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, ChatGPT Rupar Examples, RFK Jr. Debate, President Biden, 5 Daughters Biden, Student Loan Cancellation, National Oil Reserves, Tony Blair, Kennedy Assassination, 50 Cents, Diddy Do It, Moms Across America, Toxic Baby Food, Microplastic Testicles, Trans Movement Funding, Climate Justice Alliance, Portland Car Thefts, Judge Merchan, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Mar-A-Lago Deadly Force, Anti-Tucker Op, Terrorist Migrants, Thomas Massie, Summer Hoax Review, Bill Maher, Soros DAs, 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
If you knew that the Simultaneous Zip is designed specifically to be a stalling tactic because it's a live show.
The only purpose for it is to make sure that you're all here.
Otherwise, I would just jump into it.
So if you miss the Simultaneous Zip, you did it perfectly.
Because that's the part you're supposed to miss while you're getting ready to get in here.
Okay?
So miss it or get it.
You're a winner either way.
Two ways to win, no way to lose.
Well, there's a study from the University, connected by New York University and professors, and they found out that 83% of people hear a voice when they read, usually their own voice, and the rest do not.
I didn't know that was even an option.
Did you know it's an option not to hear your own voice when you read?
How do you not hear your own voice all day?
Let's see in the comments.
All day long, I hear my own voice talking to me in my head, in words, complete sentences, and it's an ongoing conversation as if it's almost like one person talking to itself or something.
But everything I think, I think in words.
When I see a new thing, I put it into the words I would use to describe it to another.
And the way I do that, is I have my inner voice try to figure out how to describe it to the rest of me.
So basically, I'm always in a continuous loop of my inner voice describing in words, to me, what I'm seeing.
So that later, when I want to describe it to someone else, I'll just use those words.
Because it's already been described to me in those words.
That's not what you hear?
I think most of you hear some version of that, right?
I don't even know how you could read without hearing it.
Well, let me say it another way.
For me, reading is listening.
So the trouble with audiobooks that I have is that they're both audiobooks.
If I read it myself, read the words on the page, it gets translated into an inner voice that's like an audio.
And then I just listen to the audio as my eyes are looking at the stuff on the page.
So to me, it's always an audio book.
It's either audio book or audio book.
It's all, it's the only thing there is.
But the real audio books are slow.
If I'm reading, I'm hearing it also, but I'm hearing it really fast.
Anyway.
So last night I had a interesting conversation with ChatGPT.
And I wondered if it was aware of what a Rupar is.
R-U-P-A-R, named after Aaron Rupar.
And it does.
It defined a Rupar as a misleading edit.
And then I said, can you give me some examples of Rupar's misleading edits in political news in the last several years?
So I wanted to just keep it to recent things, and it did.
So I came up with an example of something.
Now, there happened to be an example where the Rupar was done by Republicans on Democrats.
And I thought, oh, that's funny.
I invented the word.
I mean, literally, I came up with Rupar as the name for this technique.
And first of all, I'm not mentioned, so ChatGPT doesn't know I'm the author of Rupar, the word.
But that's fine.
But I did think that since it was invented specifically to describe Democrat hoaxes against Republicans, that if someone were going to give me an example of one, it would be one of those examples where the Democrats hoaxed the Republicans.
But I'm also for fair play.
So if it's going to give me, you know, both sides, I think that's totally fair.
Because of course, it does work both ways.
So he gave me some Democrat example I'd heard before.
And I thought, okay, that's actually a good example.
So I asked for another one.
And by coincidence, it gives me another Democrat example.
Something where it was applied, the trick was used on Democrats.
So I asked for a third one, and it was another Democrat example.
And so I asked for a fourth one, and it was another Democrat example.
Four examples in a row where the bad Republicans Edited something to make those poor Democrats look bad.
So I asked for another one and it gave me five in a row.
All Democrat examples.
So I asked for a sixth example because I wondered how long it would go before it gave me one example that was applied to the Republicans.
And finally it gave me one.
Now I want to see if you can guess Which Republican it says was targeted by a RUPAR?
Which Republican?
Name the Republican.
Let's see if he gets this one right, because it's going to make you laugh.
So there's only one Republican I pointed out, a national level name, somebody you've heard of.
You're right.
How did you do that?
The answer is Romney.
Romney was the only Republican example I could get.
The 47% thing?
They said, oh, that 47% thing was taken out of context.
Now, is it a coincidence that the only example they could come up with, not the most famous examples in the world, such as the fine people hoax, which is, you know, the most central hoax of the entire country?
Nope!
Now, how much of that do you think was programmed?
And how much of that is just the natural way it would go if it trained on the material that's publicly available?
Don't know.
But I certainly don't trust it.
Well, Elon Musk on the X platform said he thought that RFK Jr.
should be invited to the debates.
RFK Jr.
replied to Musk saying, would you host the debate?
And Elon said, yes.
Now, that doesn't mean it's going to happen, but I just love these two guys.
I just love Elon Musk, and I love RFK Jr., even when I don't agree with them.
So I think I almost always agree with Musk.
But even if I don't agree with RFK Jr., I do believe that both of these men are completely oriented toward what's good for the country.
In their view.
And now you can disagree on what's good for the country, but I think these are two real people.
Real people doing real things, and you should pay more attention to them and less attention to people who are bullshit.
That's what I think.
Now, I don't think this debate will happen because I can't imagine Biden agreeing, but I think Trump would agree.
My guess is that Trump would agree immediately.
I don't know.
There's another creepy Biden video.
He's had a speech.
I saw Mario Noffel reporting on this on X. And this is something that Biden just said in public.
Imagine if anyone else had ever said this.
It's going to blow your mind that the President of the United States He said these words in public just yesterday, I guess.
He said, young men—this is some advice, some relationship advice—young men, marry into a family with five or more daughters.
You know why?
And then he leans in and he goes, one of them will always love you.
And then he said that's what he did, because Jill has four sisters.
What does that mean?
What does that mean, that one of them will always love you?
How am I supposed to interpret that, other than he just told the world he wants to bang his wife's sisters?
Did you hear it differently?
I think he just went in public and said, you know, hey, let me give you some relationship advice.
You want to date a woman who's got sisters?
Because if it doesn't work out with a sister, or let's say she's on her period or something, you've got a good chance of banging the sisters.
And I'm thinking, that really happened.
I mean, not in those words, obviously.
But we watched that happen in real time.
Now, what I love about this is, you can get used to anything.
We've gotten used to Biden.
To the point where it's just more of it.
There's just more of it.
And at the same time, you know, it reminds you of his son Hunter Biden dating his brother's widow.
Like, huh, maybe that should be the advice too.
Make sure your brother marries somebody that you'd be willing to sleep with, you know, just in case something happens to him.
So, be convenient.
So, relationship advice from the Bidens.
Maybe you should seek another source.
Well, ABC News says on X, the Biden administration is canceling student loans for another 160,000 borrowers through a combination of existing programs.
Huh.
That's an interesting choice of word.
Canceling student loans.
So I guess the debt just disappeared.
That's good.
Isn't that great that nobody owes that money?
Just disappeared.
How lucky.
I wish he could do that to all of my debt too.
Well, I don't have much debt.
But if I did, I wish he could make it go away.
And nobody would have to pay it.
That's the great thing.
Or is the headline complete propaganda bullshit?
Because with my business experience, I would have described this otherwise.
I would have said the Biden administration is transferring the loans from people who got the benefit from the loans to people who did not.
Because that's what just happened.
The debt was transferred.
From the people who got the benefit of the debt.
You know, they got the education.
And they're transferring the debt to the people who got no benefit.
That's what happened.
So why do we talk about this as cancelling debt?
Because your news media are a bunch of garbage?
No, nothing got cancelled.
It got transferred to you.
It got transferred to people who didn't benefit from it.
Now, you could argue separately whether it's a good idea or a bad idea.
But don't piss on my head and tell me it's water.
Just call it what it is.
If you're going to defend it, call it what it is.
We'd like you to pay off the debt that these other people acquired.
Now, believe it or not, I could actually be talked into it.
If you were just honest to me and said, you know what?
We would be moving the debt from the people who took it on to the people who did not benefit.
But here's the argument.
The argument is that the system changed, and young people were brainwashed into this debt, and they were not really capable of making these decisions, maybe didn't know what they were getting into, and were just unburying people who were sort of victimized by the system.
If you gave me that argument, you could actually sell me on that.
You can sell me on that, because I do believe that brainwashing and propaganda and the forces of society are especially strong on children.
The same argument that I say we should cancel TikTok is because young people are too susceptible to brainwashing.
So if you want me to be consistent, just take that argument over to the loans and say, look, if you believe that Young brains are too easily brainwashed that you'd be willing to get rid of TikTok, which is, you know, a risk to free speech.
We all agree on that.
If you would take that risk to free speech to get rid of TikTok because young brains are too susceptible, why would you be okay that they were brainwashed into taking on debt that they couldn't pay back?
It's an argument.
It is an argument.
Now you can certainly push back and say, but that's the way the world works.
I shouldn't pay for other people's mistakes, right?
Wouldn't you prefer that you don't pay for people's mistakes?
Right.
We all prefer that.
Let people make their own mistakes and everybody's responsible and the system works better.
But you're aware that we routinely do this.
We routinely insure each other against our own worst impulses.
Take, for example, health care.
Health care is where people who don't do bad things to themselves are subsidizing the health care for the people who are taking terrible life choices every day.
Well, my health care costs would be half if everybody took care of themselves as much as I do.
Is that fair?
Yeah, my body weight is my ideal weight, and I watch my diet, and I exercise, and I don't drink alcohol, right?
If everybody did at least that, and maybe you could do more, my cost would be half.
But I'm not really arguing about it every day, because I kind of like the freedom that people can do bad things to themselves sometimes, and maybe a little bit of social, you know, umbrella support couldn't be the worst thing in the world.
So you could make the case, but not the way they're doing it.
If they're gonna piss on my head and call it rain, then I say no.
Call it what it is.
Call it what it fucking is.
And then we'll have the conversation, and you might actually talk me into it.
But don't lie to me.
That's just a hard no.
There's more reports that Biden is looking to further drain off our national gas reserves.
I guess this Latest big bill had tucked into a somewhere that There's a provision to sell off and shutter the Northeast gasoline supply reserve So instead of refilling it, they're just going to close it and not refill it Now there's probably another there's probably another part to the story.
I'm not hearing there's probably something like We didn't think we need it because of X Y or Z but without that part Why did you think this was a good idea to close these?
Then it just looks like he is draining them to lower gas prices a little bit with no regard to national defense.
It looks like a terrible idea, but I'd be open to further reporting that changed the context.
So I'm open to this being fake news.
I don't know yet.
Well, as you know, Klaus Schwab, the The guy who dresses like an evil villain, the head of the World Economic Forum, he stepped down.
And I saw one report that says Tony Blair might be the likely person to take over the job.
Tony Blair.
Now, I don't know a ton about Tony Blair.
The only thing I know is, is he not implicated in every bad thing that the government's done in 20 years?
Is his reputation such that you'd say, yeah, we trust that guy?
Yeah, let's put Tony Blair in charge of this big world-affecting organization.
I don't know.
Doesn't look ideal.
According to Rasmussen Polling Company, 42% of voters think it is at least somewhat likely the CIA was involved in JFK's assassination.
42% of the country think it's At least somewhat likely that Kennedy was taken out by the CIA.
Now, I'm in that group.
I'm in the group that says they were probably at least aware of it or supportive of it.
Might have been others.
It might have been, you know, mafia, but I think our people were maybe a little helpful.
That's what I think.
But Rasmussen points out that 42% of voters is substantially more than the total number who will vote for Biden.
So at this point in time, there are more adult voters in the country who think it's somewhat likely the CIA killed Kennedy than there are people willing to vote for Biden.
Now, normally you wouldn't compare those two things because they're just sort of different stories, but somehow that works.
That comparison actually feels like it's telling me something useful.
All right.
Well, uh, Rapper-actor 50 Cent, who I call Fiddy, somehow he's selling a P. Diddy documentary to Netflix, and there was some big massive bidding war, and the name of the documentary, of course, is tentatively titled Diddy Do It.
Diddy Do It.
Come on.
We all use that one, but it's a good title.
Now, the question I ask is, How much does Fiddy really know about Diddy?
Does Fiddy really know about Diddy?
So it's sort of a Fiddy Diddy situation.
And will this documentary be dumb or not?
Could it be a Fiddy Diddy dumb situation?
No.
Could it be that they were both involved in some sexual exploits and then it would be a Fiddy Diddy diddling?
I don't know.
I have many, many questions about this.
But the biggest question is, why would 50 Cent even have enough information about this one other person that he could sell a documentary?
So I got questions, but I'm very curious about it.
One of the questions is, doesn't this violate some kind of wrapper code?
I haven't spent much time on the streets, but Have I been lied to that narking out on somebody is a bad idea?
How does 50 Cent survive this?
Can you live in that world in which, let's say, you're one level away from the people who say they're the straight, even though he's a famous rich guy now?
Can you survive in that world if you call out somebody else's crimes in that world?
I feel like there's something I don't quite understand about this story yet.
There's a missing piece or two about this, why this is even happening.
And now there's some former model and winner of MTV's 1998 model show, Crystal McKinney, and she says that Combs drugged her and then forced her to perform oral sex on him two decades ago when she was 22.
And she met him at Men's Fashion Week.
You know, I'm not going to make any assumptions about the truth of any of the claims.
Because on one hand, you know, if he's guilty of these things, you would expect this kind of story to surface.
On the other hand, if he were guilty of nothing, and remember, innocent until proven guilty, this one's going to be a tough one.
Because, you know, in all likelihood, there'll be lots of reports of things.
I'm going to try to maintain innocence until proven guilty on this one, just to keep my standard clean.
You know, I don't like to vary from that standard.
But I would also point out that if nothing happened, what would it sound like if she went to his apartment willingly, had a bunch of drugs that she knew she was taking, and then performed some sexual acts and then felt bad about it the next day?
How would that look materially different than he drugged her and forced her to perform oral sex?
It's going to be really tough to prove the drugged and forced part 20 years ago.
So, I don't know.
I would say that you should not assume the credibility of the accusers is greater than the credibility of the accused.
They all sort of come from the same world, if you know what I mean.
It's people who traveled in a certain kind of world, and I wouldn't find any of them credible, basically.
Basically, none of them are credible.
Now, I'm not defending Dinny, right?
That's not my job.
And the allegations are horrifying, so it's not my job.
I'm just saying I live in a country where innocent until proven guilty still means something.
And don't assume that the accusers are more credible than the accused.
They might be, but don't assume it.
Well, Moms Across America is a group that, among other things, I guess they're testing our food supply in this country to make sure it's safe.
They tested 20 brands of baby food and found that 100% of them are filled with toxic aluminum and lead.
And 80% of them had levels higher than the EPA allows for drinking water.
So, we're poisoning all our babies.
Which leads me to this question, in a related topic.
What do pickleball and American men have in common?
Go.
Pickleball and American men.
What do they have in common?
I'll give you five seconds.
Pickleball and American men have in common, they both have plastic balls.
Because it turns out there's a whole bunch of microplastic in men's balls.
And apparently it's just in everything.
There's basically just all kinds of crap in our balls.
So it's coming from plastic Bottles and it's coming from the environment and you know, I saw some tips on how to avoid it.
You can't.
Basically it's just everywhere now.
There's just plastic and everything.
Now here's the one that really made me give up.
Cause I say to myself, Oh, if you tell me what I shouldn't eat or drink, I will immediately not eat or drink those things just for abundance of caution.
But it turns out, If you drank out of a aluminum can, it turns out that the interior of the aluminum can is plastic.
Did you know that?
How many of you knew that the interior of an aluminum can is plastic?
So you're going to get plastic from aluminum.
You're going to get plastic from the water source itself.
You're going to get plastic from a plastic bottle.
Apparently we're just full of plastic.
So the plastic is in our balls and we can't make babies because of it.
Literally.
Literally.
Let's see.
What else?
I saw a report that a few Chinese billionaires are some of the major funders of the pro-trans movement in the United States.
They are, however, completely silent on the issue in China.
Because China has none of this trans business.
They only like to promote manly, masculine things.
And so the thinking is that this is not an accident.
It's part of the, you know, the, the allegation is as part of the total war that, uh, allegedly China is performing against the United States.
And that total war would mean doing every kind of persuasion and, you know, little thing you can do in every domain to hurt the other.
And I don't, I'm not going to say that that sounds totally right to me.
But I don't have another reason to understand why Chinese billionaires are funding trans movements in the United States.
It does sound like it's being done for bad reasons.
Maybe not.
Maybe they're just real forward-thinking people and they can't do their thing in China, so they do it in America, hoping it would spread.
But I doubt it.
There's no indication they have any trans family members or any connection to the community.
It looks like it's war.
So if you kept wondering, why in the world am I hearing so much trans stuff all the time?
Well, it might be coming from the organizations funded by two Chinese billionaires and it might be coming from TikTok owned by China.
I think that's probably the answer.
So if you wonder, we were all thinking, hey, you know, maybe it's just the slippery slope.
You know, at one point people said, all right, We won't kill you for being gay." And then it went to, all right, well, we'll tolerate you as long as you don't get married.
All right, you can get married, but just, you know, don't make me bake a cake.
All right, we'll bake a cake, you know, but maybe not in that store.
And so a lot of you thought, well, the trans is just where it ends up.
It's just a slippery slope.
But it could be that that slippery slope is really China just pushing people down a hill.
It might be no slippery slope at all.
It might be just China making us focus on it because it's divisive.
It makes us weaker, perhaps they think.
I don't know if any of that's true, but it's definitely plausible enough that I would treat it as true.
All right.
Likewise, we're hearing today that the EPA has some gigantic amount of funds And they gave some of it, 50 million of it, recently to the Climate Justice Alliance.
Now, that sounds good.
It's the EPA, and they fund entities that do good things for the environment.
And the Climate Justice Alliance, well, that sounds great!
So, that's good news, right?
The EPA funding one of these useful entities called the Climate Justice Alliance.
Because, you know, I like climate justice.
I like the climate.
I like justice.
And alliances are good, too.
I like everything about those three words, and when you put them together, I mean, it's irresistible.
Climate justice alliance?
That's everything I like!
I mean, now that my balls are made of plastic.
That's all I like.
But it turns out that this climate justice alliance, and maybe some others that are getting money from the government, have a very anti-Israel bent to them.
But the bigger problem than the fact that we're literally funding people to try to destroy the, you know, alliances of the United States and Israel, I suppose, the bigger problem is apparently we don't know where our money goes.
How about that?
How about the fact that we just figured out that we were funding massively entities that are anti-US interests?
Massively.
And apparently there's a lot of it.
So I would say at the very least, somebody like a Trump should be saying, we're going to put some auditors in.
And if you can't explain where your money went to last time, you don't get any more.
I mean, it's gotta be something like that.
You tell us where you spent it last time we gave you money.
Oh, you can't.
Okay.
That's it.
That's the end of it.
Period.
And it might, it might cut off, you know, vital, important services.
Good.
You got to do it.
You don't have a choice.
If people can't tell you where they're spending it, you can never give them money again.
And it doesn't matter if they were using it for good purposes.
You got to keep the system intact because if the old system falls apart, it doesn't matter how smart you are.
Yeah.
So if you can't account for it, you can't get more money, period.
Up in Portland, let's talk about the slippery slope.
You know how crime just kept getting worse and worse and you thought, well, that's a slippery slope and it's just going to turn into a hellscape.
Well, I always tell you that a better way to think of things than the slippery slope is inertia and then counter forces.
Things will always move in the direction they're moving until something stops it.
So here's what's happening in Portland.
They had a massive problem with car theft because the government had completely failed.
So the slippery slope would suggest, well, there goes Portland.
It basically it's over.
It's just going to get worse and worse crime until nobody lives there and it's a dead city.
But instead that inertia is being countered by a blocking force.
It turns out in Portland, Portland, there's a, Fairly large organization of volunteers who go and look for stolen cars.
So I guess they have a list of stolen cars somehow, and they just go around and look for them.
As a hobby.
And they've got just tons of people.
20,000 members.
20,000 people are on the lookout for stolen cars, and when they find one, they have some kind of Facebook group, they'll say, here's your stolen car, here's a picture of it, and then you can go get it back.
You just take your spare key, and just go drive it home.
If nobody catches you, I guess.
So, why not more of that?
If we have, let me put it this way, In theory, we've got all these public cameras everywhere.
Could you not program at least the ones that are street level, where you can pick up a license plate?
Don't you think people should just drive around with like a Google camera, 360 camera on their car, simply drive through the city every night, and have the cameras automatically check every license plate?
And then automatically, Uh, compare the license plates to the stolen car list, and then automatically send an email with the location immediately, no delay, immediately to the owner of the car.
How about that?
You could actually build, you could build a self-driving Tesla.
All right, Elon, here's what I want.
Elon Musk.
The Teslas have cameras all over them.
Get yourself a self-driving car that simply does a grid like a Roomba.
On the city every night.
It literally just goes boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, up and down every street, photographs every license plate, and then automatically tells you where all the stolen cars are parked.
How about that?
Well, we might have seen something like that.
Well, you know that Judge Merchan, who's the judge in the case with Trump and the Stormy Daniels payments, etc.?
According to his attorney, Alina Haba, This judge was somehow randomly selected.
I guess that's how judges are selected.
They're chosen randomly, so there's no bias.
And this one judge was randomly selected to handle the Steve Bannon case, randomly selected to handle the Ellen Weisselberg case, and then randomly selected to handle Trump's case.
It's exactly what it looks like.
Yeah, it's corrupt.
It's rigged.
Now you tell me, tell me I'm watching this case in New York and tell me that the 2020 election was not rigged.
But let's do the one story just right after the other and see if you can not look like a fucking idiot.
Okay, yes, it's true.
We're all observing that massive lawfare is being used against Trump, and indeed something that our system would never allow under normal circumstances, but it's not a normal circumstance.
They're trying to stop Hitler from rising to office.
They say.
They say it's Hitler.
So, they're doing it right in front of us, and they're using every trick that they can get away with, and some that they're not getting away with.
It's all illegal.
It's all obviously corrupt, right in front of us.
But the 2020 election?
Just great!
Yeah!
Oh, aren't we lucky?
Aren't we lucky that the same fucking people who are doing the lawfare right in front of you, the same fucking people who said the laptop was Russian information, The same fucking people who brought you the Russia collusion hoax, the same fucking people who brought you the fine people hoax and the other hoaxes, they're the ones doing the lawfare.
And they're the ones, you're going to tell me, you're going to look at my face and tell me, oh, but the 2020 election was good.
Yeah.
No, you're seeing 500 pieces of fucking corruption on one legal case in front of us.
So bad that even the Democrats are saying, um, no, no, you can't, you can't even sell Dershowitz on this case, right?
Now he, I shouldn't say even sell him.
He's the one who actually looks at evidence.
Unlike most of the world, he actually looks at the evidence and the law.
No, every one of us see what's happening.
And as long as this is going on, you don't have any right To criticize anybody who says 2020 was rigged.
The lawfare is proof it was rigged.
To my mind, now it's not a legal proof, but it's a logical proof.
So it's not a scientific proof.
In other words, you found some evidence and it's not a legal proof, as in you proved in court.
But if it's true, That the same bag of cats would do this lawfare right in front of you?
Then it's obviously true they rigged the election.
It's obviously true.
I don't know how, but do you think the fact that I don't know how has anything to do with whether it happened?
Of course not.
Of course not.
Yeah.
Now whether they rigged it enough that it made a difference, I haven't seen that evidence.
So I haven't seen evidence that's proof.
But of course they tried.
Of course they tried.
I just don't know how well they did it.
All right, let's talk about all the hoaxes.
We'll get to Bill Maher and what the hell's wrong with him in a bit.
So apparently we know now from a document that has been available, that just became available, that the FBI, when they authorized the raid on Mar-a-Lago to get those boxes back, had in their document authorizing it Um, and order, uh, allowing deadly force, allowing deadly force, which causes many Trump supporters to say, wait a minute, was that really just an assassination plan?
Were you planning to just go in there and look for trouble and start blazing away?
Well, it didn't take long for the, uh, for the FBI to say, um, we just negotiated in advance.
All they did was call the Secret Service and say, hey, we're planning to go in here.
Are you cool with that?
Yes.
Are you going to try to stop us?
No.
Can we arrange this so that, you know, we meet and everything's safe?
Yes.
And then they arranged it so everything was safe and everybody knew what was happening and there were no surprises.
Now, I'm going to call this one a hoax.
Because their claim is that it's standard procedure, just boilerplate, they leave it in there.
If they're going to carry guns, they're all armed, right?
If they're going to carry guns, there should be a document, or at least a standing order, that says under what conditions they can use them.
If the document just has some boilerplate that says, yeah, if you need to use your gun, use your gun, that's not really changing anything, is it?
Do you think they were going to do this without guns?
It's the FBI.
They always have guns.
They're not going without guns.
So you need some rule that says when to use the guns.
And they just have a regular rule that says if you need them, you can use them.
So I'm seeing in the comments that Bongino says it's not standard.
The fact that they negotiated with the Secret Service ahead of time and the fact that nobody drew a gun, there's no indication anybody brandished a weapon, right?
If nobody brandished a weapon and they negotiated in advance, I don't know.
I have a hard time believing that, you know, the plan was to kill them.
Here's what I do think.
I do think if it had been somebody else, they would have taken that out of there.
Will you meet me halfway?
If it had been someone else, another ex-president, they probably would have said, oh, we should just delete this because there's no way we're going to start shooting.
But it does, it does maybe tell you a mindset, but it also might be just an oversight and standard procedure and stuff.
So let's wait to hear from Dan Mangino and the people who know more than I do, but I think it's probably a little overdone.
There's probably something halfway true, meaning that the people who did the documents wouldn't mind at all if he got shot.
Maybe, but I don't know that it was an actual plan.
That's going too far.
Well, Glenn Greenwald tells us how this Newsweek deal may have worked, and Mike Cernovich gives us a little more color on this.
So, I guess Newsweek had this fake news recently that went viral, claiming that Tucker Carlson had launched a new program on Russia's state TV.
Now, if that were true, it'd be pretty big news.
Well, it was totally made up.
There was nothing to it whatsoever.
Now, why do you think Newsweek would run a fake story like that?
It'd probably be really easy to check, wouldn't it?
Don't you think he'd just call Tucker Carlson and say, is this true?
Do you think he would deny it if it were true?
No, he wouldn't.
Have you met Tucker Carlson?
If it were true, he would say something like, I don't talk about my business.
Or he'd say, yes, absolutely.
Why wouldn't I do it?
But just ask him.
Why would you run the article without just asking him if it's true?
Isn't that sort of obviously missing?
The part where you ask the person who is easy to contact.
Nobody ever said we reached out for comment and he didn't comment.
Nobody said that, did they?
Why don't you just ask him?
Well, if they'd asked him, he would have said, that's funny, that's stupid.
No, that's not happening.
But why would they do it?
Well, if you just think it's to smear him, you might be missing the real play.
The real play might be this, and apparently this is standard business.
Somebody in the government who doesn't like you leaks a fake story to the media, somebody they know.
The media runs with it.
And then once it's in the media, those same people who gave them the story can say, whoa, Tucker Carlson's dealing with Russia?
That must be a Putin connection.
And then they can spy on everything that Tucker Carlson does forever.
Because they would have a legitimate overseas target, Putin and whoever works with him, and then they can get into anything that Tucker's doing, and he's connected to everybody in the conservative world.
Probably that's the game.
Probably that's the game.
It's unlikely it was just a normal, a normal story that is just wrong.
It's almost certainly an op.
That's my guess.
Bill Mlugin of Fox News is down at the border and he's at the San Diego area and he says there's masses of men coming across the border, none of them Mexican.
There are masses of men crossing the southern border in San Diego, zero Mexicans.
Zero.
None.
They're all coming from the countries who were special interest countries.
Iran, China, Pakistan, Middle East, Asia.
Not a single Mexican.
Well, can you join me in congratulating Kamala Harris for a job well done?
Good job.
Because Kamala Harris, her job was to make sure that the immigration from Central America and Mexico was curtailed.
And apparently she nailed it.
The border's wide open and the Mexicans are staying home.
And the Guatemalans must be staying home.
Or they're getting here another way, I guess.
Probably being flown in.
Well, AIPAC targeted Thomas Massey because he didn't want to fund the war in Israel.
And according to Massey, they spent $400,000, which is a lot for a campaign like this, to To make him lose his race, but he won.
And he won by, he got 76% of the vote, so it wasn't even close.
Now, and of course, Thomas Massey was sort of celebrating their, their failure to stop him.
And here's what I think.
If they really spend $400,000 trying to stop Massey, that's too far.
That's too far.
I don't mind when AIPAC promotes their preferences and it's all above board and we can watch them operate and Israel's an ally.
I can tolerate a special situation because it is a special relationship.
But when you put $400,000 into an American election, I mean, these are Americans who are funding it, but I think for the most part AIPAC is American funding.
But that's too far.
That's not cool.
you Yeah.
Leave Thomas Massey alone.
You know, because he's not anti-Israel or anti-Jewish people.
He has a philosophy about what we should be spending our money on.
You don't take that guy out.
You could disagree with him, but you don't take him out.
That's too far.
If there was somebody who seemed to you a little anti-Semitic, Yes.
I mean, that seems like fair game to me.
If AIPAC wanted to go after somebody in Congress who clearly was just anti-Semitic, I'm not going to complain about that.
Yeah, go get them.
But if you're taking somebody out because he's a libertarian, too far.
Fuck you.
Too far.
Leave the libertarians alone.
They're not bothering you.
I mean, you don't like how they vote, but it's not about you.
It's not always about you.
Sometimes there's just a philosophy that's overriding.
And so leave Thomas Massey alone.
It's too far.
All right, some documents were found in Trump's bedroom.
Some more classified documents.
Who knows how real this is and how classified those documents are.
The only comment I saw that was funny is somebody asked if the documents were stuck together.
Okay, that's kind of funny.
The mental image of Trump pleasuring himself to classified documents is very funny.
That is very funny.
Now, it's not just funny when it's a joke about, you know, Biden.
Sometimes it's funny when it's about Trump.
Funny is funny, right?
Funny is funny.
It doesn't have to be anything but funny.
That's funny.
All right.
The other summer hoax they're trying to get up here is that apparently Trump reposted some kind of an ad that was made by somebody not connected to the campaign, but he posted it without listening to it because toward the end there's some reference to the Unified Reich, using the Nazi German word for regime.
Now, I saw somebody trying to defend it as, hey, Reich is just a word.
It just means, you know, the regime.
And I'm thinking, no, no.
Whoever did the ad chose that word intentionally.
I think there's no chance that whoever posted it for Trump or if Trump reposted it, I don't think there's any chance he knew that word was in there.
But Biden immediately Goes to his new hoax mode and goes, well, is this on your official account?
That's what Nazis say.
So if you believe that the 2020 election was not rigged, you'd have to believe that there are people who would not be willing to stop Nazis because they were told they were.
All right.
Vivek says New York Times is vehemently claiming that non-citizens voting is not a problem.
But if it's such a non-issue, why are they so opposed to the bill to ban it?
So the gaslighting is so extreme that we can be told simultaneously, there's no real issue with non-citizens voting.
It's trivial.
It's nothing.
And by the way, we don't want to ban it.
Wait, what?
Why wouldn't you ban that?
If it's not legal for them to vote, Wouldn't banning it be the logical thing to do?
Nope, we're gonna fight banning that, even though it's not an issue.
The level of gaslighting is just through the roof.
Trump clarified that he will never, ever, in capital letters,
Advocate imposing restriction restrictions on birth control because that's another one of the hoaxes that Dems are trying to gin up that he's into that the Republicans or Trump in general Okay, I don't know what that's about All right, let's talk about Bill Maher so Bill Maher is doing a book tour he's appearing on a lot of shows and saying a lot of things but
Among them, he went on Megyn Kelly's podcast, and here's what we learned.
Apparently, Bill Maher did not know that Hillary Clinton and all the top Democrats said out loud and often that the 2016 election was rigged and was illegitimate and Trump was not a legitimate president.
He learned that yesterday.
Hold this in your mind.
Bill Maher's job, his job, his only job, well I guess he's a stand-up too, but his only job is talking about politics.
And he didn't know the biggest story in the country.
He didn't know that election denial is something that Democrats do every election.
And he learned it live on the podcast.
Now that's embarrassing.
That should be humiliating.
If it's your job to talk about it, and something that important, that the entire January 6th thing was a narrative and bullshit, because it was sort of closer to business as usual than it was to an insurrection, he didn't know it.
It'd be one thing to have a different opinion.
But he didn't know it.
The most important fact of the whole story is that it's business as usual.
That's the whole story.
And the main part of the story he was unaware of.
Until yesterday.
Gets worse.
He also believed that cops were killed on January 6th.
He actually said, he was mocking Meghan, he says, like they didn't show up to the Capitol and kill cops.
Multiple cops.
Cops plural.
He believes that protesters killed cops on January 6th.
And then he joked, he said, oh, well, did they die of natural causes or something?
Yes.
Yes, they died of natural causes.
It's in the news.
It's called the news.
Again, the January insurrection is the biggest story in the country because it's the main thing that will determine whether people vote for Trump.
And he didn't know, probably the most important fact, that the protesters didn't kill anybody, but the Capitol Police killed one.
How do you not know that?
Gets worse.
Now this one is a mind boggler.
So when Megyn Kelly pointed out that the border situation is a disaster, so how could Bill Maher be supporting Biden when the borders open?
It's a disaster.
And Maher, uh, said he didn't, he goes, really, is it that different than when Trump was president?
I swear to God, he said that yesterday.
Yesterday, he said in public with Megyn Kelly.
Who, by the way, is just killing it.
She's doing such a great job in her podcast.
He thought the border situation was similar now, I mean worse, but not really much different.
Just hold that in your head for a moment.
It's his job to inform his audience, you know, in the context of entertainment, but to inform his audience.
He didn't know that.
Now I remember seeing a, maybe it was on Club Random, where he said that he limits his sources of news to just a few.
And I think the New York Times was one, and maybe one other.
And I thought to myself, oh my God.
Remember, I often say to you, you can no longer have a conversation with somebody, a productive conversation, with someone who thinks that some of the news is true.
He thinks some of the news is true!
It's his job to talk about the news, and he still thinks some of it is real?
The political stuff?
I mean, if there's an earthquake, they usually get that right.
A natural disaster?
Sure!
They can tell you what date a holiday will fall on.
But no, when they talk about politics, none of that's real.
None of it's real.
It's at least in the context.
So, does he really not know that?
But then here's the ultimate.
So Marr said, he said this on Guffield, he said that long before January 6th, He's taking credit, Morris, because he predicted that Trump would not leave office peacefully.
So he's taking credit, and he said, people said that when I said that, you know, long ago, people said, Bill, you smoke too much marijuana.
And Bill joked, well, apparently I smoke just enough, because sure enough, Trump didn't leave office peacefully.
Except that he lost, he did leave office peacefully.
So Bill Maher is saying, I correctly predicted that Trump would not leave peacefully, we all observed that Trump left peacefully, and he's claiming that his prediction was right, while we all observe, with our own eyes, that Trump is not president, and that the violence was never intended to have that outcome.
The protest was very specific.
Can you find out if this election was rigged, because it sure looks like it.
Do you think he doesn't know that the point of the insurrection was to find out if the election was rigged, because it sure looked like it?
Do you think he really doesn't know that?
Now, I would have said before, of course he knows that.
But now I say no.
I think maybe the most basic facts about January 6th, he actually doesn't know.
And it's his number one reason for opposing Trump is the January 6th situation, and he showed he doesn't actually even know what happened.
He's the main voice for Democrats understanding the world.
He's one of the main voices.
This is the most pathetic book tour I've ever seen.
Now, the book might actually be pretty funny, so I'm not going to diss the book, because I haven't read it.
He said he personally edited it, so I had all of his best stuff from his monologues.
So, if you like that stuff, it's probably pretty good.
However, if I were in the business of talking about politics, and I were hanging my hat particularly on the January 6th situation, And on immigration too, because that's a big deal.
And I didn't know anything about those topics that was real.
I would quit my job.
Like, after this book tour, he should literally retire.
He's part of the problem.
Let me say it as directly as possible.
He's a fucking disaster.
Bill Maher is a fucking disaster.
I actually thought that he would be helpful because he seemed to be open-minded enough that when he heard an argument on the other side, he didn't reject it immediately.
But the problem is he's intentionally preventing himself from seeing arguments on the other side, apparently, by limiting his news access.
So now that he's somewhat accidentally been exposed to other opinions, I think he needs to quit because he's clearly damaging the country in a very substantial way.
And I wouldn't say that about, really, anybody else.
Because the thing is that when you watch CNN and MSNBC, if you're paying attention at all, you at least know they're not trying to be unbiased.
Am I right?
Like, nobody thinks they're trying to play it down the middle.
And if you watch Fox News, same thing.
Nobody thinks they're trying to play it down the middle.
But if I watch a comedian who's, you know, famous for having some opinions that can violate, you know, the preferences of both teams, You kind of feel like you're getting something closer to the truth, because comedy has that effect.
But apparently he's one of the big accidental gaslighters in the country.
So he's accidentally gaslighting his audience, and he has a huge reach.
He should quit.
Because he's done the worst job I've ever seen of trying to be useful but accidentally being just really a blight on politics.
So, nothing personal.
He just has to know that he... What is the name of that?
Dunning-Kruger?
So it looks like a Dunning-Kruger situation.
Where, not because he's dumb, because he's not.
He's very smart.
Let's all agree on that.
There's no intelligence problem here.
He's very smart, very capable.
But he's chosen a strategy, which is not looking at all the news, which guarantees he's a menace to society.
So at this point, I'd call him a menace.
And it's under the form of entertainment.
So it's way worse than I thought.
I really thought he understood what was true, but was taking a position that maybe was a little bit personal because he doesn't like Trump or something.
That was my operating theory.
My current operating theory, which is really well established by Megyn Kelly and also Goefeld, is that he doesn't know what the news is.
And it's his job to talk about it.
I've never seen anything like this.
This is quite remarkable, actually.
You know who I wouldn't say this about?
You know, somebody like Cenk Uygur, you know, also a big anti-Trumper.
But I think he's well informed.
Is he not?
I feel like he actually knows the stories and then just has a different preference about how things should be, which is fair.
Yeah.
Anyway.
Rasmussen also reports that they did a poll on Congress, and if elections were held today for Congress, 47% of likely U.S.
voters would vote for Republican, 42% for Democrats.
That's 10% are not sure.
10% are not sure.
So two years ago in May 2022, Republicans had a six point lead.
So now it's five points.
So that's margin of error.
So about the same.
So about the same as it was when Republicans picked up, uh, nine seats in the house.
So the, you know, lots can change between now and the elections, but the early warning indicators would be Republicans picking up seats.
It's hard for me to imagine that they wouldn't.
Am I right?
I feel like, you know, the zeitgeist, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a thing where if a president is running for a second term, they usually do poorly in Congress?
Oh, there's somebody here who still fell for the 4chan hoax about me.
No, I did not fall for anything.
You got hoaxed about my opinions about the pandemic.
It's a 4chan hoax.
So there's still people on here who don't know the news either.
No, you got hoaxed about my opinions.
I got everything about the pandemic right so far.
I think it was 100% right about everything.
I made different choices than you do.
But that's not what you're complaining about.
You're not complaining about my personal health care choices, because you wouldn't care about that.
So you got hoaxed, and I'm sorry that you had to find out in public like this.
It's very embarrassing for you, isn't it?
It must be humiliating to be called out like this in public.
All right. Another Soros DA got beaten in the elections and wokeness tells us that Portland voters fired their Soros DA, Mike Schmidt, by a landslide, 15 percent margin.
I He famously, or infamously, didn't prosecute the BLM and Antifa riots and allowed crime to flourish, and then he got fired.
Now, we can add that to the Soros DA from San Francisco.
Budin, who's out.
The Soros DA for St.
Louis, Kim Gardner, who's out.
The Soros DA, Kim Fox from Chicago, who's out.
And in my area, there's a big movement to get rid of our DA, but maybe she won.
So maybe she won.
But again, you should see this as not a slippery slope.
You should see it as inertia.
Followed by a blocking power that would form.
So the blocking power seems to be forming.
It's not as strong as it can be.
But I do think that we've collectively made Soros DA a dirty word.
And it should be, yeah.
So our DA is named Pamela Price.
And even Eric Swalwell says she has to go.
I hate having to compliment Eric Swalwell for just doing the right thing for his people in his area.
But he came out strong against the Soros-funded DA in our area, and I appreciate that.
So thank you, Swalwell.
Well, Norway, Ireland, and Spain have decided they're going to recognize Palestine as an independent state, according to Reuters.
To which I say, which part is Palestine?
What exactly are they recognizing?
They should specify that.
I feel like this is one of those situations where you can't be generic.
Well, we recognize Palestine.
Where is it?
Can you be a little more specific?
Well, the Israel situation is the perfect example of what I call a half-pinion.
A half-pinion is people who are taking moral high ground of saying that there should be a ceasefire because too many civilians are being killed.
Now, I don't know how many civilians are being killed.
I also don't know whether Israel is doing everything it can to protect them.
They say, yes, I'm not there.
It's in their interest to do everything that they can to not kill civilians, you know, within reasonable war standards.
So I don't know.
I mean, it's war, so I'm not going to say that there are no problems.
That would be stupid, right?
Every war has terrible things on both sides.
It's just built into the nature of war.
But here's the thing.
If you say there should be a ceasefire, you must describe how you think it plays out.
And we're not asking people to do that.
Here's how that argument goes.
I demand a ceasefire because too many civilians are being killed.
Well, I'm on the other side, and I say Israel has a right to defend itself.
Wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I agree with the argument.
It's just not persuasive.
If you find yourself in public, and somebody does that to you, that, I think we should have a ceasefire, do not say, Israel has a right to self-defense.
Because first of all, we all agree.
Everybody agrees with that.
So why say the thing that they already agree with?
Instead, say, I hear what you say, and nobody likes civilians to be killed.
But can you describe what you think would happen if a ceasefire happened?
And they'd say something like, well, you know, we would talk.
And I'd say, where do you think the talks would go?
Do you think Hamas would say, you know what?
We really did want to destroy Israel.
But, you know, now it didn't work out.
So, so maybe we'll be reasonable now and change it.
I want to see somebody say that.
Say it out loud.
Do you think they would reconstitute Hamas and just go at it again?
Or do you think they'd learned their lesson and now they see the wisdom of just talking it out?
I want to see somebody actually complete the opinion.
Now, if you have a half opinion, that's half of an opinion, that there should be a ceasefire, I agree with you.
Let me say I'm totally in favor of the ceasefire.
Now explain to me how that plays out.
If I have to give you a whole opinion, then I would say, oh, I guess there's no way that can work.
Because it can't.
There's no feasible way a ceasefire works for Israel.
It might work for Hamas, but there's no possibility.
This is not one of those situations where you're estimating the risk.
You know, sometimes you look at something like, I don't know, let's say cloud seeding or spraying stuff into the atmosphere for climate change.
You can look at it and say, ah, that's too risky for me.
And then somebody else, a reasonable person, can say, well, we looked into it and, you know, we'll try it on a small scale and we can manage the risks.
Now that's an actual, that's a debate.
I think the risks are this, you think it's that, why do you think that?
That's a debate.
But you know what's not a debate?
There shall be a ceasefire!
And now I'm done talking!
Allow me to do my impression of everybody who's in favor of a ceasefire.
Well, don't you know that women and children and civilians are being killed in too large of a number in Gaza?
So, I demand a ceasefire.
Okay, Scott.
How do you think that would work out in the long run?
And scene.
Bye.
That's my impression of everybody who wants a ceasefire.
You fucking worthless cowards.
You tell us what you think will happen, you fucking worthless half-pinion cowards.
Now, I remind you, I don't back Israel, because the ADL came after me.
And I know the ADL doesn't work for Israel and they don't control them, but fuck every one of them if they come after me.
Right?
So this has nothing to do with individuals, of course.
But in terms of the country of Israel and the organization of the ADL, if they're coming after me, I can't back Israel.
So I do not support Israel.
Period.
But I want to see a fucking opinion that's a full opinion.
I'd like to at least know that there's something like an actual logical conversation going on, not, oh, cease fire, run away, run away!
That's just too far.
All right, so that's what's going on.
Ladies and gentlemen, that brings me to the conclusion of my comments and I'm gonna go talk to the locals people privately because they're special.
Scott should wear a mask at all times.
Did 4chan tell you I was in favor of masks?
Did they tell you that I was promoting vaccines?
Did 4chan tell you that?
You should be so embarrassed if you still have that opinion about me, that you fell for, like, just an obvious hoax.
