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, Mental Health Cure, Boston ShotSpotter, CA Yearly Gas Tax Increases, CIS Slur Ban, American Republic Over, VP Harris F-Word, Daniel Dale, Abby Phillip, President Trump, Dan Goldman, Michael Cohen, Anti-Trump Political Prosecution, Judge Merchan's Daughter, MSNBC Mental Illness, Antony Blinken, Capitulation Face, Biden's Debate Demands, Stealth Censoring Americans, 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
La da da da da da. Do do do do do. Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
And let me tell you, today is going to be special.
Would you like to see me do magic today?
I'm going to do magic today.
I'm going to cure thousands of people of mental illness.
Literally.
And if you'd like to see that and all the amazing things, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gels or styrofoam, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel 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 that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Now go.
Yes, I am indeed going to solve mental illness for probably thousands of you.
Really, truly, this is not a joke.
It'll happen in just a few minutes.
In the next five minutes, some of you are going to have the biggest problem of your life solved.
Not all of you, but some of you.
It'll be kind of exciting.
Wait for that.
Well, Peter Zahn tells us that American companies can now petition the government to apply for U.S.
protective tariffs if China says they have to transfer their technology.
So you know when American companies or foreign companies work with China, China often, or maybe always, says that they have to transfer their technology to them.
And now if they demand that, Apparently, U.S.
companies have an option.
They can apply to the government to put a tariff on China.
That's actually a pretty good idea.
I mean, I don't see it in the news.
I only see Peter Zahn saying it.
But he's probably right.
I mean, I doubt he'd make it up.
So, I'm going to say that that's a very Trumpian That feels like a Trump-like policy.
Trump never had that policy, as far as I know.
If he had, I would have said it was good.
So I'm going to say it's good, even though it's not Trump.
There's a study that suggests that driving, if you're texting and driving, you're probably a psychopath.
Now, did you really need a study to know that?
That if somebody is operating a dangerous motor vehicle at 80 miles an hour, and they're looking at their phone, do you need to do a scientific study to find out there's something wrong with that person's priorities?
Maybe their empathy?
Well, I think it's a little more complicated than being a psychopath.
I think some people just have a different relationship with risk.
Isn't that fair to say?
How do you know you're measuring psychopaths who don't care if they get, you know, kill you in a crash versus somebody who just has a high tolerance for risk and they think they're good at texting and driving at the same time?
But it feels, it looks the same.
But I will tell you that anybody who makes a phone call in Starbucks is definitely a psychopath.
That one I don't understand.
I know that they think, oh, it's a public place.
But you look around the public place and you see all these people on laptops clearly trying to concentrate.
How do you not know that making a loud, long cell phone call in that environment makes everybody want to stab you?
How do you not know that?
You'd have to be a psychopath.
All right.
I think I'm just going to go ahead and do it.
I'm going to cure a bunch of you.
So I tried a reframe with my audience yesterday and I think the other day as well, in which if you get ruminating and you're thinking too much in your head, then you simply use two words.
Get out.
And you treat yourself like you have two lives.
So here's the reframe.
And by the way, I checked this morning and my audience, by an overwhelming number of comments, Said they tried this and it completely helped their mental health instantly.
Let me say it again.
Just I don't know how many people dozens dozens of people this morning just before I went live here.
I do a pre-show with with my subscribers and I asked them if they tried the technique and I'll describe it again, but they said they did and just dozens of people said it instantly helped them mentally.
So here's the technique.
You know how when you're in your head, you're living in an imaginary world?
You know, you're thinking about what happened, which doesn't exist, the past, and you're thinking about what might happen, which doesn't exist, the future.
So you actually, when you're in your head, you're living in a world that doesn't exist.
But there's an external world where you're touching things and doing things and doing chores and exercising and working and doing things.
The external world is real.
So what I found is that these two words, get out, will immediately take you out of your internal world, your imaginary world, and put you into the real one.
And you just remind yourself, no, get out of the imaginary world.
Get into the real one.
Get out, get out.
And those two words will actually become a trigger or a key that helps you do the thing that you wanted to do.
So you associate words with actions, especially actions of your own body.
And those will become sticky.
It doesn't take long.
You just have to say something and associate it with a feeling or a situation, and it gets sticky really fast.
So I want you all to try this, and you're gonna be amazed.
The next time you're too much in your head, and you got recurring thoughts or whatever, just say out loud, get out!
Get out!
And you're not talking just about getting out of your head, you're talking about getting out of the house.
Just stand up and walk outside.
If it's cold, stand up and walk around the house.
But the get out is a reminder that you are two people.
You're not one person.
There's one of you that lives in the completely imaginary world of your mind.
And the other one lives in the real world.
But the only one that has a problem is the imaginary one.
So you can starve the imaginary one of its energy by just saying, get out.
I choose to walk through this doorway and now I'm in the real world.
I guarantee based on the comments I got back this morning, I guarantee that a healthy percentage of you just, just solved one of the biggest problems in your whole life.
Now that ladies and gentlemen is why I wake up in the morning.
I remind you, I don't really need to work.
But this is why I do it.
Because it has some value.
And I find that waking up without at least the potential to add something to the world is sort of meaningless and stupid.
So I like to make sure I've got at least one thing going on at all times that can make a difference.
And we'll see if that makes a difference.
I guarantee that'll work for some percentage of you.
Guarantee it.
Because the overwhelming response from the people who tried it is just too strong.
All right, that is your gift for the day, and I'll ask you tomorrow how many of you tried it.
And even by tomorrow, watch the comments.
It'll be a wall of comments who said, oh my God, I tried that and it worked.
The greatest reframe ever, maybe.
There's a technology called ShotSpotter that allows the police to know where a gunshot has been fired in their city.
And Wokeness is reporting on the X-Platform that Senator Warren and Senator Markey and Representative Ayanna Pressley, they're trying to get rid of shot spotting in Boston.
Why would you want to get rid of a technology that helps you know where there's some violence with guns?
Can you guess?
Take a guess.
Why would you want to get rid of it?
Well, it turns out That they put most of these shot and spotters, the technology, in black neighborhoods.
And they're saying that's racist, so get rid of them.
Do you know why they put them in the black neighborhoods?
It wasn't because they're black.
They put them in the high crime neighborhoods.
Now, what exactly Do Warren, Markey, and Presley think they're going to get out of this that's good for the people of Boston?
Were the people in Boston clamoring for less or slower police response to shootings?
Was somebody asking for that?
It's like, hey, hey, there was a shooting in my neighborhood and the police were here in seconds.
That's pretty racist.
Aren't they supposed to be there quickly if there's, like, a crime?
I don't understand any part of this story.
Is there something missing?
Is it possible that the story was reported with, like, important context left out?
Or is it just as stupid as it looks?
I'm gonna go with... I think it's just as stupid as it looks.
I think.
So...
How could everything be racist?
So I was seeing a clip that Tucker Carlson was talking to quarterback Rogers, and Tucker was saying that during the Occupy Wall Street years, when there were big protests about all the rich people in Wall Street, that it was just that same time, when that was at its peak, that the New York Times suddenly had a substantial increase It references to racism.
Racist and racism and white supremacy.
And then suddenly, the narrative changed.
And it was no longer about, hey, those rich people.
It was all about, hey, those white people.
That's right.
The allegation is this.
And I've always said this, by the way.
I've told you that I've been the victim of extreme racism in my career.
Extreme.
I lost my job at a bank for being a white guy.
I lost my job at the phone company for being a white guy.
My TV show was basically cancelled because I wasn't African American and they were going to do a block on UPN of just black programming.
So I've been super, super discriminated against.
But I sometimes forget to tell you this.
All of the discrimination was at the hands of white men and white women.
I've never been discriminated against, as far as I know, by a black person.
Like ever.
I can't think of any case where that's ever happened.
How about an Asian American discriminated against me?
Can't think of a time.
How about a Hispanic American discriminated against me?
Anytime.
Anytime in my life.
Can't think of one.
Anybody who is half black, Discriminated against me?
Ever?
Not once?
I mean, I can't think of any time.
But how many times have fucking rich white people discriminated against me?
Well, a lot.
A lot.
And let me tell you, fucking rich white people are the worst.
I think I can say that, right?
Because I'm a fucking rich white guy?
I can criticize my own people.
I believe that's fair.
I believe criticizing my own people is fair.
So, sometimes people misunderstand me when they say that I'm a victim of extreme racial discrimination and gender.
It's all from white men, and a little bit from women, but mostly, mostly it's white men.
Who do you think canceled me from newspapers?
Do you think there were a lot of black owners of newspapers?
There might be some, but I'm not even aware of any, actually.
So, no, it was white people.
The white people canceled me.
It's always white people.
And the Occupy Wall Street thing just sort of brings that up.
It's like, wait a minute.
There was all this pressure against rich white people, and then suddenly there's all this, you know, CRT and ESG and DEI, and it's all we're talking about.
It sounds a lot like the rich white people threw in a little diversion, doesn't it?
That's what it feels like.
Don't know what's true, but that's what it feels like.
Just before I got on, I saw there was a huge improvement in the full self-driving feature on the Teslas.
So something will make it five to ten times more Let's see, more self-driving, meaning that far fewer human interactions.
And at the same time, apparently the California Air Resource Board, the CARB, never even heard of them, have some kind of deal where they're going to raise my California gas prices 50 cents next year and every year after.
In order to reduce emissions.
They're actually going to just price me out of gas.
Now, this is in addition to the existing gas tax, so it's not like just a gas tax, it's raising the gas tax.
Yeah, 50 cents a gallon, right, 50 cents a gallon.
And that's real, but apparently that's going to actually happen.
Now, at the same time, I was trying to decide between a A nice American Bronco gas vehicle.
Mostly because I like their look and they seem to be, you know, they'd have a utility.
Or a Tesla.
Now I'm not sold on electric cars just because I don't have a charger in my house.
But if I put one in, I suppose it wouldn't be the biggest deal.
Because I don't take long trips anyway.
Usually.
So, I think that if California is going to try to price me on a gas, and unless I'm going to move, I might want to go for the Tesla, but then somebody said that the insurance is more for the electric cars.
Is that true?
Is insurance more for a Tesla than a similarly priced vehicle?
I've never heard that before.
Can anybody confirm that?
Because I don't know if anybody's done the full cost of ownership.
Because I always thought the electric was a lower full cost of ownership for the car dealer.
There's a separate question about recycling and all that stuff.
I see a no.
I see a not really.
I see a yes.
I see no's and yes's.
I see doubted.
All right, so that might be fake news.
Well, I am seeing yes's though.
I'm seeing yes's and no's.
Well, it can't be that big of a difference then.
Some people saying maybe a little, but nothing important.
10% more.
Somebody says, all right, we don't know exactly.
We're a little mixed on our fact checking here, but it doesn't look like it's, you know, double or anything.
So I guess, so at the moment, given that I did learn that a bicycle would fit in the back of a Tesla, an e-bike, and it also has a bike rack, I'm leaning pretty heavily toward these Full self-driving Tesla.
Because I think I might actually use my vehicle more if it drove itself.
Here's the thing I don't like about long drives.
I don't like that it forces me to think their thoughts.
Like the car forces me to think about, you know, the road and everything.
And I don't like thinking about something I'm forced to think about for a long time.
But if I could just sit there and I don't know.
Do you pay attention, or do you stop paying attention to the road until it tells you to?
I don't know.
Would it feel different mentally?
I guess I'll have to experience it to know.
But anyway, I'm leaning toward the Tesla over the gas car at the moment.
Speaking of Elon Musk, he's reiterated that the terms cis and cisgender are considered slurs, and you'll get a warning on X if you keep it up.
Um, now I think I played this just right, and what I mean by that is, uh, for how many years have we been hearing this term cis and cisgender?
For, I don't know, maybe eight years or something?
When did it pop into existence?
But it's been years now, right?
And the first time I heard it, I thought, huh, I don't know what that even means.
And then also the second time I heard it and the thousandth time I heard it.
Every time I said, you know, I should probably Google that.
I should go figure out what that means.
Because it kept popping up and I didn't know what it meant.
And I managed to ride that all the way until it was banned.
Now I don't need to know what it means.
I played it just right.
I refused to know what it was and that it didn't matter because it turned into some kind of an insult and you're not supposed to say it anyway.
So, well played Scott, well played, by ignoring it.
I had a philosophy teacher in college who used to, who taught the inbox trick, which by the way has influenced so much of my life.
And the inbox trick goes like this, if somebody puts something in your inbox, let's say it's something they want you to deal with, you leave it there for two weeks, That was his method.
If somebody asks you to do something, you age it for two weeks.
And this was his theory.
He said if it's important, they'll take care of it themselves.
Like if you're not dealing with it, they'll find some other way to get it done because it's important.
If after two weeks they're not clamoring for it, it wasn't important in the first place.
Now, I spent so much time thinking about that, about whether, wait, does that really work?
I mean, it doesn't feel like that makes sense, but when you try it, it does seem to work.
I can't tell you how many times somebody has asked me to do something urgent and I just threw it in the mental inbox.
I was like, nope.
And then a week later they say, nevermind.
Never mind.
I figured out a way to do it.
All right.
It's a great trick.
All right.
There's a new study that says there's a compound in cannabis that might be protective against Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
So it doesn't say that you could get this benefit by smoking it.
It's a compound in it.
But I'm going to guess that you probably do.
Because I'm trying to figure out why, the older I get, the smarter I am.
It's probably the protective benefits of the cannabis compounds.
Not only do I not have Alzheimer's, but I think my IQ is at least doubled.
Wait, if I think that, it probably means I do have dementia.
Dammit, there's no way out of this.
Get out!
Get out!
Alright, I'm back.
All right, here's my theme for the rest of the show.
It's called, Are We Still a Republic?
Are We Still a Republic?
I'll see if I can make this theme work.
First story, nearly 40,000 ballots in Nevada were counted after Election Day.
40,000.
Now, that would be illegal.
Those should not be counted.
40,000.
But the question you ask is, well, It's just 40,000, right, out of the whole state.
How much did Biden win in Nevada by?
34,000.
There were 40,000 illegal votes that mostly went to Biden, and he only won by that amount.
Hmm.
Huh.
That's weird.
That's weird.
Now, on one hand, you could certainly understand why those votes were counted, because if they were real votes, if they were real votes, even if technically they shouldn't have been counted, well, it doesn't feel that bad, does it?
If you think to yourself, well, they intended to vote, maybe the mail got delayed, you know, you don't have a result yet, why not?
At least you can enfranchise your voters and make sure their vote counted.
On the other hand, does anybody believe that this was totally legit?
That just coincidentally the exact amount of votes came in after the date?
Does anybody think that's legitimate?
It might be.
Can't rule it out.
But yeah, so you're asking the right question.
What about the postmark?
I think there are two standards, but I need a fact check on this.
Depending on the state, I think that the postmark would matter, or the when you received it matter.
I think it depends on the state, but I need a fact check on that.
Anyway, this is the claim that the votes came in after the fact, should not have been counted, but they were and may have changed the result for at least one state.
Well, the Rasmussen Polling Company asked this question directly to find out if we're still a republic.
And here's their lead-in.
I'll just tell you what they said.
After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government the convention had created, he said, and I quote, and by the way, I always think these historical quotes are just made up.
I never think these are like the real quote.
But allegedly, Ben Franklin said, A republic, if you can keep it.
Well, Rasmussen asked the public, are we still a republic, and did we keep it?
Only 39% of likely U.S.
voters believe America has done a good job of keeping the republic.
39%.
47% think the republic the founders created has already fallen.
14% are not so sure.
47% think the Republic has already fallen.
47%!
But here's the question I'm going to test you on.
For those of you who are new to this, new to my live streams, you're going to be amazed.
Watch this.
Watch how they can answer the question before I ask it.
Go!
Just go show off.
Go on.
Show your stuff.
There we go.
The answers are coming in.
I haven't even asked the question yet.
But watch this.
Look, and you're all right.
You're all correct.
Okay.
Here's the question that you've already answered without even knowing the answer, without even knowing the question.
What percentage of voters, according to Rasmussen, believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed?
26 percent.
26 percent believe the government is acting with the consent of the governed.
And you knew the answer before I asked the question because you're the smartest audience in the history of the entire republic, which doesn't exist, according to most people.
All right.
How many of you saw a There's a little news story because Kamala Harris used the F word when talking to a bunch of, I think they were some kind of Asian American women's group, I think.
And she said that, you know, sometimes if the door is closed, you've got to, quote, kick the effing door down, except she used the whole word.
Now, so the story was, hey, she used an F word.
Now, can we all agree that nobody cares about that, right?
Nobody cares if a politician swears.
I kind of like it, actually.
I have to admit I like it.
If they don't do it all the time, and they use it for those moments when they really need to, you know, accentuate a point, I think Trump uses cursing better than any politician of all time.
Because he doesn't overuse it.
He'll just throw in a, you know, an S-word, or mostly an S-word, I think.
He doesn't use the F-word.
It's well done.
But I think you missed the headline on this story.
I want you to go back, if you saw the clip, or if you haven't seen it, go look at it.
I want you to see if you maybe missed the top line of what the story should have been.
She was drunk.
Really obviously drunk.
Now, it could have been some other inebriation, but she was very inebriated.
Now, how is that not the story?
The story is she used an F-word?
No, how about the story is this is the way she did it.
You should kick the faggot down!
War down! Wahahahahahahahaha! Wahahahahahahahaha!
How do you ignore that part?
No, the story wasn't about our choice of words.
It was about a choice of drinks.
That should have been the story.
Just think about the fact that you got Joe Biden shuffling around, shitting his pants halfway to the helicopter, where it looks like it, and that the number two person is appearing drunk in public.
Now, I'm sorry, I'm going to stop saying maybe drunk.
Can we stop saying maybe?
That was drunk as fuck.
You can't look at that and think she was sober.
You can't.
I challenge you.
I challenge you to look at that and say, oh yeah, that's sober.
How is that not the story?
And do you not see it?
Are there people who can't recognize?
You can't recognize a drunk in public?
That's about the easiest thing you can spot.
But because she used the F word, it diverted everybody like a magic trick.
It's like, oh, the real magic trick is she used that word.
Wow.
All right.
CNN's Daniel Dale, the fact checker, is back.
And he came to fact check Donald Trump's speech.
Huh.
I feel like he's always on vacation when Biden says something.
Where's Daniel Dale fact-checking Biden?
They only pull him out when Trump gives a rally?
Now here's the funny part.
Remember I told you that you don't understand the news unless you know the players.
If you don't know what the players have done or who they're connected to, you're kind of flying blind.
Everything is about who knows who and who did what and who's connected to what.
So even this story.
So if you just turned on the TV, you would see a fact checker talking to a couple of CNN hosts and doing a bunch of fact checks on Trump.
And if that's all you knew, you'd say, whoa, that Trump sure tells a lot of whoppers.
And that would be your impression.
Now let me tell you a little bit about the players.
One of the hosts, Abby Phillip, is a promoter of the fine people hoax.
She believes, and she has promoted on the air, that Trump said the neo-Nazis were fine people.
Do you ever remember Daniel Dale fact-checking that?
I don't think so.
I don't believe I've ever seen him take a run at that.
So if you didn't know that the fact checker, who seems to be absent when Biden does anything, if you didn't know he was talking to a purveyor of the fine people hoax, it looks really different, doesn't it?
But once you know he's talking to a famous, I assume lying, because I don't think anybody's dumb enough to know that that was true, anybody in the news business, It changes everything.
It's like, oh, a famous hoaxer who has a job as a news host.
Anyway, here's something interesting.
RFK Jr.
said that he says he doesn't want President Trump to have a second chance in office, in part because he says Trump was rolled by his bureaucrats to impose lockdowns and shut down businesses, policies that made things worse.
All right, so RFK Jr., let's pull some things together.
So RFK Jr.
says that President Trump is too influenced by experts.
Is that a problem?
Is it?
What if it had gone the other way?
I'm trying to imagine a world in which mean old orange man Trump Overruled the entire scientific consensus of the time.
How was that going to go?
And I ask you, if we had a president, RFK Jr., and the entire scientific community said, you should do X, but RFK Jr.
said, no, do Y, would you be comfortable with that?
Now, I get that he was right about things, you know, And that the experts were wrong.
We all get that.
I'm not saying that if you take one approach versus the other, you'll always get the right answer.
No.
But I don't think there was a path where Trump could ignore the experts during the pandemic.
That's completely revisionary history.
If you put yourself in the context of the time, he couldn't ignore the experts.
Even if he thought Fauci was bullshit, he couldn't really ignore him because Fauci was agreeing with the other experts.
It wasn't really about Fauci.
And by the way, I will tell you from my, I won't call it my own reporting, but everybody has sources, I'm pretty sure that Trump thought Fauci was bullshit.
But the entire scientific community was sort of on the same side-ish, you know, except for the few notable people who were dissidents and got it right.
So how in the world are you supposed to expect him to ignore experts the next time?
Would you be comfortable with that?
Now, if next time looked exactly like the COVID thing, then yes.
Right.
If there was a mysterious new virus, yes.
Yes.
I would expect Trump to know it's a second trick.
But what if it's a brand new situation?
You know, let's say there's a volcano and all the experts say you better wear a mask for two weeks.
Do you want Trump to say, you don't need a mask?
I don't.
No.
I kind of want to hear what the experts say.
Because I don't think we're at the point where you can ignore them, or that you want a non-expert to overrule them right in front of you.
How is that better?
But here's the interesting part.
How could it be true that Trump is a dictator, and he has authoritative, authoritarian instincts, when at the same time he's being criticized for listening to the experts?
You have to pick one.
Right?
He's either the person who ignores everybody and does what he wants, or he's the person who takes expert advice, including generals.
Including military people.
Doesn't mean he agrees with them all the time, I get that.
But, no, you don't want him ignoring experts.
So you have to decide.
So you've got somebody who's running as a Democrat and saying that Trump is not dictatorial enough, and he's letting experts influence him.
At the same time, another Democrat, now I realize RFK Jr.
is not running in the Democrat Party, but he's a Democrat.
And so the other Democrat, Biden, is saying he's a dictator, and he's not going to listen to the experts.
So, it's all made up.
Neither of those images ring true.
Let me tell you what I think Trump is.
I think he's a practical person.
I think he looks at every situation anew.
He says, alright, what works in this situation?
Does following the experts make sense?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
And I think he's done a good job of calling out when to ignore them.
Because he has a few times.
And I think gotten it right a few times.
So, I don't know.
It's tough to criticize him for bending to the experts.
Because we're looking at it with that 20-20 hindsight.
Yes, if Trump knew today everything he knew then, he should have chosen differently.
But he didn't.
And how could he?
It's ridiculous to imagine that he could have known then what we know now.
That's just bad thinking.
That's bad analysis. All right. So we're learning that Democrat Congressman Dan Goldman apparently met a number of times with Michael Cohen, the big star witness in the Stormy trial, and he met to prepare him for the trial.
Now you say to yourself, huh, that certainly would support Trump's theory that it's a organized Democrat plot and it's not just the legal system doing its thing, but rather it's the Democrats coordinating with the Department of Justice.
In this case, the star witness.
So it looks exactly like the fix was in, but it gets better.
It turns out, um, the judge, the judge's daughter, So Dan Goldman is a client of the judge's daughter, their consulting firm.
So the judge's daughter has a consulting firm that consults Dan Goldman.
Let's see if you just hold this in your head.
The judge's daughter is paying a Democrat congressperson, who's a Biden person, Who is then advising the key witness in the trial that that same judge is in, how to, you know, basically end Trump.
Now, is this a case of, it's exactly what it looks like?
I love this trial.
I didn't think I was going to love it so much.
But the thing is, it's making it so clear what's going on.
Even if you're a Democrat, you see it by now, don't you?
If you're not just bat-shit crazy, you see it, right?
You see that all the legal cases are bogus?
All of them.
You can see it really clearly with the Stormy case, but it's not a coincidence that the other ones are delayed.
Because there's some real problems with the other ones.
Real problems.
So I feel like this is going to be the Rosetta Stone for at least normal Democrats.
Normal meaning somebody who's just, you know, not crazy, basically.
I think that they're looking at this.
I think the Fareed Zakaria's on CNN are looking at it and saying flat out, this is lawfare.
This is a political prosecution.
How in the world, how in the world do Democrats win when CNN says they're doing a political prosecution?
And only fewer than, like, half the people think that the country is not even a republic anymore.
How in the world does Biden win without cheating?
All right.
A number of supporters.
Well, I think, let's talk about Cohen.
I saw MSNBC saying he's doing a great job.
I was watching Morning Joe just melt down today, arguing with, because there's another, there's a New York Times Siena poll that says Trump's up by 11 somewhere, I think Nevada, and they were just, they were just melting down.
Morning Joe, that is mental illness, right?
Because, you know, I feel like, you know, if I'm watching the conservative news and I see somebody say something that to me is clearly more propaganda, you know, just team play, it's being a little unfair, they never look crazy.
The people on the right, the Republicans, they always look like they know exactly what they're doing.
I'll use Sean Hannity as my example.
Does Sean Hannity ever look like he's insane?
No.
If you think he's saying something that's not true or leaving out some context, it looks like he's doing it intentionally.
Now you can have your opinion about that, but it doesn't look crazy.
It just looks like he's pushing a version of things that his audience wants to hear.
Nothing crazy about it.
So it looks completely different over on the other side.
When you watch MSNBC, I only see mental illness.
By the way, I don't see that in CNN.
So it's not just about whether they like or don't like Trump.
When I watch CNN, I look at people who look to me like they know what they're doing.
In other words, I get the Sean Hannity effect from CNN.
I think, I can't read your mind.
But I'm looking at your eyes and your mannerisms and it doesn't look crazy.
It just looks like you're pushing a view of things that's different than the other view of things somebody else is pushing.
But on MSNBC, they do legitimately, no joke, no exaggeration, no hyperbole, they almost all look mentally ill.
Do you see it too?
Now, if I thought that CNN was also just as mentally ill, then I think you could say, okay, Scott, you're just being a team player.
You know, you're just saying, oh, everybody on the left is mentally ill.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
There are plenty of people on the left who don't come across that way at all.
Not even a little bit.
But MSNBC consistently looks mentally ill.
I would guarantee if you looked at the percentage of those hosts who are in therapy, It would be higher than any other network.
Would anybody take that other side of that bet?
Would you take the bet that if you looked at all the on-air hosts of all the different networks, that the highest percentage in therapy would be MSNBC?
Would anybody take that bet?
I wouldn't bet against it.
To me, it looks obvious.
Same thing with, it's basically a whole bunch of Kamalas.
There's just something going on there that's different than having a different opinion.
Well anyway, so the way MSNBC was treating all of Trump's supporters who were showing up in court is that they're all supplicants and they're all sucking up to him and maybe they want the VP job and all that.
Is that a good frame?
See the people are, let's see, the Speaker of the House, Johnson, Vivek Ramaswamy, Byron Donaldson, a few others I think.
Now, when you see those names, do you say to yourself, oh, obviously, these are the suck-ups.
These are the ones who just want to ingratiate themselves with Trump at the maximum amount.
Is that your take on it?
Now, it doesn't hurt to make the presumptive candidate happy.
So you can't say that's a nothing, right?
It does matter what Trump wants.
And it does matter that some people want to work with him or be productive parts of the administration.
So yeah, yeah, there's going to be a little bit of support going on.
But I don't think that's exactly what's happening.
Let me put the frame on it that makes more sense.
And Byron Donaldson did this for us.
He's beating the gag order.
It's just a way to beat the gag order.
All he's doing is bringing in his proxies.
And by the way, MSNBC said he was editing their comments before they made them.
I don't know about that.
And I think if he did, that would be, you know, potentially a gag order issue.
So I don't know that that's true.
That was just reported by somebody who wasn't under oath, uh, and MSNBC.
So, you know, use your judgment on that.
But my take is, um, what do these people have in common?
Johnson, Vivek, and Byron Donaldson.
Let's just take the last two, Vivek and Byron Donaldson.
What do they have in common?
Besides the fact that somebody would say they would like to be VPs or have a role in the administration, what else do they have in common?
Besides being Trump supporters.
It's not obvious?
Is it a coincidence that Trump brought the two best communicators in the Republican Party?
No, three best.
J.D.
Vance.
J.D.
Vance is there.
I forgot about him.
The three best communicators in the entire Republican Party, plus the Speaker of the House.
That's what he did.
He brought the three best communicators in the Republican Party.
Vivek Ramaswamy, Byron Donaldson, J.D.
Vance.
They're not just good.
They're good at a whole other level.
They're good at a level where the Democrats don't even have anybody at that level.
Their best person is below all three of them.
Their best person doesn't communicate as well as any of those three.
Now what about Johnson?
He's a very capable communicator.
He's not on the level of a Ramaswamy, Vance, Donaldson.
He's not on that level.
But I'd also like to point out that Trump will never say this because he doesn't need to.
Two of the three people that I've called out as the best communicators in the Republican Party are not white men.
I love the fact that, you know, if I didn't bring it up because I'm provocative, it doesn't need to be brought up.
The Republicans simply show you their hand.
Here's my cards.
Here's what I got.
I got a Vivek.
I got a Byron Donaldson.
What do you got?
AOC?
Come on.
Really?
What do you got?
Adam Schiff?
Eric Swalwell?
Show us your cards.
Right?
And then you throw in JD Vance, and it's crazy.
I mean, those are by far the best communicators.
You'd agree, right?
All that's missing is maybe Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz should be in that list as the great communicators.
But Johnson is there because he's the most important Republican, I suppose you'd say, who's elected at the moment.
So, to me, this looks like a curated group.
I want to bring in the best communicators and the most important Republican.
And what did the news do?
They could not ignore.
They could not ignore it.
Oh yeah.
Um, Matt Gaetz is now Matt Gaetz, more of a fire brand kind of communicator.
So he might, I don't know if he's the number one choice that I would bring in for this.
Cause he, he brings his own, you know, his own side of complaints about him.
But yeah, he's a great communicator, that's true.
So, to me this is just a huge display of not just support for the president, it's a clear indication that it's lawfare.
Do you think that you would get this group of cats to show up at court to support Trump if there was any doubt about whether he was guilty or innocent?
No.
The fact that they show up is really strong evidence That the question of whether there's any guilt has already been removed before the trial is even over.
I don't know anyone who thinks any crime has been even demonstrated or even listed.
That's what Vivek says.
Can you tell me the crime?
We've been watching this court situation for what?
Days and days and days.
Almost over.
Now list the crime.
Tell me the crime.
MSNBC.
Can you list it?
Can you describe it in a way that's even coherent?
Because no crime was demonstrated, and no crime was even called out.
Now under those conditions, is it safe for the top Republicans, you know, the ones who want to make sure that their reputations are not destroyed, is it safe for them to sit in the court and back the defendant?
Absolutely.
So the message that it's so safe That even these other Republicans are not worried about being tarnished by being in a criminal case for Trump, you know, being in the audience.
They're so safe, because it's so obvious, even CNN is calling it Anna's Lawfare, that it does nothing but add to the gravitas of Trump's complaint, that this is so bogus, that the most respectable Republicans can show up and sit there, and they don't have to bullshit.
Did the Republicans who supported him have to tell any lies?
No.
They simply had to describe what they saw.
That's it.
Very safe.
So, the fact that Trump has once again figured out how to beat the media by bringing in his strongest players, making them get time because, you know, it's, it's a, the fact that they're there at all is a show.
They got to cover the show.
Yeah.
And this is one of the things I always say about Trump, is if you don't understand the show, and the show is the whole show, it's like everything he does, if you don't understand the show, you don't understand anything.
And this was, this was a brilliant scene within the larger show, the Trump show.
A brilliant scene.
Everything about this was right.
Now I'm going to say it again, because every time I say it, I think it's interesting.
The biggest story about Trump's campaign so far is that it's flawless.
How are we not talking about that?
Right?
Because that wasn't true the first campaign.
He was a little too edgy, maybe.
Although, probably got him elected.
The more provocative he was, it probably added energy.
But at the moment, he doesn't need that.
He doesn't need any scary energy.
He's killing it.
I mean, I've never seen performance at this level.
And I would guess that whoever he's taking his advice from, and I can only speculate about that, but keep doing it.
Whoever is advising Trump, and again, is Trump a dictator?
I doubt it.
Because this looks very much like he's taking good advice, doesn't it?
In your opinion, doesn't this look like Trump is really well advised and taking the advice?
It looks like that to me.
That's the president I want, right?
I want the president who, if the experts are acting crazy, maybe ignores them, but if they're nailing it, he's going to surf it.
I think he's surfing the Vivec wave and probably the other folks as well.
Good advice, keep it up.
And then MSNBC is trying to put down some suppressive fire by saying that everybody who works with Trump ends up like Cohen or Pence.
Imagine MSNBC and seeing these three cats show up, four of them, Johnson, Vivek, Donaldson, and Vance.
And they've got to make them act like they're clowns or something?
They couldn't.
It's their strongest people.
And so instead they say, well, you know, if all these strong people keep defending Trump and they work for the administration, maybe they don't know they'll end up like Cohen or they'll end up like Pence.
Do you know how you end up like Cohen?
There's only one way.
It's acting like Cohen.
Trump, Trump didn't turn Cohen into Cohen.
He was already Cohen, right?
You're not going to see Byron Donaldson turn into Michael Cohen.
And the Pence thing was a once-ever, one-and-done.
I mean, really, the only problem that Pence had was how he handled January 6th.
And I'm not even sure he was wrong.
I know you don't like it, but I've always appreciated that Pence was trying to figure out what was the right thing to do.
Now, maybe you think he got it wrong that time.
But I've never disrespected Pence for taking a stand.
Maybe he got it wrong.
Maybe he got it right.
But I respect that he took the hard stand.
I'll always give him that credit, even if he don't like it.
Well, Biden's out there again, after getting fact-checked hard by the media.
For claiming that inflation was 1.4%, no, that inflation was 9% when he came in.
Well, it was more like 1.3 or something, and so it actually went up to 9 in his administration, and now it's down to 3-something, but it's above where it was.
So he goes out, and after getting fact-checked hard, he says the very same thing the next day.
What would cause that?
Why would it be?
Then knowing he would get slapped down, he would go out and just say the same damn thing that everybody just called a giant lie.
Well, I have two possible explanations.
Number one, it works.
Because the fact-checking is only on the right-leaning networks.
It's not getting fact-checked probably anywhere else.
Do you think MSNBC is fact-checking that?
No.
I don't think so.
It would be news itself if they fact-checked it.
So he probably knows that because of the media bubble that everybody's in, he could just keep saying it.
Just keep claiming it until it sounds true.
Now, you know, as you know, Trump uses that technique as well.
So, you know, sometimes it's just hyperbole and directionally true, and if you repeat it enough, people think it's true.
So it could be that he just knows that lying works.
The other possibility that I find more tantalizing Is that his staff has given up.
And I think that's the case.
I believe his advisors have literally given up on him.
Because I think that behind the scenes, they're getting dementia teardowns.
Here's what I think is happening, Mr. President.
Um, about the thing you said yesterday, um, I just want to give you a little fact check.
That, uh, the media is treating that, you know, unkindly.
And, uh, the facts don't really support what you said.
So maybe, maybe you could soften that a little bit or kind of find a different way to do it.
What do you think he says to that?
I think he starts dementia screaming.
Oh, get out of here.
Oh, what are you trying to do?
Oh, it really, really did go up.
Oh, And then after that happens about three times and you look at the polls and you see he's losing anyway, and there's probably no way to reverse it, do you say, I'm going to go do that again?
Or do you say, well, screw him, let him go out and just kill himself.
I mean, not, not literally, but let him go out and just sink in the media.
Look at the face of Tony Blinken.
I'll talk about him in a moment.
Look at the face of Corinne Jean-Pierre.
They have the capitulation face.
Like there's something happening they don't like and there's nothing they can do about it.
It is all over their faces.
And they both look like they gave up.
So the other story is about Tony Blinken over in Kiev.
And he announces that Ukraine is not going to have elections.
Until the war is over, which basically means no elections.
And then he goes and he, he, he plays with a band.
He's playing guitar and singing.
Uh, and people said, that's a terrible look to say, there's going to be no democracy and you're up there playing your thing.
And, and it was just a terrible, terrible look.
And I said to myself, do you think that Tony Blinken would not be aware That that would be a bad play.
He would obviously know it would be filmed.
He would obviously know it would be a story.
He would obviously know it was the wrong choice to look like he's all having a good time in the war zone.
It looks like capitulation to me.
To me it looks like he knows the game is over and maybe even the entire illegal operation in Ukraine will be revealed under a different administration.
He had the eyes of a person who looks like he thinks he's going to jail.
I can't read his mind, but look at his eyes in the last couple days.
And look at Corinne Jean-Pierre's eyes and her demeanor.
She looks like she already was told she's leaving.
Because I have this theory.
I don't remember if I said this.
Stop me if I said this on the live stream yesterday.
I may have said it on the man cave separately.
That if you're the campaign for Biden and you know that your candidate can't talk in public, what are you going to do?
Well, you'd better have great surrogates.
So Trump can't talk in public because he's a gag.
He's gagged.
So he brings in the best communicators of all time, who happen to be Republican.
Joe Biden can't talk in public, but he's got a problem his spokesperson can't either.
So you've got a spokesperson who can't talk in public, without embarrassing the party, talking for somebody who can't talk in public because he's just too gone.
Don't you think that the campaign Has been trying hard to replace Corrine Jean-Pierre.
If they haven't been trying to replace her, they are not doing their job.
Because their only hope is to get rid of her right away and bring in a strong player who can actually support Trump's or support Biden's point of view without Biden doing it.
They got nobody to do that now.
They got nothing.
So I think her Corinne Jean-Pierre's problem is from the Biden campaign.
That's my guess.
Yeah.
All right.
Let's see.
What else?
So Biden has agreed to debate.
He's agreed to two debates.
So Biden says he was talking tough in his little video, saying he wants two debates.
It was one in the end of June and one in September.
End of June would get Trump past his legal case that he's in, and the other ones are delayed, so he wouldn't have that trouble.
And here's what you have to say.
Take a look at the video of Biden saying he agrees to two debates, and sort of challenging Trump.
And watch how many edits there are in the video.
So, I think he talks for 30 seconds.
Somebody said there are five video edits.
I caught at least one.
Do you know what that means?
It means they couldn't trust him to read a teleprompter that was only 30 seconds long.
That they had to edit out so many mistakes that it looked like... They're only like a week away From doing like one of these blackmail notes where you cut out the letters from the newspaper and paste them on the page.
I think they're going to start taking individual words that he's ever spoken and just put them together with clips until he's not wearing the same outfit.
Like, look for his clothes to change while he's talking.
That's coming up.
It'll be like, the inflation is...
And then his necktie will change to another one, and it'll be like, oh, and Biden, oh, Trump, oh, it's gonna look like that.
So watch for his necktie to change while he talks.
All right.
In the meantime, so here's my prediction.
My prediction is that he will not debate, and that he will cancel the June debate.
Why?
Why will he cancel the June debate?
Two possibilities.
Number one, oh, oh, look, there's a fake pandemic.
There's an emergency.
I'm so busy.
I'm so busy with my emergency that I couldn't possibly debate because I got to run this country.
It looks like Russia is attacking.
Russia has upped its attack in Ukraine.
Well, it wouldn't be right for me to be debating when I got to be managing this war situation.
So it's either going to be I can't do it.
The other possibility is he's going to claim that Trump is asking for something unreasonable.
So let's say Trump says, Biden also said that he only wants to do it if it's moderated by lefty entities.
Now he didn't say lefty entities.
He named the ones that have done it recently.
He said it has to be one of those.
And they were all left leaning entities.
So what if Trump says, How about we do the June one with at least one right-leaning entity, and maybe the September one with something else, something like that.
That gives Biden the opportunity to say, well, I guess you turned down the debate, didn't you?
I offered.
Hey, but you asked for those conditions, and no, no, that's unreasonable.
Why don't you do it the way we always did it?
They were the same entities that were in the primaries.
Nobody complained then.
So I guess you're afraid to debate, aren't you?
Or yeah.
So there'll either be like reasons that, um, or, or it might be that, uh, he doesn't want to give oxygen to Trump because he's such a bad person.
Like something new will happen in a new hoax.
Oh, but based on the new hoax, I can't even give this, this dictator white supremacist any air.
Uh, so I'm going to cancel because the public shouldn't, shouldn't even hear him talk.
Let's see in the comments, how many of you think there will be a June debate, given that he couldn't do a 30 second video about the debate?
I think it's a trick.
I think he's just buying time.
And he could be buying time until they replace him and he knows it's going to happen.
Could be.
It could be capitulation.
It could be that Biden kept saying, oh, I can do it.
I can do it.
And his staff knows he can't.
But it could be that the staff said, if we can get him to do the debate in June, and he falls apart, we still have time to replace him.
Because it's before their convention.
Isn't it?
It's before the convention, right?
Oh, give me a fact check on that.
When is the DNC?
DNC convention is when?
It's after that, right?
Is it before or after?
It's after.
Yeah.
So it could be, it could be a Hail Mary by the staff.
So the campaign staff might know full well that you can't survive a debate.
And it might make the polling, you know, 20 point difference or something.
And that would give them the juice to finally replace them.
Yeah, July and August are their conventions.
Okay.
Yeah, end of June is a little suspicious, because it's perfectly timed to replace him if he fails.
So maybe that's the play, because that would look like capitulation as well.
All right.
Meanwhile, the Trump campaign has a new ad in which they're saying that Biden is denying reality about the economy, acting like it's fine.
And here's their framing.
They say, is it dishonesty or dementia?
Oh, that's so good.
Is it dishonesty or dementia?
Because the Trumpers know that the public doesn't think the economy is great.
You know, inflation is high.
They know that.
So if Trump gives them two options, well, if you agree with us, That the economy is not as good as it looks.
How do you explain Biden saying it looks great?
Two options.
Dishonesty or dementia.
He either doesn't know the difference or he's being dishonest.
Do you know what would have been a worse way to go?
To say lying or dementia.
Lying wouldn't have landed as well, but dishonesty.
Dishonesty is wider, isn't it?
Dishonesty gets you all the way to Hunter Biden and Ukraine.
Dishonesty is a much more clever word in this context.
Because if he just said he lied, what would people say?
They'd say, well, Trump lies too.
If you say he's dishonest, well, now it's not as clean as everybody lies.
Because it might be true that all the politicians lie, Except for Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, maybe.
But it's not necessarily true that we think of them as thoroughly dishonest, because Trump will have been so vetted that if you have 91 indictments and none of them land, it's going to look like, oh, maybe he does tell some whoppers, but all the politicians do.
But dishonest?
Dishonest is a different level.
That's a very good choice of words for the ad.
All right.
Mike Benz reports that apparently the government of the United States did some grants to some groups to study how to censor target groups without triggering the martyr effect.
How to censor?
Americans.
Americans.
The government funded grants to study how to censor Americans without the person being censored knowing about it.
Just think about that.
Now, their claim was that they were trying to get rid of the hate speech.
You know, the bad stuff.
But of course, you know, it goes deeper than that.
So the way they did it was, they discovered that if you simply cancelled the person at the top, the person who's making all the trouble, they become a martyr and they get stronger.
Hello.
Does that sound like something that happened to me?
They made me a martyr and I got stronger?
Yeah.
Does it look like it happened to Tucker?
They made him a martyr and he got stronger?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't know about Alex Jones.
I thought I heard that Alex Jones is going to have to close InfoWars because of the lawfare against them.
Is that true?
He's going to close it and reconstitute it as something else because it has to go bankrupt?
Yeah.
Well, there are some people who definitely became less strong when they got canceled.
But the idea was to go after the people who boost them so that they wouldn't know.
So they would just censor the the lieutenants, as Mike Benz calls them, the people below the influencers.
Because if there are people with a million people in their account who keep retweeting these same influencers, you can just stop the million people retweets.
And then it just looks like it looks like people don't care when all it is is you got rid of the lieutenants.
That is a real thing that is really happening in the United States.
You will see, I'll tell you in a few days, about a book of mine that's coming out, that 20 years ago I predicted this very thing.
I predicted a concept called the Prime Influencer.
The idea that you could use big data, which is what they're doing, to identify who are the influencers, and it wouldn't be obvious.
And that if you could turn off the influencers, you could basically control everything.
And that's what they're doing.
Exactly like my fictional book from 20 years ago.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I wanted to talk about today.
So I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube and Rumble and X audience.
I'm going to stick with the subscribers here on Locals, where they get a lot more than just the Dilbert comic.
