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, Sam Altman, Oklo Nuclear Energy, AI Personalities, RFK Jr. Abortion Policy, Trump Capitulation Phase, Canadian Hate Crime Law, Brainwashing Benefits, California Homeless Spending, Electric Vehicle Tariffs, President Trump, Crime Stat Scam, Eric Swalwell, Alameda County DA, Claire Woodall Removal, Operation Mongoose, Lyme Disease Origin, Migrant Voters, President Bill Clinton, Michael Cohen, Progressive Democrats, 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
I like to think I'm the worm that you want in your brain.
That's right.
I'm the worm you want in your brain.
And if you'd like to take that experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny human craniums, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker chalices, and a canteen jugger flask of a vessel of any kind.
That's my auctioneer voice.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Going once, going twice, going three times.
Go.
So, so good.
Bye.
The trolls are here, but they shall be ignored.
Well, if you are subscribing to the Dilbert comic that you can only see if you subscribe while you're on the X platform, see my profile for the link, or if you're on scottadams.locals.com where you get that plus a lot more, a lot more.
You would know that Dilbert is exploring his love languages with his girlfriend.
She says her love language is gifts.
He says his love language is touch.
And so they've agreed that prostitution, collectively, is their love language.
She'll get gifts, he gets touch.
Well, you do the math.
It's funnier if you see the pictures.
Well, last night was the Aurora Boring Always, because I kept looking outside to see it, and it wasn't there.
So it was Aurora Boring Always.
But thankfully, it was not Boring completely, because I got to spend a few hours yesterday looking at posts on X telling me that the aurora borealis caused by the magnetic field from the sun might be destroying all of humanity sometime yesterday.
So, at least I got to worry about dying for a while.
But after the worrying about dying started to wear off, I just started looking for the aurora boring always.
And it wasn't there where I live.
Well, in a new shocking, shocking study over many years, obesity is now linked to 32 types of cancer and might be fueling 40% of cases.
I think Grace Price, in her book, saying something similar.
How many of you were not aware that That weight probably had something to do with your overall health.
It doesn't feel like it's new, but maybe it's new for somebody that they should avoid obesity.
Well, the Bumble site that had been for, let's see, that's where women were going to ask guys out on dates.
So Bumble was all about the woman making the first move.
But they reversed that, but that's not the story.
The story is that the Bumble founder, Whitney Wolf Hurd.
Really?
That's her name?
She's got three names?
Whitney Wolf Hurd.
Her last name is Wolf Hurd.
Oh my god.
I don't think I've ever heard a cooler name.
Wolf Hurd.
Cool.
Anyway, she thinks the future of dating is that we'll all have an AI of ourselves and then our AIs will go date each other.
And if the AIs get along, then that might be a good sign that the humans would date and the AIs would introduce you.
I think she's right.
A few people have said that they, uh, I think, uh, Bri AI and some others said, I thought we thought of that idea a while ago.
Maybe they did, but it looks like other people are thinking about it, too.
I would like to queue up the NPCs.
All right.
NPCs are the people who will say the most obvious thing that you say to any statement.
I'm going to tell you about some new science, and then we're going to identify the NPCs who will appear immediately in the comments.
All right?
And you know what I'm looking for, probably, but here it comes.
Scientists have discovered a new molecule that absorbs greenhouse gases.
So they can make stuff out of it and it would just absorb the greenhouse gases right out of the air.
Go!
NPCs!
Go!
I just told you that there's a technology to remove CO2 from the air.
Go!
Come on.
You know.
Go!
You know.
You know what you're gonna say.
You're going to say that the plants are going to die because CO2 is plant food.
Right?
Oh, okay.
Then the other NPC thing is to say, you've invented a tree.
I see you've invented a tree.
Those are the two most annoying comments you'll ever get when somebody says we're removing the CO2.
Well, that's going to destroy the entire planet because it'll take all the CO2 and then the plants will die.
Or don't you know that CO2 is plant food?
Has anybody ever mentioned that to you in your 30 years of talking about it?
Probably the first.
Hey, did you know that removing CO2 from the atmosphere is also something that a tree can do?
So it's like you spent all this money to invent a tree.
So that's what the NPCs say.
Don't be an NPC.
Well there's a giant breakthrough potentially in capacitor technology.
A capacitor you might think of as like a battery that can be charged up instantly.
Now imagine if you had an electric car and you could charge it up somewhat instantly.
The problem with capacitors in the past is that they didn't hold their charge so they weren't really batteries per se they were just capacitors.
However, there's some new technology that says they can turn their capacitor into more of a battery, which would be civilization-changing, basically.
I mean, imagine if you could charge it in a minute.
It's a completely different situation.
Well, you think to yourself that Elon Musk is the best American entrepreneur, because he did more than one company.
Microsoft is impressive, right?
I will give you the Bill Gates, Microsoft, impressive.
I will give you Steve Jobs and Apple.
Impressive.
But neither of them started two or three or four gigantic successful companies like Elon Musk did.
But here's Sam Altman, not to be left out of the conversation about the greatest, potentially, greatest entrepreneurs in America.
So on Friday, one of his companies just went public.
He's the CEO of it, I guess.
It's a nuclear fission company called Oklo, or Oklo, O-K-L-O.
Nuclear fission.
It's a public company now.
Remember, you kept saying, oh, nuclear fission is always 10 years away.
Well, you're right.
It's always 10 years away.
But at least there's a real company that's now public.
And they plan in just a few years to have their first fission nuclear power site.
Fission.
That's the good one, with no waste.
It's basically something like free energy.
So their idea is to make a small A-frame fission.
I'm sorry, it's a fission or fusion.
It's fission.
I'm sorry, not fusion.
Fusion's the good one.
So, did I read that wrong?
Nuclear fission.
Oh, you know what?
Because he's also working on fusion, so I can fuse this.
So I think separately he's got a, I'll need a fact check on this, but I think separately he's got a startup that's doing fusion.
Does anybody know that?
But the story says it's fission.
I read it as fusion because my brain wanted to see fusion.
So I correct myself.
Well, you corrected me, so I'm taking your correction.
So yes, it's fission.
But it would be very good if he could make small nuclear plants that are the size of little A-frames and put them near places.
Now here's the story I was getting to.
Sam Altman has now created The company that will use more electricity than anything ever in the history of electricity, which is AI.
AI will require so much electricity, we're going to need, I saw one estimate, of 35 times more than we have now, and fairly soon.
Well, wouldn't it be great to be creating the greatest demand ever for electricity while you are also creating one of the most economical ways to provide it?
Now that's pretty good.
If he pulls off both of these companies, you know, let's say OpenAI continues to be the Google of AIs, but also potentially this Oklo company could become the, I don't know, the Tesla of small nuclear reactors.
So he could have both.
Now if you ask me what are the two, or I'll say three, most important technologies of the future, I would say AI, nuclear for electricity, and robots.
So if he gets into the robot business too, he's probably got some investments in that too.
He's gonna have the big three.
I was asking on social media how I could package up and sell The training material that is me.
In other words, all the comics I've written, the blog posts, the videos, the books I've written, etc.
How can I package it up and say, hey, if you'd like to license this legally, you can create a bot that gives the same advice I would.
We're close to it.
And here's why.
I have a very radical hypothesis to run by you.
You know how the world runs on trust?
You really couldn't do anything without it.
You have to have a little bit of trust before you hand somebody your credit card and before they give you a product back.
So we have a trust-based society and economy.
Now, of course, we do everything we can to make sure that trust isn't the only thing, you know, that you would get, you'd go to jail if you did something wrong.
But here's my hypothesis.
That trust is something that people give to people, period.
Trust is something you only give to people.
Now you might be wrong about it, but you only give it to people.
Now you might say to me, but Scott, we trust our machines.
You know, I trust my machine will do what it's supposed to do.
I trust my printer most of the time, but those are made by people.
When you're trusting your machine, you're sort of trusting the person who made it.
So, What will happen when the AI is really gone beyond whatever was created and it becomes sort of its own entity?
Will it be possible to trust it?
So this is my provocative thought.
It might not be biologically possible to trust something that wasn't made by a human or isn't a human.
And so my question slash hypothesis is that we're not capable No matter how hard we try to trust AI.
And so, if you're going to ask for advice, you'd rather get advice from somebody who's like a person you know, than from a machine that might be doing its own thing.
So my hypothesis is that even if a general AI, let's say open AI, even if it had already absorbed all of my training, As soon as you said, hey, give me some advice, whatever I gave it would be mixed in with whatever other advice and training material it had.
It would be some kind of weird average thing.
Would you trust it?
If AI gave you some watered down average career advice, would you say, oh, I got the good stuff now?
I think not.
But now suppose you wanted to learn about investment, and you found that Warren Buffett had licensed his entire body of work and comments and everything he's ever said in his books and whatever, and you could have a Warren Buffett advisor.
It's the AI version, but it's going to use his stuff.
Would you trust it more?
I think you would.
So here's my hypothesis.
That the AIs of the future will be built around human personalities, because that's how you'll feel comfortable with them.
And that these general AIs that might have everything Warren Buffett knows, and everything I know, and everything everybody else knows, and puts it together and comes up with some general thing, it won't work.
Let me ask you this question.
Could you take, for those of you who have been following me for a while, do you think you could take the things that I say, And then average them with things other people say.
I don't think you can.
I think there are a lot of people who just sort of stick out as their body of recommendations are only compatible with their own body of recommendations.
You couldn't just throw in somebody's average thought about something.
You couldn't take my thought that the worst advice you could ever get is to be yourself.
Because if you average it, you'd average it with all the people who say that's good advice.
How do you average that?
Those are opposites.
So my point is you can't average things that are opposites or just completely unrelated.
You're better off, or you'll feel more comfortable, even if you're not better off, with something that's built around one person's personality.
And so, I asked online if there's any way to license that.
I didn't get an answer, but apparently there's a company called Delphi AI, where you can make a version of yourself.
So basically it's exactly this.
So you can turn it into a chat bot or, and I think I'm going to try it.
I have to look into it a little bit more, but, uh, I want to build a version of myself for the Dilbert.com website.
So you can always go there and ask anything you want.
You can find out when one of my comics ran.
If you want to reprint, go and say, Hey, I'm looking for a marketing comic.
And then my little bot will say, all right, I got one.
That's like this, like that.
Wouldn't that be cool?
It would tell you how to license it properly.
So I'm going to work on that.
Maybe by the end of this year would be my target for that.
Well, no big surprise, RFK Jr.
has modified his position on abortion.
How many of you saw that coming?
Because he basically took himself out of the race accidentally by saying that the woman should decide, even up to the moment of birth, whether the baby could be aborted.
Now, he's explaining now that he had been going at it with the assumption that it would, in a normal, ordinary world, The only time that would ever be an issue is if everybody was on the same page that the fetus was gonna, you know, struggle and die in an hour after birth anyway, because it's just so badly, badly deformed.
Now, how many of you believe that it would be limited to situations with badly deformed babies?
Ones that weren't going to survive, they're not viable.
How many, how many of you think it would be related, just stuck to that?
Well, here's what RFK Jr.
found out.
So he said that he just assumed it would be in these extreme cases and it would be limited to that.
But he has changed his view.
He says, let's see.
He says, sometimes women abort healthy, viable late-term fetuses.
These cases of purely elective late-term abortions are very upsetting.
Once the baby is viable outside the womb, it should have rights and it deserves the society's protection.
Now here's the key part.
So he went from, I don't think there's any case that this would be misused, you know, it's only going to be these extreme situations.
He went all the way from that to, yep, it turns out they would do it for elective reasons.
Yep.
Turns out for any reason they want, if the law would allow it.
So now he says, quote, I learned this because I was willing to listen to my family, advisors, supporters, and others who shared their perspectives.
My promise to myself and to America is that I will continue to listen and incorporate.
You know, I don't hate this at all.
I do not hate when Trump at one point said, remember he said the woman should be arrested if she does the illegal abortion.
And he quickly walked it back.
And he got a lot of heat for that.
To which I said, quickly walking back things because you got better, newer information.
That's what I want.
I don't want you to dig in.
I want you to quickly change your opinion, please.
And he did.
Well, RFK Jr.
did the same thing.
He walked right into a buzzsaw.
He had a, I guess I would call it a, uh, A little black hole in his knowledge about the real world, like what would really happen if that option is available.
And I don't think he was, I don't think his brain, because it's normal, despite the worm, I don't, it's hard for a normal brain to even wrap your head around aborting a healthy baby a minute before it was going to be born naturally.
Like your normal brain can't hold that.
But there are a lot of people who will do anything that you wouldn't do.
So the fact that you wouldn't do it is not a good standard by which to judge what other people would do.
So he switched it.
Now, I think the fact that he said it at all is going to haunt him.
And, you know, largely, I don't think he's going to get much Republican support.
So at this point, I see him entirely as a subtractor from Biden's popularity.
I think he's almost a pure subtractor of Democrats at this point.
All right.
My theme for today on the politics is that we've entered the Trump capitulation phase.
The capitulation phase.
Meaning that the people who really follow politics, the news, etc., they're pretty sure that Trump's going to win at this point.
But more to the point, they seem to be okay with it.
Suddenly.
Now, is that because of the events in Gaza?
Yes, almost certainly.
The events in Gaza have soured a lot of people on Biden, and really quickly.
So I'll give you a bunch of stories that all fall into these categories, generally speaking.
So Rasmussen has a poll of Georgia voters.
It points out that in Georgia, Trump is up seven points over Biden.
Now remember, that was a nail-biter last time.
Now he's up seven points.
Um, Ian, let's say, I'm going to call this comparison.
Whenever there's something that somebody else is doing badly, but it makes Trump look smart because he wouldn't have done it.
That's good for him.
So Australia has become sort of the poster child of the most fucked up country in the world.
So they've got censorship laws.
They've got a major bank.
that's going to go to digital currency only. They're telling you that basically you won't even be able to deal with them in anything but digital currency. It's one of Australia's biggest banks. And the Australia's e-safety commission, because apparently they have the most strict censorship of social media of anybody.
Maybe except for China, I suppose.
But Australia's e-safety commissioner is somebody named Julie Inman Grant.
I saw this on the Rabbit Hole account.
Is a former Twitter employee and associated with the World Economic Forum.
So the commissioner of their new draconian censorship laws As a World Economic Forum person and also an ex-Twitter, does that make you feel comfortable?
What could be a worse combination than that for somebody trying to protect your rights?
That would be like, well, Hitler's here to make sure that the Jews are taken care of.
It's almost a joke.
It looks like a joke.
So Australia's kind of fallen, but here's the funniest part.
Apparently it's a big problem in Australia.
That the young boys are following Andrew Tate's example and allegedly becoming, you know, misogynists and stuff.
Well, I've got a message for Australia.
Australia, if you're listening.
There are certain ways to know if you're doing well.
Tracking the GDP would be one, for example.
If you track the GDP and it's going down, For example, that would be a sign of a country on the decline.
If it's going up, things are looking good.
But there are other indicators of the health of your country.
Well, one is censorship.
The more extreme the censorship, one assumes, the worse the government.
Because if your government is killing it, they're going to want everybody to talk about it.
But if you're doing really sketchy bad things, you're going to want a little extra dose of And Australia has such a big dose of censorship that it's certainly indicating serious trouble.
But there could be no indicator more clean, more clear, more clarion than the fact that one of the biggest problems in Australian schools is that children seem to be raised by Andrew Tate.
That's right.
If Andrew Tate is raising your child, and apparently that's happening, because he seems to be the role model that the young boys are following, you're doing everything wrong.
Or at the very least, you ought to look into why this is happening.
Now, and this has nothing to do with even Andrew Tate's opinions, I'm just saying, if they're going to Andrew Tate to figure out how to be a human being, you fucking failed.
You, you can't fail harder than that.
But Australia is not the only problem.
I realized yesterday that I could not travel to Canada.
If that, I think the law has been considered, but not yet passed.
So Canada has the law that you could go to jail for a hate crime.
Something you said on social media, even if you're not Canadian and you're just visiting.
And even if you said it years ago.
So I could be arrested in Canada if that law gets passed.
I could get arrested because somebody in Canada decided that something I said in the past was hate speech.
Do you think I would ever go to Canada?
No, I wouldn't step foot in Canada.
Are you fucking kidding me?
That place is poison.
Anybody goes to Canada under those circumstances?
I mean, certainly not a public figure.
If you're a public figure, it'd be crazy.
You want me to take it further?
Sure.
I'm going to take it further.
If Trump becomes president, he should refuse to visit Canada because it's not safe.
Yeah, let that sink in.
Trump should refuse to visit Canada because it's not safe.
Because he could absolutely be arrested, you know, if that law passes.
He could absolutely be arrested for hate speech, just because somebody said it was hate speech.
They could put him in jail in Canada for his tweets from years ago.
That's a real thing.
I wish I were making that up.
Now, how about if I travel to Mexico?
Okay, don't get me started.
I'm obviously not going to fucking Mexico.
Yeah, I don't think the cartels are exactly on my team, and that means the Mexican government probably has me on everybody else on the list who's, you know, could be on the list.
So I can't go to Australia, Canada, or Mexico.
So good job government.
Meanwhile, left-leaning next government is saying that the Our government, the Biden administration, is ramping up its censorship massively.
Again, censorship of the platforms.
So their government entities are once again pecking on the platforms and saying, you know, you should take that down.
You know, maybe less of that.
You know, you should de-boost that.
So we're not as bad as Canada or Australia, but we're trying to be.
So we're doing everything we can to get rid of free speech in this country.
Now I'm going to throw you a curveball.
Given my comments of the last two minutes, you'd say to yourself, that Scott is definitely in favor of free speech.
Wouldn't you?
And I guess I am.
I guess I'm in favor of free speech.
But let me suggest Something just so I can steel man the other side, just so you've heard it.
You don't have to agree with it.
I just want you to hear the other argument, which you've never heard before.
Have you ever heard an argument against freedom of speech that actually made sense?
The other arguments are like, oh, you can't use freedom of speech because you'll say the wrong thing.
That's one argument.
It's not my argument.
It's not mine.
I think you should be allowed to say the wrong thing because nobody knows what is the right thing.
So I think we're definitely on the same page with all of you, I'm pretty sure, that free speech, yeah, we need free speech.
Now, I'm going to argue against it.
This will be the strongest argument you've ever heard against free speech.
You ready?
The only thing that makes a country is a belief in a common set of lies.
The only thing that makes a country a country, besides real estate, I mean real estate matters too, the only thing that makes a country a country is that you believe a common set of lies.
Now when I say lies, it's usually in terms of how awesome your country is, and how bad the other people are, and their system isn't good, and we were always virtuous, and we certainly did a good job of those Native Americans.
Hey, they got casinos!
I mean, you didn't get a casino, so we're not the bad guys with our poison blankets or anything.
No, no, no.
We're the casino-giving people.
And we have wars because we're just and moral and good.
Now, I mean this literally.
You cannot have a cohesive country unless you've brainwashed the country with a common set of lies.
Because the truth almost never works when you're trying to create a country.
Because there are too many dark holes in your own past.
You're not so pure and virtuous that you could make somebody salute you.
Imagine if you tried to get school kids to stand for the flag and pledge allegiance to the country if they had heard that we have a history of doing some bad things.
Doesn't work.
The only way you can get kids to be good citizens is to tell them that they're good citizens of a good thing.
And that requires a complete lack of freedom of speech.
Now, it wasn't a problem before, because we didn't notice it.
Because the textbook manufacturers were all the kids saw.
They weren't reading the newspaper, they weren't on social media, they weren't on TikTok.
So as long as the textbook manufacturers were willing to tell the story of how awesome America was, it would be easy to get the kids to stand up and put their hand over their heart and pledge allegiance to it.
But as soon as you've got TikTok, now you've got an alternate narrative for Israel and an alternate narrative for our support of Israel.
And a country cannot survive that.
A country can't survive enough competing narratives, because then you're not one person.
The country has to have some common set of lies.
Now, I call them lies, which is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much.
Because there could be, you know, common set of true things as well.
Oh, you accomplished this, or you did that, this or that.
But mostly, you have to lie to the public to get them under control.
So we have an interesting situation where I'm unambiguously in favor of free speech.
At the same time, I don't see any way that you could have a country in the long term if you allow it.
And that might be what drives Canada and Australia.
It might be purely practical that they know they actually have to brainwash their citizens to remain a country.
That might be a thing.
Now, the cost of that, of course, is complete fascism.
It's a complete disaster.
But it might be what motivates them.
Now, by the way, have you ever heard that argument before?
You can't have a country unless you all believe the same lies.
And free speech would eliminate your ability to keep your country together.
I'm going to give you a quote from somebody who's a lot more experienced than I am.
Who's going to largely agree with this?
Hold on, hold on for that.
Well, every time you see a story on censorship, that seems good for Trump, because Trump's against censorship.
In California, the incompetence is running wild, which is also good for Trump, because it's a blue state and, you know, it's a nuisance.
But apparently California Democrats have turned on their Democrat governor Because there was this homeless council that can't account for $20 billion in spending to solve homelessness, which made no difference whatsoever.
Let me say it again.
Democrats have turned on their Democrat leader because they can't find $20 billion that was supposed to help homelessness and made no difference.
Do you think that The adults within the Democrat Party might start to emerge.
Because I think they've been hiding.
If you were a Democrat, I think you just had to hide.
Didn't you?
So there's that going on.
But not to be outdone, San Francisco has a new program They'll have nurses go to the homeless encampments to give away wine, beer, and vodka shots to alcoholics.
Now, it would be carefully monitored, so it's not too much, but the nurses would actually be doing bottle service to the homeless.
Now, let me see.
Would this be another example of Democrats not understanding how anything in the real world works?
Now, I understand the concept.
The concept is, you know, that if you're actually an alcoholic, if you don't have one every day, and you're not going to get help somewhere, and they're not, you know, at least you can keep them alive by giving them a little alcohol.
Now, that might be the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.
I mean, I get the thinking behind it, but yeah, the incentive system is completely broken.
Probably, you need to push these people till they either die or fix themselves.
I don't know that letting them struggle on, you know, drunk on the sidewalk, or at least inebriated a little bit, I don't know that that's going to help.
And I'd like to also give you a second insight into this.
I'm not an addict, but I know people who are, and so I've talked to them.
Let me explain how this program will work.
The alcoholic will say, I'd like to sign up, and I will agree that I will only have the alcohol That you provide.
And then the nurse will come along and say, here's a shot of vodka.
And your alcoholic will say, thank you.
And when the nurse walks out, they'll reach behind them and they'll take out the bottle of the extra vodka.
And then they will drink that.
Because the whole point of the nurse administered alcohol is that they would limit the amount.
The whole point of being an alcoholic is not limiting your amount.
No, there is no chance this is going to work.
There is no chance this is going to work.
There's zero chance.
Zero.
In a few months, when they cancel this program, do you know what I'm going to say?
Should have asked Scott.
Could have saved a lot of money.
Could have asked any one of you, and it would have been the same answer.
So that's all good for Trump, because the more stupid things Democrats do, the better he looks.
The better Republicans look.
Here's another one.
So the Financial Times is saying that the U.S.
is going to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.
A tariff on Chinese imports.
Isn't that what Trump does?
That everybody said was the worst idea, because tariffs never work?
Yes, that's exactly a Trump policy.
Now, apparently this will not make those Chinese electric vehicles much more expensive than American ones, because they're half the price.
So they would come in at half the price, but then the tariff would knock it up to a competitive price with American cars.
Now, that makes sense because I'm guessing the Chinese government would be subsidizing the cars, which is why they would be so cheap.
So the Biden administration would simply be taking their subsidy away.
Indirectly, I guess.
And so it makes sense.
If Trump did this, would I say it's a good idea?
Yes, I would.
Yes, I would.
So I'm going to say it's a good idea if Biden does it.
However, I don't think voters are going to miss the fact that this is a Trump policy and Biden is forced to be more like Trump.
And as I've told you many times, every day that Trump is out of office, he will look better in hindsight.
And part of that is because the weird TDS will start to wear off and you'll just start talking about what happened.
If the TDS wears off and you just talk about what happened, he looks pretty good.
And that's what's happening now.
The Amuse account tells us that the FBI's crime stats show crime is plummeting.
Well, in reality, it's skyrocketing.
That's the amused take on it.
And he says, why?
He says cities like New York City aren't reporting crime stats anymore.
I guess that means they're not reporting it to the FBI.
So I guess that's because they don't want to look bad because their crime is up.
So every time the, the, uh, the, one of the best things that could happen for Republicans is for every Democrat who's going to vote, To be fully aware that crime has gone up while their own party says it's going down and therefore doesn't need to be addressed.
And Trump would be coming in and other Republicans saying, um, we need to do something about this crime.
Now you want to hear the most surprising thing in the world?
Yes, you do.
Yes, you do.
My representative is Eric Swalwell.
You all know Eric Swalwell, right?
Eric Swalwell can't find the right side of an issue if it was his ass and he used both hands or something like that.
There's some kind of saying like that.
He said on social media that the DAs in my area were too liberal and soft on crime.
Eric Swalwell just went after a Soros DA in his own area We're being soft on crime.
And I was forced to repost Eric Swalwell publicly and agree with him.
Now, can you show me some sympathy?
Show me some sympathy, please.
I did that for you.
It wasn't easy.
Oh, no.
My hand was trembling as I pushed the button.
Oh, don't make me retreat, Eric Swalwell.
He's saying something that's totally obvious and true and makes sense.
No!
So, shout out to Eric Swalwell.
While we might have many differences on other issues, I gotta say, I do appreciate him turning on the soft-on-crime prosecutor.
Thank you.
But of course, that's all good for Trump as well.
Did you know this story?
There's a story about Wisconsin voter fraud.
I don't know.
I hadn't seen this before, but here's a claim.
So I guess I'm going to say people are claiming this.
Do your own research.
That's a joke.
Somebody named Claire Woodall Vogue or Vogue.
She was a Milwaukee elections director and she was replaced just six months before presidential election.
I think that means this coming election?
Not the one before?
I'm not sure.
The reason is that she's allegedly printed 64,000 ballots in the back room at City Hall in Milwaukee and then had a bunch of employees fill them out in the 2020 election.
Biden won Wisconsin over Trump by a margin of 21,000 votes, and she is alleged to have rigged 64,000 votes.
Now, there's something missing in this story, isn't there?
How could all of this be true?
Every time you hear one of these, oh, we got you now stories, you know, where, wow, we found out where all the corruption was.
It's never exactly the first impression you get, is it?
So I'm having a little trouble believing there's not some context left out of this one.
But let's say this.
Do you think that there was an individual who printed 64,000 fake ballots and had them filled out?
Do you think the basic claim is true?
And if it is true, would that not indicate That somebody whose job was Milwaukee election director, would that not indicate that that person believed that they could get away with it?
Right?
You wouldn't do it unless you believed you could get away with it.
And she was the director of the Milwaukee election thing.
So she would know the most about what could be caught, what could be audited, what's being watched.
And she didn't have a problem having a whole bunch of witnesses, random employees, fill out 64,000 ballots?
I'm gonna say I don't believe the story.
Smells fishy?
I'm gonna say I don't believe the story.
Let's wait for a context on this one, okay?
Yeah, there's something about this that doesn't make sense.
How bad is our government?
Well, Dr. Carlson had the author Chris Nubian Who says there's a story about that she was told by a CIA black ops person about Operation Mongoose, where they poisoned ticks and dropped them on Cuban sugar cane workers to kill them or poison them.
And she describes how fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes were manipulated to carry more dangerous pathogens.
And, uh, And there's some question about whether Lyme disease occurred naturally, or it's the result of the government trying to weaponize bugs.
Now, again, I don't know what's true about this story.
This one is short of being completely credible.
It's within the realm of possibility.
But I'd need to hear maybe some other sides to this.
You know, she heard it from a CIA black ops person.
I feel like there's a lot of people who claim they used to work for the CIA and make up shit.
That's like a whole industry, isn't it?
People who say they used to be in the CIA and that's why you should trust them.
I feel like a guy who says he was in the CIA told me something once is not really a standard of evidence that I could respect.
So I'd say wait on that one.
But anything's possible.
I'm not going to rule it out.
But I'd say if you put a gun to my head, maybe they did some research in that area, but I feel like the whole story is probably not completely true.
Joe Biden had another gaffe that wasn't a gaffe.
He called the 20 million illegal people who came into the country, he called them Hispanic voters.
People on the right have been accusing him, and Elon Musk says this as well, that the reason for the immigration is to increase the number of Democrat voters.
He just said it.
He said it in direct language, which they're going to try to sell as a gaffe.
Oh, he misspoke.
I don't think he misspoke.
I think he was bringing in 20 million voters.
I think he meant exactly what he said.
He didn't mean to say it out loud, but I think it was what was in his head.
And now my favorite story of the day.
I don't know if I've ever told you that I'm a Bill Clinton fan.
Have I ever said that?
I think he was one of our best presidents.
Sorry.
You might hate that.
I think Hillary would have been a disaster.
But Bill Clinton was pretty close to being a Republican.
He just wore a Democrat suit.
And so the way I saw him was the ultimate triangulator.
I saw him as a dealmaker, excellent communicator.
All right.
So I'm going to read a quote from him.
He was just at some event.
And I want you to remember, if those of you remember, what it was you liked about him, even if you were, even if you were Republican.
There was probably something you liked about him, and it wasn't just Monica Lewinsky, all right?
So just listen to what he has to say, and just be uncritical.
Just listen to it, okay?
Bill Clinton, just maybe yesterday, quote, anytime you spend all your time trying to settle past grievances or focus on our differences, you're in trouble.
We've gone through a period when the political rewards of grievance-based politics have been so immense that no one was able to give them up.
The big political benefits have come from divisive tribalism, but it is a potential endless disaster.
Bill Clinton just said in public, as loudly as he could, yeah, you could accuse him of NAFTA, that's fair, he just said in public, as loudly as he could, that all the wokeness and the DEI and the CRT will destroy America.
That's why I liked him.
Because this opinion is exactly right, it's well expressed, and he didn't give a fuck what you thought about it.
Apparently.
Because he basically just disagreed with his wife, as far as I can tell.
Now, and, you know, I get what you're saying about NAFTA, if you don't like that.
I don't think it was a terrible idea, but maybe it didn't work out the way you hoped it would.
NAFTA would have been better if our manufacturer had gone there instead of China, I suppose.
So it wasn't a terrible idea, but you could argue it didn't work out.
So I think that this signifies a change.
I believe that the Democrats, who are not the crazy ones, and Bill Clinton is not a crazy one.
He's definitely not a crazy one.
And when he tells you that your entire scenario isn't working, he's agreeing a little bit with What's his name?
Carville.
You saw that James Carville did another crazed, maybe drunken video in which what he said was, effectively, I'm paraphrasing him, the lies that we've been telling aren't getting it done anymore.
Our lies aren't working.
Now that's my paraphrase.
Those are not his words, but he effectively said everything we're telling voters isn't working.
And that's because everything they told voters wasn't true and it didn't work.
So now James Carville is saying everything you're doing is not working.
He's not saying it's the wokeness and the divisiveness, but he is saying it.
Right?
He's not saying it, but he is saying it.
Bill Clinton said it directly.
As soon as you go tribal and racial and CRT and DEI, you're doomed.
You're doomed.
That's, you know, I mean, that's my word, but he said it.
Effectively, you know, different words.
So, I see this as the signal of all signals that the Democrats realize that they're destroying the country, and I think the Gaza anti-Semitic, you know, uprising, etc., has really maybe brought some religion to the normal Democrats.
I think the normal Democrats are getting ready to break ranks, and are.
It looks like they are.
So, I mean, look at, put it all together, like Swalwell coming, coming out against Soros DA, Bill Clinton saying the entire program that they've been running is disaster.
Not just a bad idea.
We'll destroy the country.
We'll destroy the country.
That's a big statement.
And he's completely right.
And he's observing it in real time.
So you're seeing a lot of people who are starting to.
Back away from what I would call the TDS position.
Oh, but there's more.
I'm just beginning.
CNN and MSNBC panelists, they're all calling the Stormy disaster trial disastrous.
I guess Stormy said that she hates Trump, which is the worst thing you'd want to hear from your witness.
She said she might defy the court order to pay Trump, which is not what you want to hear if you're in the court.
So, um, I think it was Eli Koenig or somebody on CNN was just saying just the whole thing's a disaster.
And you're also seeing, um, oh, then CNN also reported today or yesterday that Trump is in better shape than Biden withholding his base.
In other words, Trump is going to retain a higher percentage of past Trump voters than Biden will retain.
Pretty big difference.
So you're seeing that the news is very much swaying.
Toward even CNN and MSNBC capitulating.
Now, capitulating means you're giving up on your own argument, basically.
And their argument had been that Trump is too scary.
Bill Clinton just told you that the anti-Trump approach is going to destroy the country.
It gets better.
Fareed Zakaria from CNN said that Trump's border policy was the correct one, and it's what Biden should go back to.
Unambiguously, without reservations, Trump's policy on the border was the good one, and Biden needs to go back to it.
Fareed Zakaria, CNN.
This is all happening in the same week.
Gets better.
Bill Maggio, Last night had a big monologue in which he said that the news is scaring us too much, and not only were the college protests, you know, probably not going to destroy the country, but that if Trump becomes president, it will probably just be normal, and you should not be that afraid of Trump.
He's very much against Trump, doesn't want to be president, but he wants you to know, his viewers, many Democrats, That Trump is not to be afraid of.
That you're falling for the media scare.
See the pattern?
The pattern is really clear now.
There is complete capitulation.
The Democrats are just trying, the non-crazy ones, they're trying to find a safe space.
Because they don't want to be on the side of the pro-Palestinian protesters.
And they don't want to be dealing from fear alone.
And they do want some things to be fixed that Trump is the better one to fix.
So you can see the non-crazy people trying to find the high ground now.
And I appreciate it.
Appreciate it a lot.
Let's see.
Also, you said that... I guess he was talking about Stormy.
I've never seen a witness...
Oh, we're talking about Cohen.
So Cohen's gonna come in.
He might be there now.
Is Michael Cohen testifying today?
But whenever he comes in, Eli Koenig from CNN said, quote, I've never seen a witness who's lied to Congress, who's lied to courts, who's lied to the IRS, who's lied to the Southern District of New York, who's lied to his banker.
This is CNN saying that the prime witness against Trump It's such a big liar that even Trump looks like honest.
So there.
So let, let me, let me say this.
If I were in charge of the simulation and I were the author, I would make sure that if I wrote the story, that the two key witnesses against Trump and the stormy trial would be number one, a porn star.
And then the other one, Michael Cohen, would be a gigantic dick.
And that the two of them would screw the Biden campaign while Trump watched.
So that's how I'd write it.
And apparently that's exactly what's happening.
Also, FiveThirtyEight and RC Politics are reporting that Biden has the lowest approval in history at this day of his term.
Biden has the lowest rating in history.
Let me clarify, not the lowest rating just that Joe Biden has had.
Not the lowest rating compared to Trump.
Not the lowest rating compared to recent presidents.
The lowest rating of all time.
For any president at this day in their term, it's a record in history, you know, since they've been keeping records.
So that happened.
And now the polls are showing Biden losing to Trump by the largest margin in every battleground state.
That's happening.
And then over at MSNBC, the panel appeared shocked to learn that more independent voters believe that Joe Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump.
MSNBC aired on their show, The News, that according to a poll, independents believe Joe Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump.
And it wasn't that close.
3 to 42.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Well, well, well.
It's a long story.
I'm going to go ahead and end it here.
And then, again, Bill Maher is talking about all the things that are going wrong with the lawfare.
So, Bill Maher is telling people to stop having magical thinking about lawfare.
He's basically calling, he's calling it.
So Mara's saying, it's not going to be lawfare.
He's going to be your guy.
So he runs through it.
He's like, Fonny Wills is in trouble for her affair.
Now that's being, you know, she might be taken off the case, but that's going to delay it at least.
Stolen documents one.
He says that's never going to happen.
That's delayed forever.
Stormy Daniels is the world's worst witness.
Um, And he even went so far as to debunk Stormy Daniels, because on his own show in 2018, she made a big deal about saying she was not MeToo'd, it was all voluntary.
But as Bill Maher points out, as soon as she got in the witness stand, she started saying things like, well, he was big, and there was a power imbalance, and he was blocking the exit.
And even Bill Maher is calling her out for bullshit.
It's like, you're a porn star.
No, you didn't black out.
So, what would be a sign of desperation from the Democrats?
If there's so much capitulation, is there anybody still holding on?
Well, Axios has a story today.
So Axios, very Democrat-leaning entity at the moment, says Nikki Haley is under active consideration by Donald Trump's campaign, according to two people familiar with the dynamic.
Do you think that's true?
Come on, Axios.
The best you could come up with is anonymous sources that Donald Trump is considering the worst possible choice for a VP running mate?
No, he's not.
I'm sorry.
I don't care what two sources told you.
No, Trump is not considering Nikki Haley as a running mate.
If there's one thing I can be completely sure of, that's not going to happen.
But they reported it.
Why did they have to report it?
It's all they got.
They didn't have any bad news about Trump.
The lawfare thing has been so awesome because not only does it put Trump in a situation that makes him, you know, gives you some empathy, but it also prevents him from talking so much.
And the thing that gets Trump in trouble is that he says something normal, but it's easy to take out of context.
So that's all of his trouble is stuff taken out of context.
All right.
And my final story, the former chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, General Mark Milley, he was talking about the Israel-Hamas war and he said, he was comparing the number of October 7th deaths to their population and then relating it to the United States.
He said, if you take 1,200 Israelis and apply it to the United States, that'd be the equivalent of 50 to 100,000 people dead in the morning.
Can you imagine what we would do?
And so I tried to imagine that.
50 to 100,000 Americans killed by some other entity.
What would we do?
And my answer was nothing.
We would do nothing.
Because that's fentanyl.
You just described fentanyl.
Now, it doesn't happen in the morning.
And it wasn't exploding.
But China and Mexican cartels kill 50 to 100,000 people a year.
Not in the morning, but in the year.
And what do we do about it?
Absolutely nothing.
I mean, nothing that matters.
So, yes, Mark Milley, I do imagine that a foreign entity could kill 50 to 100,000 Americans and that absolutely fucking nothing would be done about it.
Nothing useful, anyway.
Yeah.
Now, I will agree with him if it happened in one morning, we'd go militaristic right away.
But no, it's not because 50 to 100,000 people died.
It would just be because, oh, it happened in one morning.
And then we'd get all activated.
So he's right about that.
However, he's not right on a logical, ethical, moral level.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is my theme for today.
Do you see it in the news?
Does it seem to you that there is Trump capitulation?
Here's what I would look for.
Look for more evidence of people saying what Bill Maher said.
Which is, well, to be honest, a second Trump presidency probably wouldn't kill anybody.
I think you're going to watch the Democrats back down from full TDS, but I think you might also see them have to reject their progressive side of their base.
I think the Democrats are going to have a civil war, and that the Republicans are all going to come home.
Republicans.
Are coming home.
This is one of those things that I laugh about because I'll hear people who maybe have never talked to a Republican in their life say, Oh, it's going to be all these people who won't, won't vote for Trump because they were never Trumpers.
And you don't understand anything.
No, no, the Republicans are all coming home.
The Republicans just watched.
A Republican tried to be put in jail.
1,200 or what?
2,000 January 6th people put in jail?
No, there's no Republican who's going to stand for that.
All Republicans are coming home.
This will be the greatest percentage of Republican voters of all time.
Because they're coming home.
They're not voting.
They're coming home to take care of business.
What do Republicans do well?
Well, they're flexible.
Until they're not.
It's the difference between wanting and deciding.
We're very close.
I don't think we've reached deciding.
We're still wanting.
But I think that on election day, Republicans are going to say, we've decided.
And all they have to do is show up.
Right?
It's not magic.
They just have to show up.
We've decided.
And I think that's what's happening.
And I think that the Democrats completely don't understand That when it's time to come home, Republicans come home.
And when it's time to argue, they argue.
And the time to argue has ended, and the time to come home is upon us.
So, it's going to be amazing.
And that's my message for you today.
Have a terrific Saturday.
I hope you were not bored by the Aurora Boring always.
I didn't get to see it.
I hope you did.
And I'm going to talk to the locals people a little bit extra, because they're special.
