there had not been a number of decisions, About what can and be counted, can be counted because of the pandemic, etc.
I think things could have gone a different way.
So I think there was plenty of evidence that something could have been wrong and no evidence whatsoever that Trump believed anything except that it was rigged.
So everything's going Trump's way in terms of all the lawfare.
Case closed.
Thomas Massey says that AIPAC, that's the lobbying group that does things in America that are favorable to Israel.
Now, it's completely transparent, and if it sounds like I'm criticizing AIPAC, keep in mind that I do appreciate that it's all transparent.
We all know who they are.
They say in public what they're trying to do.
And indeed, they just said that they're going to fund a $300,000 ad buy against Thomas Massey, because they don't like his votes regarding Israel.
Now, I have two feelings about this.
Why is Israel controlling our government?
Wait, why is this even legal?
Right?
That's the first question.
Why do we allow this?
But my second observation, which is the first observation, is that it's all above board.
It's a weird situation where it feels wrong on every level, except when it's completely transparent.
It does take the steam out of my complaints.
Like, oh, well, I mean, if you know they're doing it and you don't like it, you have the option of voting for Thomas Massey, right?
So it's not like you don't have options.
The AIPAC isn't, like, tying you up and saying you can't go to vote.
They're saying, this is what we think, here's a bunch of money we're putting behind it, and we're going to publicize it.
And there's no secrets.
So, I don't know, I'm a little bit conflicted.
On one hand, I don't think they should have that much power.
On the other hand, the entire government is a Series of influences not unlike this one.
It's just that there are different influences for different topics.
This happens to be among the biggest influences for this specific topic.
But that, but it's not unusual that there would be some group of moneyed people who had influence over some topic.
What's unusual?
It's another country.
It's a little unusual that it's another country.
You know, we're looking to get rid of TikTok, because we don't want China to have too much influence over America.
But to be fair, China is an adversary of sorts, and Israel is among our tightest allies.
So it's kind of an interesting situation where I guess I'll make this point, because I make it a lot.
Transparency really gives you a lot.
You know, the worst things in the world don't look so bad if they're at least well known.
Because then, you know, you have the option of responding and you have options.
It's just when you don't have an option and things are bad that you really feel like you're getting screwed.
But as long as it's right out there, well, So, I would recommend that you back Thomas Massie against AIPAC and vote him in in a landslide if you like his views on Israel.
If you don't like his views on Israel, well, you probably weren't going to vote for him anyway.
So, I don't know.
So, Thomas Massie is calling it out in a post, and now you know.
Transparency.
It's good stuff.
So, who's really running things?
You know, we're trying to figure out why Biden seems to be, relatively speaking, favorable to the Hamas-Palestinian situation.
Now, I'm not going to take sides.
I'm just going to note that there were some weapons that are being denied to Israel because of the Palestinian, let's say, lobbying or American Democrat supporters.
So for purely political reasons, Biden is being forced to do that.
So now we've got Elon Musk saying that, you know, the illegal migrants are going to be essentially determining what's happening in the country.
We've got Thomas Massey reminding us that AIPAC has a lot of influence, especially over Israel stuff.
And then we have the idea that maybe Hamas has too much power.
And then the DEI people have too much power, but the American First people have some power, and the DAs have some power, and Soros has some power.
So the better way to look at all this stuff is that for every topic, there is a warlord or two.
Might be more than one.
And that warlord is usually backed by big money, either a billionaire or two, or they've raised money from lots of people.
And that our so-called democracy republic Is largely a criminal organization run by a variety of competing interests and often non-competing interests.
So, that's the way I see it.
Can't say somebody's in charge of the whole country, just warlords in charge of certain topics.
Well, I would say that the outcome of the 2024 election is largely determined at this point.
All of my uncertainty just completely disappeared.
It's Trump all the way, and here's my argument for that.
When Biden denied the bombs to Israel, I can tell you that was a last straw for a number of people who were both Jewish and pro-Biden.
I think a lot of people just said, are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
October 7th, And you're not going to let us have the bombs that we need to get this job done?
Now, there's an argument on both sides.
I'm not dismissing the humanitarian argument.
That has to be valued.
But in a political sense, Biden just lost Jewish support for the most part.
And I think that there's no way he can survive that.
Why?
Because AIPAC.
AIPAC has a lot of power.
And Israel has a lot of power, and there are a lot of Jewish Americans who don't like this decision, and it's an animating topic.
There are a lot of things you can disagree with, or say, well, that's not perfect, but it won't necessarily change your vote.
The decision to delay the armaments to Israel, and moreover, the larger, both sides treatment that Biden's giving the issue, there's no way He's going to have the same Jewish support that he had before, in America.
There's no way.
So, I think that alone, if nothing else happened, and it's a close race up to that point, that alone would give you an outcome.
But it gets better.
RFK Jr.
was asked about his views on abortion on some program, and asked if he was in favor of abortion up until the end of the term, meaning the moment before birth.
And he said unambiguously, yes, he's in favor of it.
And the woman should be the one to decide.
Now, to be fair, to be fair, I assume he didn't say it, but a reasonable assumption is that the woman would have to be, uh, either the, either the baby would be non-viable.
Like if it was born, it would just, you know, live an hour and die in pain.
So that could be a factor or.
Or maybe the mother's life is in danger, but I don't know how that would be relevant if the baby has come full term.
I'm not a doctor.
So I think there's more to the answer.
Perhaps he would be in favor of some kind of, you know, multiple doctors have to sign off or you can't do it.
You know, the mother's life has to be in jeopardy.
It has to be for humanitarian reasons.
You know, you can imagine that there's a whole bunch of if, if, ifs, but politically, Right?
So I'm not arguing about abortion.
That's not in my conversation.
Right?
But politically, that's, that's the end of Biden.
Because nobody who's a Republican is going to vote for anybody who even said the words that there would be any situation in which you could abort when it's ready to be born in the normal way.
Even, even if There are horrible medical possibilities.
So, I think that that confirms that there isn't any way that RFK Jr.
is going to take more votes from Trump than from Biden.
I mean, that question is now answered.
So, RFK Jr.
is in favor of reparations.
There are zero Republicans in favor of reparations.
The reparations That's the end of the story.
There's no way I'm going to support anybody for president who's in favor of reparations.
The abortion thing, I stay into that, because I don't have the same view as RFK Jr., but I do think that women should take the lead in what the laws are in their individual states.
Everybody gets a vote.
I'm not saying that men shouldn't participate.
I'm just saying you get a better result if women take the lead, because nobody's going to be happy with the result, no matter what it is.
But at least you could say, well, at least the right people made the decision.
And the right people are women, in this case.
Now, I also say, to be fair, I say that the right people to make decisions about national defense are mostly men.
And I say that as a group, not as individuals.
As individuals, you might find a man who really should be talking about abortion.
Maybe somebody who's a doctor, really knows a lot, things you don't know.
No, so there could be individual differences.
Yes, a man who really knows something about abortion should absolutely weigh in.
And yes, a woman who's really up to date and knows a lot about national defense, of course.
But as a whole, we should ignore the general opinion of women when it comes to national defense.
And as a whole, I would like to de-emphasize the role of men You're making decisions about laws about abortion.
Now, when it comes to a couple making a decision, that's, that's more about the couple.
That's not about the law.
All right.
So, so Biden's bad week continues.
Um, you've got the California AG, the attorney general, uh, I saw Joel Pollack, uh, report in Breitbart.
So the California attorney general is preparing a whole bunch of lawfare legal challenges against Trump.
Should he get elected?
Should he get elected?
They're going to lawfare him.
Now, let me ask you this.
You live in the real world and you know, everybody's super busy, right?
We're all busy.
Who in the world would be spending a bunch of time preparing lawsuits In case Trump gets elected, six months before he gets elected, you would only do that if you're pretty sure he's going to get elected.
As in, you know the decision's been made, basically.
So, I don't see any situation in which somebody does this amount of work, because apparently it's a whole bunch of different legal actions they plan.
It's not like two or three.
Yeah, it might be a hundred.
It's like just this massive amount of lawfare.
So they're trying to make sure they can tie Trump up.
I just don't think you do that unless you know that he's going to be president.
Next, Biden appeared on CNN and it was a complete train wreck.
And I guarantee you the Democrats know he can't debate.
He couldn't handle Aaron Burnett, a friendly network, asking some pretty obvious questions about the economy, and he just fell apart.
And we all saw it.
And there's no way that they're going to let him debate.
Do you think he can win by being too feeble to debate?
Of course not.
He can't win.
He doesn't have any chance, and it's over.
People, it is completely over.
All right, so let me summarize that.
So Biden has certainly lost Jewish Americans, you know, not every single one, but he certainly lost support with Jewish Americans, and I don't have to tell you that that means more than just the votes, right?
That means AIPAC, it means big money, it means People who have a lot of influence, right?
I don't think you could survive that alone.
If that was the only thing I told you, I don't know if you could survive it.
But on top of that, RFK Jr.
has gone so far from the Republican side that he can't possibly get Republican votes unless they're not paying attention at all.
The California AG seems to think it's over.
The polls are heavily favoring Trump in the In the battleground states, the CNN disaster itself is fatal, but it guarantees he's not going to debate.
Now, put all that together.
There isn't really any way Biden can win.
And it must be that he's exceeded the margin of cheating, because I do believe that we live in a country where cheating is a possibility.
Now, I do not have proof it happened In the past, in any specific cases that would have changed an election.
I just live in a system in which if you look at the system, the system design guarantees it.
Because you got people scared to death about Trump.
They think he's Hitler.
They have access to the machines.
They have access to the ballots.
They have access to the ballot boxes.
How in the world would they not try to cheat?
It's childish to imagine they wouldn't try.
But it looks like he might have such a lead that it's out of the possibility.
But more importantly, there could be people who are supporting Biden who just changed their minds.
So they don't even want to cheat.
It could be that the desire to cheat is going away because the Israel situation is so dire, they're just like, okay, we can't have a brain dead guy when we got all these problems.
So I think he's done as done can be unless something big changes and something big always does.
Anyway, I did a poll myself.
Let me read you the poll because remember now we know that RFK Jr.
is in favor of aborting a child up to the point of birth.
We know he had a brain worm and we know that Biden fell apart on CNN.
And when asked about the economy, the only thing he could talk about competently was his Snickers bars were getting smaller.
It's the only thing he could handle competently.
Everything else he had to lie about or make up numbers or just look stupid.
And then we heard about all the details about the Trump and how Stormy Daniels says she passed out during the sex, even though she was not inebriated in any way.
So here's the poll that I did, and I wish the professionals could be this good.
I mean, that's what you're gonna think when you hear it.
As soon as you hear my poll, you're gonna say, why can't Gallup do that?
That was really good.
All right, here it is.
My question.
Question, do you plan to vote for the billionaire who banged a porn star into unconsciousness, the man who says his Snickers is too small, or the baby killer who fed his brain to a worm?
I gave you three choices.
The billionaire banger, the small candy guy, and the brainworm baby killer.
Billionaire banger got 90% of the votes, small candy 2%, and brainworm baby killer 8%.
Brainworm baby killer.
It's my favorite sentence of the year.
All right.
I can't remember if I talked about this yesterday or only in the man cave.
I think it was only in the man cave.
So yesterday I became a subject of a story in the Daily Caller who has a story that there was a staffer who worked for Vivek Ramaswamy who was fired After it came out that he was secretly working for RFK Jr.' 's team to convert MAGA people, or to at least get Trump-friendly people to retweet and say good things about RFK Jr.
Now, I'm one of the people who was called out in that story as being one of the people who was influenced By this gentleman who was fired by Vivek for retweeting and posting things about RFK Jr.
And I do.
Now, given that I was called down by name, you know, and I was shown my face and my post in the story in the Daily Caller about being influenced to say things about RFK Jr., do you think they should have called me for a comment?
Do you think that would have been appropriate?
Hey, Scott, what are you thinking?
Did this really happen?
Did you do it because somebody sent it to you?
Or did you do it because you wanted to?
Don't you think those would be good questions?
So it's not just the left.
There's just something about the media.
It's the most obvious question is, were you influenced by that?
Do you have a comment?
Would you like to add some context?
Well, I would like to add some context right now.
If you're a public figure who talks about politics on social media, and I think this is true of all of us, people send you things all day long.
Did you know that?
I mean, I thought it was obvious in my case, because I'm often retweeting things that people send me.
So people DM me all the time.
And they say, what about this?
What about that?
And then I look at it and I say, does that agree with me?
Or, you know, is that good for the world?
And does it agree with me?
And then I decide whether I want to send it out.
So basically, I just have two forms of social media.
I have one form, which is the public forum on X. So I read the same stuff you see.
But on top of that, there's a fairly extensive network of people who, who can DM me, you know, people that I follow as well.
And also, they can email me.
People have different ways to reach me.
20 different ways to get to me.
And they send me stories.
They send them to me on Instagram.
They send them to me on LinkedIn.
They email me.
They text me.
They DM me on X. And some of them I pick.
Owen wants to know where I can get a contract.
So yes, it's totally true that people send me things.
Do I remember any specific contact where somebody sent me things for RFK Jr.?
No, because people send me things from him all the time.
It's not like there was one guy who sent me some RFK Jr.
stuff.
People do it every day.
Some of it I like, some of it I don't.
So that should have been the context they should have added.
But it's an interesting story.
Now, separately, having nothing to do with this story, I think I told you I did a podcast for RFK Jr.' 's VP pick, Nicole Shanahan, and I went down and did the podcast and took some pictures after.
Not unusual.
I took some pictures with Nicole and then I took a picture with one of her staffers who had set up the podcast and arranged it.
Somebody named Zach.
Same guy in the story.
So I think Zack might be the same Zack.
I don't know how many people named Zack work for the RFK Jr.
team, but I think I got Zacked.
Anyway.
But I reiterate, there are some things about RFK Jr.
that I like a lot, and I'm not going to shy away from that.
I love his attack on big food and chronic disease.
I think his take on the safety of vaccines, and I'll give some distance to myself about any specific claims he makes about vaccine harm.
I'm not on that train.
But when he says they're not adequately tested, I think that's something we should look into.
So I'm on board with that.
So there are some things that are very, very strong about his message, but I'm never going to sign up for reparations.
Yeah, that to me, that's, that's the end of the story.
So you don't have to worry about what team I'm going to be on.
All right.
Um, I talked to a Democrat who I will not name recently, who said that, uh, her family members, and I feel like she was talking about the female members of the family.
But maybe I just imagined that.
Said they're scared to death of the possibility of Trump returning.
How many of you know somebody that you would describe as not just having a preference, but scared to death about Trump returning?
How common is that?
Because I've seen it.
I've seen it with my own eyes.
And it's a physical fear.
People will actually tremble Now, how do you fix that?
Here's what won't fix it.
A Trump rally.
A really good Trump advertising campaign.
Make no difference.
A good reframe.
A good nickname.
Nope.
Nope.
Scott comes up with a clever persuasion.
Nope.
Nope.
There is one and only one thing that can change this.
And I will recommend it now, and I'm going to strongly recommend it.
Like, super, super recommend it.
Trump needs to sit down with a bunch of frightened Democrats.
The really frightened ones.
The ones who are actually literally afraid of him.
Just sit in the room, turn on the cameras, and just let them hang out.
Let them ask any question they want.
Let them go to the House.
I would have them actually go to their private residence, go into their living room, have them bring their cousins over, their friends, sit in the living room, and say, why are you so afraid of me?
What is it about me that makes you afraid?
And then they would say, but, but, but, you might be a dictator.
Now compare these two things.
Somebody on social media arguing that no, he won't be a dictator, versus he's sitting in front of you.
And he's got this big Trump smile on his face.
He shook your hands.
He hugged you.
He took pictures.
And then he genuinely asked you what you thought.
And then he was genuinely concerned that you were afraid of him.
Because guess what?
His personal charisma is unstoppable.
You know, I've experienced it in person.
If you put him in the room, people like him.
Pretty much every time.
His ability to connect with people in person is really unparalleled.
Well, maybe not unparalleled.
The best politicians can do it.
But he has to diffuse the bomb one-on-one.
Now, if other people see him diffuse it, they might also be affected by it in terms of influence.
But he's got to do it retail.
He's got to talk to a real person and spend some quality time, and he has to let them sit in front of him on the couch, I'll say, or in the barbershop or wherever it is.
No, I wouldn't do the barbershop, because I don't think black men are afraid of him.
Do you?
I've never seen a black man who was afraid of Trump.
Have you?
Even once?
There are lots of people who prefer him not to be president, obviously.
But I've never heard anybody who was, like, afraid of him, because he's going to be a dictator or something.
I've never heard it once.
But women of every type, absolutely frightened to death.
But imagine they say, you know, you're against abortion.
But imagine he's in the room.
Imagine they're afraid of him and he says, I'm going to take, you know, take your abortion away.
And he says, well, actually, what I did was move it to the States.
So it's closer to your control and further from my control.
Because that's what happened.
Put them in the living room with a real pro-abortion advocate and say, but you realize what I did was I moved the control of that question away from me and closer to you.
So you should be working with your local representatives.
And I do have a preference of how that should work out, but I don't want to have the control over your life.
I'm trying to remove myself from having control over you.
You see that, right?
You see that I'm giving you control.
I'm not taking it away.
Now how that ends up is hard to predict.
But I do think that you and I should agree that I should not be part of your decision about your abortion.
Do we agree on that?
Now imagine that in person.
Just imagine that in person.
That is so disarming.
And if he looked you in the face and said, you look like a nice person.
I would like you to have more babies, not fewer.
And I'm not apologizing for being in favor of all Americans living, you know, as long as they haven't done something terrible, I suppose.
So, the thing about the anti-abortion view is that I completely understand how people can be on both sides of the issue.
But I don't understand how you can think that the people who are against abortion are monsters.
That part doesn't work in person, right?
It doesn't work in person.
It works if you're thinking about it in like a conceptual way.
It's like, oh, they're taking my rights away in a conceptual way.
But if you put somebody in the room and you say, you know, I understand that you're against abortion.
I understand your reasons, but I'm looking at you as a human being.
And I would like, if you got pregnant, I would like you to bring a baby into the world, even a Democrat.
Even your little Democrat babies will vote against Republicans.
I want them.
Because as president, I should never be in favor of a decision to end life.
As I see it.
That's why that decision needs to get pushed closer to you and further from me.
And that's what I did.
You win that conversation every time.
Now how about they say, but I worry you'll be a dictator and jail all of my opponents.
Trump should say, have you met a Republican?
Have you met a Republican?
We're not the ones who want to put people in jail for no reason.
That's strictly the Democrats.
And the Democrats are doing it because they can't beat us on arguments.
We can win on arguments.
And if I win this election, I will have won it on arguments, despite them trying to put me in jail.
I'm not going to put people in jail for no reason.
There's no Republican who's in favor of that.
And I work for them.
Well, I work for the voters.
There's no voters in favor of it.
The only reason people were in favor of me being law-fared is that the media told you I was a monster.
They told you I was Hiller.
Do you think I'm Hiller?
It's really hard to look in somebody's eyes Who's being nice to you and went to your home and is genuinely interested in your opinion and wants your child to live more than you do?
It's hard to call that person Hitler.
Right?
So, that's my suggestion.
Mr. Trump, sit in the living room of some very frightened Democrats.
Not regular Democrats.
You have to specifically filter for frightened.
I mean, seriously frightened.
And just see what happens.
Sit in the room.
All right, it would be risky because it could go off the rails, I suppose.
It would depend on how many people were in the room.
If you held it to like a group of five to eight, Trump would totally control the room.
If you put him in a room with, you know, like a small audience, then it could get out of control.
But it needs to be personal.
That's why it has to be around a table or on a couch.
It can't be a stage and an audience because that's too much distance.
All right, it's time to start talking about how big the Trump landslide will be.
And I think if you're worried that Republicans won't be activated to vote because they think Trump might win, I don't think that's the way it's going to go.
Because I think we all know that if Trump doesn't win in a landslide, he won't have the authority to do the things he wants to do.
So if you want anything to get done, it's got to be a landslide.
Would you agree with that statement?
There's almost no point in getting him narrowly elected.
If he's narrowly elected, we're right back to where we were with nothing gets done.
He's got to just crush.
So your reason to vote, even if he's way ahead in the poll, is insanely high.
Like, your interest in voting should be twofold.
He's got to get a landslide of epic proportions to be any use to anybody.
Right?
You want to stop the war in Ukraine?
You don't get that with a close vote.
You don't get that.
You want to close the border?
Well, he might be able to do that with a close vote, but it's going to be hard.
Right?
So he's going to have to be coming in with a little weight, or there's just no point in it.
Because he brings so much trouble with him.
That if he's not bringing big solutions at the same time, you net negative.
He's an expensive president.
I say that often.
He's expensive.
Because he gets people all excited in bad ways, etc.
He's only worth it if you also get big wins.
And he needs a landslide to get the big wins.
Or it'll help.
So there are two reasons to vote for him, even if it looks like he's going to win.
One is, it's going to be fun as hell.
Do you remember 2016, election night?
Do you remember how you felt?
Yeah.
That's how you want to feel again.
Chase that feeling.
This is the dopamine filter I talk about.
People will chase dopamine even more than they will chase money.
And if you're a Republican, you know how it will feel.
If it's not just a win, but a crushing landslide defeat.
Because you're worried about the slippery slope.
And I say to you, you ladies and gentlemen are the slippery slope killers.
There is a slippery slope forever until you stop it.
So that's your job.
Your job is to stop it and you have all the tools you need, but you got to stop it hard.
You know, don't, don't barely stop it.
You want to crush it in terms of a landslide victory.
All right, let's talk about Stormy Daniels and Trump.
Stormy, uh, she testified again and, uh, this time she made the surprising claim on the stand that she's a medium.
Hmm.
Well, When she was working in porn, she was a size zero, but now she's a medium.
And I blame processed foods for that.
Next story.
I came up with a new nickname for Biden.
I want to see if it sticks.
You ready for this?
Give me, give me your flash opinion.
New nickname for Biden.
President Small Candy.
President Small Candy.
One word.
Small Candy.
What do you think?
Because it's the only thing he can competently talk about.
That his candy's too small.
I think that should be his nickname, because it's basically his brand.
Mr. President, what do you think about the migrants flowing across the border?
It's Trump's fault, and my candy's too small.
Mr. Biden, what can we do about China?
Well, I don't know about China, but candy's too small.
Let them have Taiwan if they can fix my candy.
Yep.
President's small candy.
Rasmussen did a poll on media coverage and what percentage of people think the national news is doing a good or excellent job?
You already know.
It's about a quarter.
It's 28% actually, so a little higher than a quarter.
But yes, as we often say, a quarter of the respondents to any poll will have the dumbest answer.
And the dumbest answer is that the national news is doing a good or excellent job.
How in the world could you have that opinion?
How could you be alive and functioning and able to feed yourself and, you know, clean yourself, and you haven't noticed?
That the national media is not getting it done?
No?
Nothing?
All right.
Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the conclusion of my prepared comments.
For, again, the best livestream you've ever seen, except for that part about the slippery slope and doing your own research, which really bothers you, and you're going to be thinking about it all night, and eventually you'll come around to my way of thinking, but not before there's a lot of mental pain.
But good luck with that.
And in the meantime, I'm going to say goodbye to the platforms of YouTube and X and Rumble.
We're going to talk to the locals people privately, and thanks for joining.
