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, Cognitive Decline, NPR Subsidies, CNBC Economist, ChatGPT Independent Actions, Ivy League College Graduates, President Biden, Election Outcome Priming, Political Prisoner Peter Navarro, Rumble Studio, Rigged NY Trump Trial, Alan Dershowitz, KJP Capitulation Face, Biden Becomes Trump, Bird Flu Mandates, President Trump, Men Abandoning Democrats, BSCW Democrats, Abortion, UK Censorship, Israel Weapons Delay, Ukraine Funding Embezzlement, 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
So just close and reopen your locals if you don't have video.
There it is!
Video just popped up.
Just took a moment.
If you'd like to take this experience up to a level that nobody can really even understand with their tiny human brains, all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tanker, chalicestine, a canteen jug, a flask, a basil, of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day thing.
It makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous epitaph.
What happens now?
Go.
Ah, so, so good.
Well, I was asked to talk again about a trick for getting out of your own head.
We've talked about how ruminating about your problems is bad for you, and there's some research on that that suggests that the less you think about your problems, the better, unless it's something you need to solve.
If it's just something in your past, it's probably not going to help you to think about it too much.
Here's the trick, and I've been practicing this at home.
Every now and then I will get too far inside my head, like everybody else, and I found that I can instantly get out of my head With two words.
Get out!
So I treat myself like I'm two people.
Or that I'm one person who lives in two different worlds.
If you think about this, this is really true.
Don't you live in two worlds?
One of the worlds is your memory and imagination.
And if you're just sitting alone with no stimulus from the outside, you retreat into the imaginary world.
And the imaginary world can sometimes loop you into bad thoughts and make them worse.
So as soon as I realize I've been sucked into the internal world, and I figure it out, I just yell, get out, get out!
And I can immediately take myself into the physical world again.
And in the physical world, I don't have any memories.
Look, there's a dog.
There's a tree.
It's warm outside.
Hey, I'm alive.
My body feels good.
I've got some chores to do.
I've got some things to accomplish.
And suddenly, you can make all of that internal world go away.
So here's the advice.
And I want to hear back from you how many of you try it and it works.
I guarantee it'll work, by the way.
Just tell yourself that you have two worlds.
And that they're separate.
One is the internal imaginary world that's not real.
And the other is the real world.
And every time you get dragged into the unreal world of your inner thoughts, just yell, get out, get out and get up and start moving and touching the real world.
Walk outside, literally get out of your chair.
Just say, get out, get out, stand up, walk directly to your door, walk out the door and stand in the sun.
Or the cold, or the rain, whatever.
Just get out.
Just get out of your head.
Now, try that.
Now, the thing that I'm adding is the two phrases, or the two words, that you can use as a key.
Hypnotists call that a key.
A key would be anything that triggers another thing, right?
So if you can always think of those two words, get out, and that makes you physically move, the next time you need it, the two words will be linked to your physical movement.
You'll say, get out, and you'll just stand up.
It will happen automatically.
So tie the activity to the words, and then the words became a tool that will always help you.
When you can't get there on your own, just use the tool.
Oh, just say the two words.
Get out!
Boom.
That'll change your life.
All right, there's another study.
This should be no surprise.
Exercise has more health benefits than even you knew, and you knew there were lots of them.
So it strengthens your heart, improves your mood, reduces your risk for depression, chronic disease, brain disorders such as Alzheimer's.
But in particular, weightlifting seems to be especially good in boosting brain function and slowing cognitive decline.
Did you ever wonder why musicians can have a string of hits in their 20s And then they can't do it in their 60s.
Have you ever noticed that?
And you think, well, why is that?
Shouldn't you get better and better?
But by the time you're 70, if you've been making music every day, like Paul McCartney, shouldn't you be making your greatest masterpieces when you've reached your greatest level of experience?
But it doesn't seem that way.
Now, but I'm having the opposite experience.
In my experience, it's getting easier and easier to cartoon, and let me tell you what I've done in the past 12 months.
Now my age is, I'll be 67 in June, right?
So there was one point in my life that I couldn't even imagine that I would still be working over the age of 65.
It was just unimaginable.
But, I'm at my ideal body weight, Because I exercise.
And I lift.
I do a lot of lifting.
You know, I move my weights, actually, into my man cave, so that I... It's just always there.
You know, if I want to lift, I don't have to plan anything.
I just walk over and pick something up.
So, after a lifetime of using weight training, did my brain get any benefits from that?
In other words, when I look at Paul McCartney, I say to myself, Okay, you're a good body weight, but I don't think you're lifting.
Did you ever have that thought?
You see a musician?
You look at... What's his name?
Mick Jagger.
Look at Mick Jagger, and you've seen the videos of him dancing at age 80, and you're like, oh my goodness, his cardio is amazing!
But then you look at his arms.
He's got little noodle arms.
Part of the reason he can still dance is he weighs 65 pounds.
So, and then you listen to the music that the Stones are making, and I hate to be unkind because they're one of my favorite groups of all time, but they're not making good music.
I don't know if you've noticed, but their latest album is honestly a little embarrassing.
They shouldn't have done it.
And so then I look at my own production.
All right.
So here are my numbers.
For what I've produced in the last 12 months.
This is rough.
And I want you to see if you can guess the number before I tell you the number.
Right?
So I've done this with my man cave people, they've already guessed.
But the rest of you, how many comics do you think I've made in the last 12 months?
Give me the quickest answer off the top of your head.
How many brand new comics have I created in the past 12 months?
The answer is...
730.
Because I do the Dilbert comic every day, that's 365.
And I also do the Robots Read News comic basically every day.
So that's 2 times 365.
So I produced 730 pieces of art this year.
I also do the Robots Read News comic basically every day.
So that's 2 times 365.
So I produced 730 pieces of art this year.
And in my opinion, they're as good as my best work.
Now some of it is because I'm free now, so I can do some topics that are more fun.
Now let me ask you, those of you who are still watching Dilbert on subscription, is it accurate that it's still good?
You can tell me if it's losing a step.
So you can look at the comments and make your own judgment.
All right, how many jokes did I write in the last 12 months?
How many jokes did I write in the last 12 months?
Take a guess.
I don't know the real number, but it's around 3,000 in 12 months.
3,000.
The reason is that between the two comics, there are usually at least four jokes.
Dilver is usually one joke, and then Robots Read News, which is usually about the headlines.
Only the subscribers see that.
You'd have to be a subscriber on the locals' platform to see it.
But I often have four jokes in one comic, because there are the people reading the news, then there's the chyron, and there's separate jokes.
So it's like five jokes a day, just for the comics.
But then I go on to the X platform and usually write three, four, five different jokes.
And then I go into the man cave and I might have three or four more jokes.
So over the course of the year, I've written something like 3,000 jokes.
Now I also got cancelled about a year ago, so I had to go into hyperdrive to rebuild my entire business.
So I rebuilt my entire business model, republished, you know, built a whole new publishing enterprise with Joshua Lysak.
So I've republished, reframed, well, I published for the first time, Reframe Your Brain, republished second edition of How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
Soon you will see the trilogy of God's Debris.
Packed it into one book so that you'll see that.
I'll give you news about that.
And I'll be relaunching the Dilbert calendar for 2025.
Now, all of those are pretty major projects.
And all of that happened in the last 12 months.
At the same time, I did major work on my house and redid my man cave.
So that's how much I can produce at my current age.
Now, do you think it's an accident?
Do you think it's an accident that I don't drink alcohol?
Think about it.
I don't drink alcohol, and I work every day, which I think helps.
You know, they say that it keeps your brain healthy if you don't let it rest too much.
I add new skills consistently, which they also say is good for older brains.
I'll tell you a little bit about my AI stuff.
So I don't know how many people my age have signed up for multiple AI services and you know jumped in and tried to make them work and you tried to figure out what AI is and all that stuff and that's all just really good for your brain.
Now my experience of life Is that all of those things really do make a difference and I can feel them in my normal business.
So if I give you one piece of advice, it is this.
Arrange your life so it's easy to do resistance training.
So that might mean what I did.
I put my weights right inside my man cave.
So it's the place I want to be in the right there.
And I just put everything I like in one place so that I can't ignore it.
Maybe you join a gym and create a habit for that.
But I would say we need some national habits on weight training, but also taking a walk after dinner.
Do you want to hear something that Trump could do, or any president could do, that would change the chronic illness in the United States, probably lower it by 20%?
With one speech.
All the president would have to do is say, according to the latest studies, they're very consistent, if you take a walk after you eat, especially if you have any sugar there, just take a walk after you eat.
And indeed, I'd love to see the entire country outside taking a walk every night.
20 minutes.
Just give me 15 minutes, because it doesn't take long Uh, to get your body to, um, to go into a higher state of digestion that is healthier.
So you don't need to do a full workout.
Just walk around the block.
Wouldn't you love to walk out doors at, you know, whatever is your after dinner, you know, your six 37 o'clock, whatever it is, and just see a whole bunch of people who are just doing a 15 minute walk.
Cause they just ate.
Do you realize that that alone?
Would probably take diabetes down 20%.
And all you would have to do is get Americans to feel like it's something to do.
They just have to sort of think about it.
The reason I don't do is I don't think about it.
But somebody like Trump could say, walk after dinner.
And just say it at the end of every speech.
Take a walk after you eat.
Imagine that, just like ending every speech with that.
20% difference in diabetes, probably.
That's my guess.
So there's a lot to be gained there if you do it right.
Well, Christopher Ruffo tells us NPR might disappear if Republicans win because apparently public opinion has turned against NPR with their awokeness.
They've got a hundred million dollar annual subsidies from the government that might go away.
And I think we need that money for Ukraine because I've heard there are some oligarchs in Ukraine Who have not yet stolen enough money to live forever and have generational wealth.
So I think we need to repurpose that NPR money to give it to the Ukrainian billionaires.
Like the rest of our money.
Jake Novak was posting today on X. Apparently CNBC had what they called an economist on.
An economist.
Now this is CNBC.
It's a business show.
And they had an economist on.
So, I'm going to read you what the economist said, and I want you to tell me if you think that sounded like an economist to you.
Okay?
The economist is telling Joe Kernan, I think, that raising corporate taxes will reduce inflation by cutting the incentive for corporations to make excessive profits.
That's an economist on the Business News Channel.
I don't know how many economists we have watching this, but if you've had even a, let's say, a glancing association with the topic of economics, you know that raising taxes on companies does not make them lower their prices.
We're going to raise your taxes, and if we keep raising them, you're going to lower your prices to consumers.
That feels more like the opposite of an economist, which would be, I don't know, an art history major?
I don't even know if an art history major would think that raising the cost of corporations would cause them to lower their prices to consumers.
Do you really need to be an economist to have that opinion?
Well, I did not see who this economist is, but probably not one I'd hire for my next economist party.
Sam Altman is saying that OpenAI will be adding to ChatGPT the ability to take actions on your behalf.
So right now you can talk to the AI and it just sits there.
But imagine if you could talk to it and tell it to do something with your apps, like send a message or make a note or do something like that.
That would be world-changing.
Now, what is the current state of AI?
Completely useless.
Really a big stupid joke.
And I know this because I've been delving into it hard enough to know it's not real.
It's not even close to real.
It is so not real, meaning that every AI is basically a scam.
In other words, you think it's going to do something, and it doesn't do it.
Let me just give you my current experience.
I don't want to throw this particular company under the bus, because I think it has potential.
But everything in the AI space is too rushed and too fast and incomplete.
Everything's crippled and broken.
And the interfaces, I think, are rushed, because there's sort of a gold rush mentality.
You've got to get there first.
So I've been trying to build my own chat bot that's based on me.
So just to give you an idea of what the landscape looks like in the scam economics of AI, So I look at the web page for Delphi AI that says it'll make me a clone.
It'll clone me and make a chatbot of me.
Now what do you think when somebody says in the AI context, says AI right in the name, what do you think that means when they say they're going to clone you?
Don't you assume that means they'll clone what you look like?
Nope!
I actually signed up and paid money Before I determined that the only clone I'd be looking at is a photograph that I uploaded to the site.
And it just shows the photograph.
That's the clone.
The clone is your photograph of yourself that you upload.
Now it does copy your voice.
So you do a voice sample and then it reproduces your voice.
Do you think it reproduced my voice?
Well, yes, in the sense that You could recognize it was trying to reproduce my voice.
But it also turned me into such a douchebag that I can't even listen to myself.
So, my normal voice is a little upbeat.
You know, I try to add some optimism, a little color to it, like I'm doing now.
I'm exaggerating a little bit, but, you know, try to make it interesting.
Try to vary it a little bit.
But when I listen to the voice that's supposed to be me, it ends on a down note, which makes me sound like I'm Scott Galloway, who's had a really bad day, instead of Scott Adams, who's relentlessly upbeat, unless I've had a really bad day.
So the voice is not there, right?
It's really not a voice I'd want you to hear as my representation.
It's just sort of downbeat and monotone.
But the good news is, That you can load it full of all the documents that you want, and then it will know everything about you and can answer any questions about any topic you want.
Now, that's good.
So, what do you think happened when I started loading documents into it?
That's all it does.
Its main function is just to look at your documents and then be able to answer them.
Well, the first thing it does is it says, well, you're out of space.
No more documents for you.
Alas.
You're willing to upgrade to our highest level.
$400 a month.
I'm three quarters away on the onboarding process before I realize that the number they give me for their quantity, like I can't really translate, I don't know, 10 million words or whatever it was I was allowed.
and I'll see you next time. Bye.
Uh, I couldn't really translate that into my mind to my own material to know when I would run out.
So I've got this totally affordable, I don't know, $40 a month or whatever it was, but to actually use it in any useful way, $400 a month.
So what did I do?
Well, I'm in experimenting mode, not, you know, hard economics, FU mode.
So I thought, you know what?
I'll do a month.
Just to see.
Because I don't want to bail out to her.
Because I'd already put a lot of information in.
I didn't want to lose it.
So I upgraded.
So I have $400 a month.
I put all my information into it.
But it's still talking like this.
I'll ask it a question and it'll say, Oh, I see you're interested in that.
A very good question for the day.
Many people are interested in that.
I can see why you are too.
And I think, Okay, stop doing that.
So one of the things you can do is you can put in rules that it'll check before it answers things.
And you can put them in just English language, which is really cool.
So one of the rules would be, use a sixth grade vocabulary.
Right?
Now, when I tell it to do that in real time, it does it really well.
And it makes my language much better.
I also tell it to not do an introduction and not add any superfluous information.
It does it great.
So then, I put that in the rules so I don't have to tell it every time.
Because the rules act like a super prompt, right?
So instead of using a super prompt, it'll read in your whole set of super prompts in advance of how you want it to act.
Except it doesn't store it.
So none of the rules work.
So I've got this whole set of rules, it doesn't do any of them.
So it's the major feature of the thing, and it just doesn't do it.
And I can't make it do it.
There's nothing I can put in those rules that makes the execute at all.
I have no idea.
But, at least I can get it to look at some Dilbert comics they uploaded, tell me the date of the comic, and then the content of it, because I wanted to use it to search for things.
Sometimes it'll do it, sometimes it won't.
Sometimes it pretends it's doing it, but it's lying.
Sometimes it'll show me an image, but then it'll say it can't show me images.
Basically, only randomness.
There's nothing even predictable.
So the basic thing I wanted to use it for was to look at my work, answer questions on it and maybe show it to somebody like, oh, here's that comic.
Should be able to do it.
It does show images, but only does it when it wants to.
And it will tell me that it's showing me a comic and then show me the wrong comic.
Because it can't tell the difference between an example and an actual answer to a question.
So if I were to grade its usefulness, it's a zero.
It doesn't have any usefulness whatsoever.
But listen to this.
I asked it to give me a URL, which I had given it.
So I had trained it on a URL to reproduce if somebody asked for it.
And it tells me it can't give me a clickable URL.
I'm like, what?
You can give me text.
And of course, ChatGBT could do it.
So I know AI can do it.
And it says it won't give me a clickable link.
And I said, well, all right.
Can you at least just put it in text?
I can copy and paste it.
It's like, no, I cannot give you a text link that's not clickable.
Now, keep in mind, it was not anything bad.
It was a public web page.
No bad content, nothing like that.
Just a useful page.
But if I signed up for the top level, which I did, the $400 a month, I can get a phone number for it, which is really cool, right?
So I could actually text my chatbot and it will give me answers to questions.
So I set it up and I text it and it answered.
And I thought, this is amazing.
I mean, the answer was useless.
So I asked the follow-up question, and it ignored me.
That's right.
My chatbot ghosted me.
So I thought, well, maybe it's what I asked.
So I asked another thing, and it answered.
Then I asked a few more things, and it just decided not to.
I don't know why.
It never did.
It didn't say it couldn't answer it, didn't give me, didn't ask for clarification.
It just didn't answer.
But one of the times it did answer, it did give me a clickable link.
But only if I paid $400 a month and it could text it to me.
I'm not telling you this because I want to dump on this particular product.
Well, first of all, you should know, I think some friends of mine invested in it.
I don't know that for sure, but I have an indirect indication that some friends of mine actually have an interest in that company.
So I don't want to knock it.
So if the thing you're taking away from this is, oh, there's this one app that's suboptimal, that's not the story.
The story is that's all of them.
They're all that.
They're all something that should work but doesn't.
But, damn, it looks attractive.
I can't stop giving them my money, because I keep thinking something's really going to work.
Nothing.
So when OpenAI goes to this next step to, quote, have the ability to take actions on your behalf, do you think that that's going to be all the useful actions that you wanted to do?
No.
It's going to be some weird little subset of actions that nobody could ever use, unless it could also do some other things which it won't do.
You know this isn't real, right?
Now, let me tell you what this reminds me of most.
And I've told this story before, but it fits perfectly here.
When I worked for the phone company, we had the, I think, the first internet connection anywhere around Northern California.
Yeah, because we were doing it in the lab, sort of experimenting.
So I saw the first webpages that ever existed.
Isn't that funny?
There were like two webpages that were public, and we would show people those two webpages.
So the internet at that time was completely useless, and I've told this story before, customer after customer would walk in, and they would only want to see that.
Oh, show me that internet thing.
Well, you know, it only goes to two websites and one of them's down.
So basically all I can do is call up one image of a gem.
And if you had an hour, I could call up a second one.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let's see that.
And I'd be like, seriously, why in the world is that even interesting?
You couldn't use it for anything.
And they would just be on fire about it.
And you could see even then that there was something about this internet thing that was going to be huge.
Because people loved the bad version that didn't do anything.
And they loved it.
Fast forward until the first iPhone came out.
Remember the first iPhone?
I had AT&T service.
If you had that combination, you couldn't make a phone call on your phone.
So for a period of, I don't know, 18 months or two years, I didn't make phone calls because I didn't have a mechanism to do it.
It would just drop the call.
Did that make me not have a smartphone?
No!
I was crazy for it.
It didn't do anything.
It was worse than what it replaced.
But I was still crazy for it.
How do you explain that?
It's the same thing with AI.
Same thing.
I'm crazy for it, but honestly, it doesn't do a freaking thing.
I am confident that like the internet and like smartphones, it will get to that place.
It will one day be useful.
But wow, we're not that close.
We're really not that close.
All right.
It's a good thing that AI is going to work someday because it looks like children are all incapable of doing anything.
According to Rasmussen, just 33% of American adults believe college graduates will have the skills needed to enter the workforce.
Only a third of adults think that going to college prepares you for work.
Now, it could be that this is one of those questions that people sort of interpret differently.
Because the fact is, nobody's ready for work when they get out of college.
Would you agree?
There's no such thing as a 21-year-old who knows how to do anything.
And it never was, right?
I mean, not something that they had a college education to do.
Like, even if you learn to be an engineer, you get the job, you still have to unlearn it all and relearn how they do engineering and their processes and everything.
Nobody's really ready for work.
But it might be worse.
I don't know.
It does seem like young people do fewer things, and they just get outside and just have fewer experiences outside the digital world.
So it could be that they're less capable.
We'll see.
But 52%—this is also Rasmussen—52% say student protests on college campuses make them less confident in whether recent college graduates are ready to enter the workforce.
Well, if I were an employer looking for people that age, I would be scared to death to hire anybody who came from an Ivy League school because I would just think they're going to sue me.
Wouldn't you?
Your odds of being sued feel like 100% if they came out of Columbia.
So did you ever think that you would be alive When having gone to college looks like a mark against you?
And like, ugh, I don't want to see that.
Ugh, this one went to Princeton.
Ugh!
Yale?
Ugh!
Ugh!
Sure, they're really smart, which just means they know how to sue me really well.
Like, basically, you're hiring your own enemy.
Yeah, well, you're really smart.
That's good.
But you also went to a college which guarantees that you're gonna see me as your enemy.
Did they teach you in school that as a white man, I'm your oppressor?
By any chance?
Because I wouldn't hire anybody who went to any school that they were taught that white people are their oppressors and they need to get their stuff back.
You don't want that.
All right.
Joe Biden is in the news again for mispronouncing Kamala Harris's name.
He called her Kamala.
Kamala.
How long has he known her?
He doesn't know her first name.
What does he call her privately that he doesn't know her name?
You know how I remember other people's names?
It's because often, if they're important to me, I will use their names when I'm talking to other people.
And if I used it wrong, the other people would correct me.
It makes me wonder, what does he call her behind her back?
You must have a nickname. If you can't this...
That's not funny.
Somebody in the comments says he calls her Candace behind her back.
That's terrible.
You're all going to hell.
All right.
Well, that's not important, but you've got a president who doesn't know the first name of his vice president.
And, you know, we're so far past worrying about his demented brain.
It's just gone.
So Judge Andrew Napolitano on his podcast had this former CIA analyst, Larry Johnson, who thinks that the Ukraine situation is mostly about, or might be, largely about child trafficking.
He added that Western countries will persist in investing in Ukraine due to their interest in the trafficking of children for sex and also organ transplants.
What do you think about that?
So it's a former CIA analyst who's saying in public that he thinks Ukraine is about American government protecting the child trafficking business.
Well, I've got a tip for you in digesting the news.
Are you ready for this?
Here's a news tip.
Never believe anything that a former CIA person said.
If you see former intelligence anything, don't believe anything they hear from them.
Anything.
Right.
I'll make an exception for Jack Posobiec.
I think he worked in Navy Intel or something.
But if you see some oddball on a podcast, somebody you haven't seen before, and they're an ex-CIA analyst, and they make a claim about UFOs or child trafficking, I'm not saying it's not true.
I wouldn't know one way or another.
I would just not treat it as information, if you know what I mean.
You know, I didn't watch the whole thing, so I don't know what Judge Andrew Napolitano thought of that claim, but if I had to guess and read his mind, he's a very experienced judge, and he certainly has seen people lying, and he knows what it looks like.
I don't think he necessarily bought that, but I don't know.
So generally speaking, when I see former CIA anything, I don't believe anything they say.
All right, here's my theme for today.
It looks like both sides in the presidential election are priming the other for cheating.
So both sides are trying to make the claim that if they lose, it will be because cheating, right?
So you've got the, you've got the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, Saying that they're working hard to make sure that the election is not interfered by foreign actors or, as they say, those white supremacists or far-right people who are planning some bad actions.
All right.
So from the perspective of the Democrats, or at least the regime, they're going to say, oh, you know, we're working hard to make sure that there's no fraud.
Huh.
So the Biden administration, they're working hard To make sure that, you know, the holes are plugged and they've made rule changes and they've tightened everything up so that there can be no cheating.
But at the same time, they've assured us there could be no cheating because it would be so easy to detect.
So on one hand, they're trying to make sure you can't cheat in the future.
And on the other hand, they're saying it was never possible to begin with.
Huh.
It's almost as if Everything they say is complete bullshit.
I'm starting to have my doubts about the honesty of our government.
I don't know about you.
I'm just getting a feeling, just an inkling, a little tickle in the back of my brain that says, I don't know.
I don't know if a hundred percent of what they're telling me is true.
So we'll get into that theory, that theme a little bit.
I remind you that Peter Navarro is still in prison for being a Republican.
And there's an election coming.
I just want to say that those three things at the same time again.
Peter Navarro is still in prison.
For being a Republican.
And there's an election coming.
If you don't get off your fucking couch to get Peter Navarro out of prison.
You know, you gotta check your motivations, right?
At the very least, you gotta get this Republican out of jail.
Otherwise, you're next.
You know you're next.
I'm surprised I'm not in jail already.
So, it would help me out if, you know, it'd help keep me out of jail, too, if you voted.
So vote, because Peter Navarro is still in jail for being a Republican.
And there's an election coming.
Act accordingly.
I guess Don Jr.
went to visit him, which I appreciate.
Rumble is filing a billion-dollar lawsuit against Google for what they say is lost ad revenue and exploiting their dominant position.
Do you think they have a case?
I don't know.
Google has lots of lawyers, so I don't know if you can win anything against them.
My guess is that they have a good case.
Now, I think I saw a little clip, I didn't watch it, but isn't that Dr. Epstein, the fellow who researched Google?
Doesn't he believe that Google can move the election any way they want?
And he's got evidence to suggest they have and they will.
So how big a margin does Trump have to be up before the fact that Google can move the election 20%?
20%?
You'd have to have an enormous lead to overcome that kind of action.
All right, so good luck to Rumble.
I'm a stockholder in Rumble, small one, but I like to mention that.
So I'm rooting for Rumble.
I'm using the Rumble Studio right now, which by the way, you know, it's going through its beta, working out the bugs phase, but at the moment it's working great.
Would you agree?
Think about the fact that I'm broadcasting on four different platforms right now using the Rumble Studio, and it's seamless.
It's just a web page.
I just go to the web page and sign up and tell it which websites to go to, and it does it.
And it shows you all the comments.
I think X comments are not here right now, but the others.
It's kind of amazing.
It's really the product I've been waiting for forever.
Because otherwise I was using two different machines, and you know, it was just a mess.
So, it's a good product.
All right, Ian Miles Chong asked various AIs who would be the best president.
He asked Chad GPT, Claude AI, and Grok, and here's what they said.
Chad GPT, recommended for President Gretchen Whitmer.
Gavin Newsom, Elizabeth Warren, Larry Hogan, Pete Buttigieg, Mitt Romney, and Cory Booker.
So I wonder if ChatGPT has any political bias.
All right.
How about Claude AI?
Claude AI proposed Liz Cheney.
And then Grok suggested Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
.
Yeah.
Interesting.
So the person who's way ahead in the polls, Trump, is not mentioned as even a top candidate by any of the major AIs.
So, that's nothing to worry about, is it?
No.
No, nothing to worry about.
All right, there's a video, the RNC Research account on X, showing a video of a young black man in a, what I take from context, is probably a black barbershop.
And he's saying, quote, he's a Wisconsin voter, and he says, quote, I didn't like hearing Biden now say that if you're not black, you're not black if you vote Democrat.
Wait, no, this is wrong.
He said, I didn't like it when Biden said, you're not black if you don't vote Democrat.
He said, I thought it was a load of BS.
I thought that was an insult.
Do you believe that that was a real thing that happened that they caught on video?
Do you believe that there was really a young black voter in a black barbershop in Wisconsin Who on his own said, I didn't like hearing Biden say that if you ain't black, no, if you don't vote Democrat, you ain't black.
No, I'm sorry.
That's a little bit too on the nose.
A little bit too on the nose.
Yeah.
Uh, almost certainly.
Um, it's a young man who, uh, they knew was a Trump supporter.
And probably they gave him something to say or he knew what to say.
But if you think they just walked up to somebody in a black barbershop and said, give us your thoughts.
And the first thing that came out of his mouth was that time that Biden said, you know, you ain't black if you don't vote Democrat.
Do you really think black voters care about that?
I mean, I've never really had that conversation, have any of you?
To me, it seems like just the right-leaning talking point.
I didn't think that was anything real.
I mean, if this were Trump, if Trump had said something that awkward, you know, if you don't vote for me, you ain't black, I would have said, oh, come on, people.
All he's saying is that the Democrats would be a better party for black voters.
That's all he's saying.
I would have, I would have excused that away as just a choice of words and nothing racist.
But yet, you know, because Trump has been gotcha'd so many times, the right likes to do their gotchas too.
So their weakest gotcha is this one.
But I do imagine if you're black it sounds a little grating to your ears, but it really was nothing except saying that he thinks Democrats will do a better job for black Americans.
That's all he was saying.
And then to turn this into a fake little, I assume it's fake, I don't know for sure, but my assumption is that it was staged.
Not that it's, you know, which is not that big a deal in an election season, I mean, it's not like the crime of the century.
Most of these things are a little bit staged.
This one's just way on the nose, you know, a little too obvious.
I saw there's a little interest in my idea of having Trump bag some groceries and just talking to people about the cost of their food.
I saw Jack Posobiec was retweeting that with some positive thoughts and got tons of pickup.
So, I don't see anything wrong with that idea.
That might be one of the best ideas ever.
I'd love to see it happen.
Well, good news.
We have a verdict in the Stormy Daniels Lawfare Trial.
Breaking news.
We have a verdict.
So there's a verdict in the Stormy Daniels Lawfare Trial.
And the verdict is that the public has concluded that the 2020 election must have been rigged.
No, no, no, I didn't mean that there's a verdict in the trial itself.
I mean the public has reached their verdict.
Now, what is the relationship between the Stormy Daniels trial and the 2020 election?
Everything.
It's the same fuckers.
The same fuckers who are putting Michael Cohen on the stand to try to put your ex-president in jail.
Those same fuckers are the ones who told us the 2020 election was fine, and don't worry about it.
It's a rigged Department of Justice case, with a rigged jury, with the most lying-est of all witnesses of all time.
Even CNN is calling it out as lawfare.
It's completely transparent.
It's right in front of you.
And I'll say it again, it's the same fuckers.
Right?
Do you remember, Judge Jeanine likes to say this all the time, and it's sort of a general truism, that if a witness lies on the witness stand, if you know that the witness has lied, you're allowed to, or you're encouraged, to assume that they lied in general, about other things that you're not so sure about.
That's a legal standard.
So let me apply this standard in a wider sense.
If you're gonna put Michael fucking Cohen on the stand, and you're gonna do lawfare right in front of us, where even CNN has bailed out and said, yeah, this is just lawfare.
You do that right in front of me?
Right in front of me.
Right in front of my fucking face you're doing that.
And you want me to fucking believe that the 2020 election, run by the same bag of fuckers, was clean?
Now, I don't have any specific evidence that the election was rigged in a way that would make a difference.
I don't personally.
But you know what the proof is?
The proof is this fucking trial.
You do this right in front of my fucking face, do not ask me to say ever that I think the 2020 election was not rigged.
It's obviously fucking rigged.
Because if they would do this right in front of my fucking face, they would do anything.
They told you Trump was Hitler, you think they stopped at Doing the easy legal stuff to stop him?
No.
It's obvious that 2020 was rigged.
And I don't want to hear a fucking argument about how much evidence you do or do not have, Scott.
I don't need any fucking evidence!
The evidence is the goddamn fucking trial!
You put that Stormy Daniels shit in my face, don't ask me to believe any fucking thing you ever say for the rest of your fucking lying lives!
Clear enough.
So we have a verdict.
Alan Dershowitz is talking about the Stormy case, and he expects a hung jury, maybe an outright acquittal, but he thinks that the New York jury is just ridiculous.
And that having an all New York jury for this case would be similar to having an all Mississippi jury for a black defendant and acting like that was okay.
Did he say Mississippi?
Maybe he did.
So even Dershowitz is saying, without any hesitation, that this is a ridiculous case.
A ridiculous trial, and a ridiculous jury, and a ridiculous prosecutor.
Yeah.
By the way, the number of people who used to vote Democrat who have turned completely into Democrats continues to grow.
And it's the smartest Democrats.
It's the ones who don't give a fuck.
About what you think about their opinion, because they're going to give you the one that's real.
Dershowitz, for whatever else you want to say about him, you know, nobody's, you know, I'm not going to defend everything that anybody does, but Dershowitz is not afraid of your opinion of him.
That's why he can do this.
Elon Musk is not afraid of your opinion of him.
That's why he can have free speech and used to vote Democrat.
I'm not afraid of their opinion of me.
That's why I can still do this, as canceled as I am.
Bill Ackman is rich enough, and has had some success with the Harvard stuff he's promoting, that he seems to have largely become immune to criticism, too.
So, watch the pattern.
Every time a Democrat finds some freedom, either because they're naturally brave, or naturally so rich, That they don't need your help, they can speak out against what's happening there.
But you have to have that freedom or you can't do it.
The normies who would lose their job or lose their social life or whatever, they can't do it.
But watch the people who can.
Watch the brave people.
They're all on the same side.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is going to raise tariffs on China's electric vehicles and some other stuff, I think.
And China doesn't like it, of course, blah, blah, blah.
But the real story, of course, is that the Biden administration used to be highly opposed to Trump when he suggested raising tariffs on China.
But now it's their idea.
Oh, it went from the worst idea in the world to a good idea.
And then, of course, it didn't take long for probably Peter Doocy or somebody to ask Corinne Jean-Pierre What's going on here?
Because you used to hate these tariffs, and now you're big tariff lovers, just like Trump.
How do you explain that?
And I'd like to give my impression of Corinne Jean-Pierre trying to answer the question why they literally just flip-flopped on a thing that they said was, you know, poison and terrible, and now they're going to do it.
All right?
You won't be able to hear this, see this, if you're on the, just the audio.
but I'd like to give you my physical impression of her face when asked that question.
And that ladies and gentlemen is capitulation face.
Capitulation.
Total capitulation.
They know they lost.
They know that unless they cheat, they don't have a chance.
The game is over.
And they know it.
And they know they're liars.
And they know everybody knows it.
And they know that Corinne Jean-Pierre will go down in history as the worst spokesperson of all fucking time.
And I think she's figured it out by now.
So here's what the Trump campaign should do.
They should do a commercial in which they show all the ways in which Biden is trying to turn into Trump.
Now, it's small ways, because he's not successful, let's say, closing the border.
But isn't it true that Biden is reversing some things that he reversed from Trump?
So there should be, at this point, Maybe three to five examples where Biden is just becoming Trump after criticizing him for the thing that he's now doing.
Would that be true?
If it is true that there's three to five of them, it's a perfect campaign commercial.
You just show the before and after.
And then you do a funny thing at the end where you show, all right, here's how I do the commercial.
I do a split screen picture of Biden and Trump.
And then you show Biden saying, I will never do sanctions.
Sanctions are a stupid idea.
And then you show the next clip where he's, man, we're doing some sanctions.
And then you go back to the split screen, except you slightly morph the picture of Biden into Trump.
And then you do it again, another topic, and you come back to the split screen.
And now, now Biden's hair is turning orange.
You know what I mean?
And by the end, you just have two Trumps.
Anyway, maybe that would be bad because then the Democrats would say, well, I don't want to vote for either of these Trumps.
I guess that would be good because they wouldn't vote.
All right.
Well, Trump is leading in five out of six swing states.
There's a new New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, CNN College Polls.
And Trump is up by, let's see, in a two-man race.
Why do we even keep reporting a two-man race?
It's not a two-man race.
Why are we even polling that?
What's the point of that?
It's like, all right, and now we're going to do a poll if Biden were running against a bear.
Well, he's not really running against a bear.
Oh, now we'll do a poll in which nobody's running against him.
But there are people running against him.
Well, now we'll do a poll in which it's just a one-on-one matchup.
You might as well do the fucking bear, because it's not a one-on-one matchup.
Why do I even look at that?
So let's forget the two-man race statistics.
In a three-person race plus, Trump's lead is soars to nine points in Arizona, 14 in Nevada, And stayed the same around eight points in Georgia.
Now, I remind you, that's not enough.
Anything short of a double-digit lead in all of the swing states, or at least enough swing states, isn't enough.
Just look at the Stormy Daniels trial.
Remind yourself, it's the same fuckers who are gonna run the election.
If you're looking at the Stormy Trial and you don't see anything that looks legal or appropriate, same people are going to run the election.
You're going to have to win by double digits to squeak by, because the cheat's going to be in just full, full force, in my opinion.
Trump has a new video and says, we will not comply.
He's saying that the The left-wing lunatics are trying to use bird flu to rig the 2024 election.
And he's saying that if they try to put mandates on to try to change the election results, because that can change the mix of people who end up voting, he says that we will not comply with mandates.
We will not comply.
How much do you love that?
It's perfect.
I'll tell you, I don't know who exactly is advising Trump this time, but my God, it's just perfect.
This is one of the biggest untold stories.
The biggest untold story is that Trump has been pitch perfect, and you don't notice it because there's no flaws.
The reason you don't notice that his messaging is so good this time around is that it's flawless.
This is flawless.
Here he is again making you think past the sale.
He's making you think what you will do when they cheat.
Think about that.
He's not telling you to think about whether or not they'll cheat.
He's making you think past the cheat to you will not comply with the mandates.
He's putting it out there that there's no way they can win unless they cheat.
Is that good for him?
It's perfect.
It's perfect.
Yeah.
And my God, he's just been so good campaigning.
I think the best ever, really.
I think I could put that marker down, that his current campaign from jail, not jail, but from court, from court, If you add his messaging, his videos, the rallies that he can do when he has time, if you put it all together, it's the best presidential campaign of all time.
Probably.
And I don't think you'll ever get the credit for it, because that's just not the way it works.
It might be the best of all time.
Obama was good, and Bill Clinton was also great.
So I'm talking about—and Reagan, of course.
So I'm talking about a very high standard.
And I think he crossed it.
Anyway, Biden is saying the polling is wrong.
So the Democrats are also priming you for the steal, except they're doing it the other way.
So Charlie Kirk is pointing out in a post that Attorney General Merrick Garland, he's referring to a video, flanked by WAG Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Chris Wray.
Gives an update on how the Election Threats Task Force has, quote, accelerated its work.
The Election Threats Task Force has accelerated its work.
Now, why do they need to work so fast or so hard to protect an election which has already been so protected that we don't even have any questions about 2020?
Hmm.
Seems like two things in complete opposites.
And they're trying to make you believe both.
They're trying to make you believe opposites.
And then Charlie Kirk goes on, he says, last week, Secretary Mayorkas announced the DHS is working with the FBI and ramping up with intensity to respond to the, quote, election threats, including, quote, far-right extremist activity and to combat spreaders of disinformation.
Huh.
Spreaders of disinformation.
What do you do when you hear that phrase?
Well, if Mike Benz has taught us anything.
If you're fighting the spreaders of misinformation, you're really in the business of creating misinformation and stopping real information.
Will you also stop some misinformation?
Yes.
Yes, you will.
Your net will get some real misinformation, too.
But that's not the point of it.
Nobody believes that's the point of it.
The point of it is to turn off the voices they don't like, boost the voices they do like, and to rig the election.
And Joe Biden said last week that Trump will not accept the results of the election despite Trump being ahead in the polls.
And Biden is trying to tell us that the polling is wrong.
So here's the setup.
He's going to tell you the polling is wrong, that Trump's not really up by 10 points or whatever it is by then.
Then they'll steal the election.
And then Trump will claim it was stolen, and people will act, you know, act out their beliefs, and then he'll put them in jail.
It's very clear what the plan is.
He's gonna find ways to just jail everybody who complains when they steal the election.
And they're just gonna say the polling was wrong, and gaslight us.
Now, would I have said that this is likely to happen if I were not watching The Stormy Daniels trial, right in front of my fucking face.
Probably not.
Probably not.
But when you're doing the Stormy thing in front of me, I do believe that they are planning to rig the election.
I do believe that they're gaslighting you by saying the polls are wrong, and that their excuse will be, oh, the polls are wrong, and why is he complaining?
We better put him in jail.
Right in front of your face.
Um, CNN, uh, had a episode, Van Jones and some other folks, uh, talking about losing, uh, how the Democrats are losing or Biden is losing the young black Hispanic voters.
And, uh, they note that Trump is at 20% black support in polls, which would be the most of any Republican since the 1964 civil rights act.
That's right.
Trump is on the verge of breaking modern records for black support.
Wow.
And that he's losing the young.
And Van Jones says he's losing the young because they don't seem to have a pathway for success.
If you're young, you don't have a pathway for success.
Is that true?
Didn't they tell us that the employment situation is great?
So if you're getting out of college, the Democrats are saying you're getting out of college when the employment is great.
So just because of the inflation, they can't make it work?
So Biden's inflation is really the only thing that's keeping people from succeeding, because they can definitely get a job.
I mean, we have close to full employment.
And if you have a college education, you don't think you could get a job?
Of course you could.
Unless you graduated from Columbia or some shithole like that.
But there's a better story here.
So this is CNN's frame.
The Democrats are losing black support, Hispanic support, and young people.
What are they not saying?
What's the dog not barking?
Do you notice they don't mention gender?
It's the men.
The men are the ones who are leaving the Democrat Party.
The men who are young, the men who are black, the men who are Hispanic.
Now, there are women too.
But the big picture, the real story, if they were not lying to you, Is that men are abandoning the Democrat Party?
Do you know why they want to tell you that it's these groups which is bad enough?
I mean, CNN definitely doesn't want to tell you that young people, black people, and Hispanics are leaving the Democrat Party.
But they are.
They're telling you directly.
Do you know why?
Why would they tell you that directly when you know it's bad for their own interests?
They're telling you that because the truth is worse.
The truth is that it's the men in those groups that are leaving.
Do you know why that's worse?
Because if that ever becomes the dominant frame, that men are abandoning the Democrat Party because it's bullshit, the whole thing falls apart.
It's pretty obvious to most people that the Democrat Party is dominated by batshit crazy women.
Now, if anybody's new to my live streams, do you mind?
I'm going to take a moment to talk to the dumb people who are new.
This is only for the dumb people.
When I talk about a group like women or Hispanics, I never, ever, ever mean every one of them is the same.
I never mean that.
So if I don't say it every time, you don't need to say, are you treating like, no, you don't have to do that.
Because my audience is actually people who are not fucking idiots.
So when I mention a group, they automatically know I don't mean every person in the group.
So if you knew, this will come as a big surprise to you.
So welcome to the group.
Welcome to sanity.
This is what it looks like.
So I'm going to make it my push to make sure that everybody understands that this is a male-female difference, not just a racial and age difference.
Mostly male and female.
And that if they were to understand the correct frame, they would know it's not division, it's men who understand that the country's at risk.
Why is it men?
What do you think?
You tell me.
Why are men abandoning Democrats?
Well, first of all, they notice that they're batshit crazy.
And that they're pushing the LGBTQ plus and trans train way harder than any common sense makes sense.
By the way, I'm pro-trans, pro-LGBTQ completely, but I don't need to hear about it all the time every day.
Like sometimes I like to think about other things and it's hard.
You're seeing also that men, I believe, are They're evolutionarily predisposed to be good at self-defense.
Meaning that if bad people attacked you and you were in a crowd, the crowd would automatically form so that the women would run to the back and the men would run to the front, and through great danger, they would try to address the threat.
It's just natural.
Right?
The women don't run to the front of the fighting line.
The men do.
And we don't even think about it.
It's just literally automatic.
We would run toward the guy with the gun.
Right?
It's automatic.
So, when we watch the Democrats destroying the country and opening the border, and I think the border is the number one thing, honestly.
It's the biggest thing.
There's no human regular male with regular testosterone Who can look at that and say, that's okay.
We, we can let that go.
No, you can't let that go.
If you've got a cock and you've got balls and you've got a little bit of testosterone, you will close the fucking border.
It's not really a conversation to noodle about.
It's not a debate.
You close your fucking border.
If you've got any male qualities whatsoever, we're built that way.
And if you listen to the batshit crazy women about what the border shooters should not do, you're really making a huge mistake.
Now, are there things that women should be the dominant voice in?
You know, the reverse of this?
Yes.
And none of you agree with me, but I'll say it over and over again because I don't give a fuck what you think.
In my opinion, the question of abortion and the abortion laws should be primarily the voice of women.
For the same reason.
They've evolved to have this extra responsibility, and the people who have the most responsibility should be the ones who have the most say.
That's just a good system.
Now, I'm not saying that you men shouldn't weigh in and have your opinion, because our system allows that.
I wouldn't change it.
But the people who have the most influence should just be the women.
And by the way, I don't think Trump can say that because he's got too many men who care, but I'd love to hear it.
I'd love to hear him say, let's take this out of my hands, because I think you're all happier with that.
Who wants me to be in charge of your bodies?
Nobody, right?
Imagine Trump saying that.
How many of you want me in charge of your bodies?
Because I took myself out of that business.
By making sure that I had the right judges who would put it back to the states.
Now, if you want to talk to the states, I think women should be the dominant opinion there.
Everybody gets to say, but I think we'd have a better outcome if women were the dominant voice of what becomes legal and what doesn't.
In each state.
Now that is completely, takes all the energy out of it.
Because it's hard to argue with somebody who wants to give you more control.
Isn't it?
Hey, stop controlling our bodies.
Oh, that's what I'm trying to do.
I'm trying to make sure I have no say on your body.
And you know, if it's up to me, other men would have less to say in this than the women.
Because you're going to get about the same result, whether it was only women deciding or men plus women.
It ends up being, looking about the same.
It's not going to be different.
But it leads you to feel more comfortable with it.
Well, the publication Public that Michael Schellenberger is involved with, I think he's a founder, has a story today that says in 2021 the UK government said it had not weaponized the Army's Information Warfare Unit, the 77th Brigade, against the British people.
Why would anybody weaponize the Army's Information Warfare Unit against their own people?
Why is that even a topic?
Oh, COVID, the pandemic.
Sounds familiar?
Sounds a little like what happened here, isn't it?
He goes on, now newly released and never before reported documents show that the government mislabeled accurate information as malinformation.
Hmm, sounds familiar.
And sent defamatory misinformation to the U.S.
government.
Oh, thanks.
That's what we have allies for, huh?
Glad we have allies, so they can send some bullshit to us.
Thanks, allies!
How did the army get away with it?
Well, according to a new whistleblower, it had soldiers pretend that the British citizens upon whom they were spying could, perhaps, be foreigners.
That doesn't even sound real, does it?
I think it is real.
But it's so corrupt and reminds you of exactly what happened in America, right?
So they simply pretended that they thought, oh, I guess I was wrong, but I thought these British citizens, I thought they were some kind of foreigners.
No, of course they didn't think they were foreigners.
They were just trying to use some weasel workaround so they could use the military against their own public.
Britain used the military against their own public.
Just hold that in your brain.
It's like my brain doesn't even want to entertain that.
Wow.
And as Michael Schellenberger points out in the article on public, That was also the intention of the Biden administration's near-identically named Disinformation Governance Board of the Department of Homeland Security.
And the UK officials considered embedding civil servants in social media companies.
The UK officials considered embedding civil servants in social media companies.
My mind is so boggled right now.
I was like, whoa, really?
Really?
We've heard so much bad behavior from our governments that you think you're to the end of it.
It's like, well, I'm glad we found out all the bad behavior.
Well, no, it's pretty deep well, it looks like.
All right, well, let's talk about Biden and his weapons delay for Israel.
So you know the big story.
Is it Biden and Blinken are saying that they don't want to ship American weapons to Israel to be dropped on civilian populations in Gaza?
Here's my current best take on this story.
It's totally fake.
Totally fake.
First of all, the percentage of munitions they're holding up is like 1% or something.
So I don't even know if it makes any difference.
Like it's not enough to change the war.
So what's the point of it?
If it's not going to change the fate of the war, and indeed, people argue that having access to more precision munitions would be exactly what the Biden administration wants, which is fewer civilian casualties.
So it doesn't make sense on a precision level.
It doesn't make sense on a percentage of the total bombs, because it's not going to stop anything from happening.
It's not going to stop Israel from doing what it wants.
So why do it?
It's not popular domestically.
Why do it?
The only thing I can think of is that Biden is playing good cop, and that he wants to be free of any accusations after the fact that he was part of the genocide, and that he could say to critics when they say, hey, you supported genocide, in their opinion, and he will say, I never did that.
In fact, I tried to stop the weapons.
I tried to blackmail Um, or I guess negotiate with Israel to, uh, stand down and don't go in there.
So I think he's just playing good cop to bad cop.
I don't think it has any like real world consequence other than how they're framing their own party as the, not the, not the genocide ones.
And then compare that weaselness to Trump.
Trump says Israel has a right to win their war.
I've been thinking about that all day.
Do you know how perfect that sentence is?
Israel has a right to win their war.
Persuasion-wise, it's just a perfect sentence.
Because what are you going to argue with?
That they don't have a right to win their war?
Now, it's a little, you know, like all persuasion, it's a little off of exact accuracy, because it's not about winning or losing, it's, you know, some specific munitions, etc.
But just to put it in that frame, because you know if you were in that situation, this is the way I do it, that's not as good as the way he does it.
What I say, the long form, is if it happened to you, meaning your country, you would act exactly like Israel's acting, or you'd want your government to be that way.
So that's sort of the long way.
But he says that they have a right to win their war.
That's the short way to say it, and the better way, and the cleaner and more persuasive way.
So good.
All right.
Well, apparently Russia... Putin sometimes is so smart that it just makes me laugh.
So he's decided that, the story is, That a bunch of money from America that should have gone into defending the northern part of Ukraine against Russia was just stolen by the rich people in Ukraine.
Meaning that they were under defended in a place they should have defended better.
What does Putin do?
He attacks!
So instead of just waiting it out, which I thought he would do, because it makes Ukraine look even worse, He attacks where the story is going to be that they can't defend themselves because they stole all the American money.
Now that is like the smartest attack of anybody who ever attacked anything for any reason.
Because if he could just make us jabber about how Russia wouldn't be doing this if Ukraine hadn't stolen our money, oh my God, that is such a win for him.
Such a win.
So, as I often say, Russia is a criminal organization, and so is the United States.
In fact, most of the successful countries are criminal organizations pretending to be something else, pretending to be democratic.
But I'll say it again, sometimes the criminal form of government is the most effective.
Because whatever you want to say about Putin, he's sort of making things work.
He seems to be a good operator.
I'm not defending him morally or ethically.
Yes, he's done bad things.
Everybody's done bad things.
But you can't argue with, you know, considering the cards he's dealt, it kind of makes things work.
And I think the United States is a criminal organization and could be as efficient as this, but we're not.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, That brings me to the conclusion of my remarks.
I'm going to now speak privately to the special people on Locals who subscribe.
You could be subscribing too if you were at scottadams.locals.com for 365 extra comics that you don't see otherwise, and all of my micro lessons, 274 micro lessons to make you smarter.
But the Locals people get all of that and more.
And how many hours of podcasting did I do this year?
Like two and a half.
What's two and a half times 365?
I don't know.
That's about what I do per day because I do an evening one as well for the Locals people.
Anyway, back to work.
Everybody on Rumble and YouTube and X, I will see you tomorrow.
