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, Fentanyl Overdose Deaths, Jasmine Crockett's Honorary Doctorate, DEI Implications, Elon Musk, Thomas Massie, Government Censorship Funding, Free Speech Censorship, Jonathan Turley, Hunter Biden, Kevin Morris, Sugar Brother, Peter Daszak, Covid Email Deletions, AI Famous Voice Imitation, Scarlett Johansson, Personality Brain Structure, Free Will, Mar-A-Lago Deadly Force, Dan Bongino, President Trump Bronx, President Biden's Rapid Decline, Governor Hochul, MAGA Republicans, Biden's Complaints, Justice is Revenge, Peter Navarro, America First Legal, Criminal Organization America, Ukraine War, 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
Well, I see Rumbles in the house, and Locals in the house.
Let's hear from YouTube.
Any YouTubers in the house yet?
I'd like to see at least one YouTuber before I start.
Make sure you guys are good.
There we go.
YouTube's in the house.
Good morning everybody and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the finest experience you've ever had in your life, I'll betcha.
Yeah.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even see you without some kind of Elon Musk rocket ship, well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice or a steiner, a canteen, a jugger flask, a vessel of any kind, and 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.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go!
You want to see the weirdest thing?
Bye.
I'm going to show you a picture from my college days.
This is a true story.
There was an underclassman who decided that He looked enough like me, and he decided that I was his role model, because I was a year or two older.
And he started dressing like me.
And people noticed and started calling him the clone.
So rather than rejecting that and saying, I'm not trying to copy him, he embraced it.
He said, yeah, I'm totally trying to copy him.
It would get more and more extreme the entire time.
It just got funnier and funnier.
He was a friend of mine.
He lived, you know, just a few doors down to the dormitory.
But anyway, for Halloween that year, uh, let's see, where is it?
We went as clones.
Let's see if you can tell which one I am.
I like to think he was the poor man's version of me.
But I'm not entirely sure.
He's probably worth a billion dollars now.
He was pretty smart.
Probably did a startup or something.
Anyway, I saw a concept today in one of Owen's posts about what's called the third place.
Have you ever heard that term?
A third place?
So your house is your first place.
Your place of work is your second place.
And the third place would be like, I guess if you were in England, it would be the Tavern.
If you were somewhere else, it would be someplace else.
Now, my third place used to be my gym.
You know, it's a place you go to feel less lonely and maybe run into people.
But here's why I wanted to talk about it.
I really think we need to design new cities around accidentally meeting your neighbors.
Leaving it to chance just doesn't work.
We need some way that in the normal course of business you run into people that you don't mind running into.
You know, all voluntarily.
Nobody's going to be forced to talk to their neighbors.
But I've been looking into a number of businesses that I could start in my local area that have a physical location and I didn't realize that I was always thinking about them as the third place.
For example, I was thinking of starting a dog park that would have some shady place where you could plug in your laptop and sit at a table.
And if you make it so it's sort of like picnic tables, you're going to have people who don't know each other sharing the same picnic table, and if they have a place to plug in their laptop and talk about your dog, hey, which one is your dog?
It's kind of a perfect place to meet people.
I've actually met good friends in the dog park.
I had a few other ideas for that.
But I think I might even call it the third place.
I like the name so much.
I'd call it a third place dog park.
Yeah, and just build it around the human attraction, but also you can take your dog there.
Wouldn't that be a good idea?
Anyway, couldn't make money from it as my neighbor reminded me yesterday when I was talking about it.
So, where I live, our local real estate, let's say, king and queen of the neighborhood, they're very, and I say that not as an insult, they're just very good at organizing things in the neighborhood.
So I know, I've met all of my neighbors.
Just through the fact that they're fairly organized.
We're all in a WhatsApp thing.
It's actually a great situation.
Anyway, can you believe that overdoses are down?
And obviously we're going to talk about Trump and Bronx and all that later.
But overdoses actually went down a little bit from 2023, down 4% from 2022.
I don't know if this is real.
It could be that they went down because the pandemic's over.
The pandemic might have been a high point for drugs.
Could be that all of our data is bad all the time, so it's not even real.
Very possible.
Maybe they just reported it differently.
How about the fact that more people are substituting weed for stronger drugs?
Maybe.
I don't know.
Maybe it works the other way, but I don't have data on it.
Maybe the government is giving out fewer prescriptions, so fewer people are getting hooked.
Maybe.
I don't know.
But certainly there was action in that direction.
But I'm going to offer the most provocative idea for why maybe ODs went down a little bit for that one year.
I think the most likely explanation is that we're off the pandemic.
Don't you?
4% sounds sort of like just coming off the pandemic high.
I don't know if it's real, but I would offer this possibility.
Uh, all the junkies are dead.
You can't kill somebody twice.
There might be a logical end to how much the, um, how much the overdose problem can get.
In other words, there might be a natural cap to it and we might've hit it.
Now, let me make a bad analogy.
If you try to kill a head terrorist, like Bin Laden, it's not really going to stop things because there'll be a second in command.
If you kill the second in command, it probably won't stop things because there'll be a third in command.
But in theory, the quality of the terrorist goes down every time you kill one, you know, from the top down.
You know, Bin Laden, perhaps he was really good at it.
You know, Al Zahari, maybe he was really good at it.
But when you get to maybe the fifth or sixth terrorist down in the organization chart, I think it probably starts falling apart like that fifth best terrorist isn't quite good enough.
But it could be that with the, that's a terrible analogy, maybe the worst I've ever done.
But, um, I think the overdoses are limited to people who would have a propensity to it.
Once you run out of people who have a propensity, you don't make new ones, right?
The people who are never going to become an addict are not going to wake up this morning and something changed.
They were born people who are never going to be addicts.
Because there is such a A genetic component to this.
And if you take, let's take alcoholism.
Alcoholism is around 10% of the public.
If alcohol killed you at a high rate like fentanyl, it does kill you, but at a higher rate like fentanyl, wouldn't you start running out of drunks?
I think you'd actually start running out, you know, if the population has become stable.
So it could be that.
Here's my favorite story of the day.
Explorers say they found what they believe is the remains of World War II ace pilot who was downed in a jungle ravine.
He was fairly famous for his exploits as a pilot.
But here's the best part.
His name is Richard Bong.
B-O-N-G.
Or I think his friends probably called him Dick.
And if I were going to be a World War II flying ace, and my name was Dick Bong, I would feel like I was the coolest person in the world.
Well, you know, until I got shot down and died in a ravine in a jungle.
But until then, cool name.
So I will be celebrating tonight in the Man Cave with the rest of the local subscribers.
And we will do something, I don't know what, but something that would be appropriate to honor Dick Bong.
Maybe some tubing kind of a thing?
I don't know.
Maybe you could come up with an idea.
Well, do you remember when Marjorie Taylor Greene got into a little shouting match in Congress with Eyelashes Mickey?
Her real name is Representative Crockett.
I think it's Jasmine Crockett.
And she was talking today and there was some open hearing.
And she was touting her credentials.
She said, I currently hold an honorary doctorate.
I also hold Juris Doctorate, a bachelor's degree.
She technically holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Civil Air Patrol.
And I actually practiced law for almost two decades, in addition to serving on various boards In addition to being a prior state lawmaker.
So, uh, this was in the context of telling somebody that she doesn't understand why you have to choose between, uh, qualified and diverse.
Cause she's saying very clearly that she has lots of qualifications and she's diverse.
She's black and she's female.
And so why can't they just do more of that?
Why are you pretending that you have to lower the quality of people to get enough diversity?
Now, she said that in public, which suggests that she doesn't understand human motivation or how anything works, and somehow doesn't understand that systemic racism has made it impossible to not choose between diversity and quality, because the pipeline is too small.
Has nothing to do with anybody's genes, has nothing to do with culture.
The school system does not create a pipeline of people that corporations need, in terms of the talents.
So, here's the problem.
And again, it's what Democrats don't understand.
If there had never been DEI, if there had never been DEI, And I saw Representative Crockett, and I found out that she had done all of these things and also had gotten elected to Congress.
Do you know what I would say about her?
If there had never been DEI, I would have said, wow, she might be more capable than everybody in Congress.
Because if she had to overcome things, like being black and being a woman in a world where that was not a free pass, I would have said, huh, you know, all things being equal, probably better than average.
Because, you know, potentially maybe overcame more barriers to get there.
But in the context of DEI, I assume that she does not belong in her job.
She holds an honorary doctorate, which is complete bullshit.
Do you know who also has an honorary doctorate?
Jerry Seinfeld.
You get an honorary doctorate for giving a speech as a college.
Does she think we're stupid enough to think that an honorary doctorate is something she can mention as a part of her qualifications?
How fucking stupid would you have to be to say you have an honorary doctorate and that's part of your credentials?
Now she also has some kind of legal degree.
Do we assume that she got that the real way by being qualified?
No, I don't assume that.
I assume the opposite.
I assume the opposite because we're in the context of DEI.
And on top of that, seems to not understand the most basic element of the topic that she was having an open hearing on.
How does she not understand the most basic thing?
That the pipeline is insufficient to get us all what we all want.
I think everybody would be happy if the pipeline was just full of diverse candidates that were great.
And then the companies would say, that's great.
And then you've got to work with all these great people, and you would not see their color, because you'd say, my co-worker is just great.
I mean, my co-worker is nailing it.
If your co-worker is doing a good job, that's the part you see.
Realistically.
You might be prejudiced.
I like to say this a lot.
Discrimination only lasts until you open your mouth.
And then you get judged by what the fuck you say.
And that's it.
That in the real world, you can't discriminate against somebody who's talking to you, because you're going to decide what you think about them based on what comes out of their mouth.
Period.
Period.
It doesn't matter what happened the moment until they open their mouth.
The moment they open their mouth, you're judging them on what comes out.
Yeah, that's it.
And I don't think, I don't think not everybody understands that.
I think the, The people who are worried about what other people are thinking about them are sort of missing the biggest part of that.
That if you act like a good person, it's pretty much automatic that people are going to like you and want to work with you.
There aren't that many good people.
If you're black, let me give you an insider tip about white people.
There are not so many white people that are awesome that I have an unlimited amount.
If you walk into my life and you're just like a good person, you're in the top 10% without trying.
It's not that hard.
It's not that hard to get into my top 10% in favor of people.
The bar isn't just not that high.
It really isn't.
All right.
So I would say that the thing that Representative Crockett misses is that she and anybody who is pro-DEI creates a situation where the assumption is flipped from, wow, you must be extra qualified if you made it through some extra challenges to get here, to you're probably not qualified because we've built a system to promote unqualified people.
The system guarantees it because of systemic racism limiting the pipeline of applicants that you would like to hire.
All right.
Elon Musk being a, it must be nice to be the richest person in the world because there's just that little extra bit of freedom you get.
So here's something that really happened.
I could not have loved it more.
So Elon Musk was on some kind of online thing where he was taking press calls.
Viva Tech 2024 in Paris.
And somebody from Business Insider got up, a reporter, to ask a question.
And here's the question she starts to ask.
She says, quote, Tesla has had a bumpy few months looking at flagging sales at home, stock market decline, layoffs.
When you look back, and Musk interrupts her, he interrupts her in mid-sentence, he says, Yeah, we can stop the question right now because I don't think Business Insider is a real publication.
Okay, the reporter replied and sat down.
The must said, so let's move on to the next question.
Can we take a moment to slow clap that out?
Can you just slow clap at home?
I don't know how much to express how much I love that.
Why in the world would he give respect to something that's clearly not a real publication?
All right, Business Insider is just bullshit now.
I think it was sort of a little bit real at one point, but not now.
So more of that, please.
More of that.
I would like to suggest as my theme today, it does feel like things are changing.
Let me give you some hints.
Do you think I could have gone after Representative Crockett as hard as I just did, even two years ago?
No.
Somebody would have grabbed it out of context and tweeted it all over the place and tried to get me cancelled.
But now, I can just tell you what is useful and true.
I wouldn't say it if it weren't useful.
I don't know if everybody gets that.
Even when I got cancelled for saying, get the F away.
Does everybody know that was trying to be helpful for everybody?
Of course the news made it look like I'm targeting one group.
Nope!
It specifically was to help that one group that it says I'm targeting.
Because if you don't know what's true, You cannot make plans.
I'm telling you what's true.
What's true is if you're going to do DEI, I'm going to try to get away from it.
If you're creating a situation where you say, I've got your money and you better give it back, I'm going to run away.
So you can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
And now I can say that out loud because I paid for it.
I bought the ticket.
I paid full price for the free speech ticket.
Now I get to use it.
So.
All right.
Thomas Massey, being awesome as usual, has introduced a bill to eliminate taxpayer funding for online censorship.
Yes, please.
And I'm thinking, wait a minute.
Why is it always the same guy who comes up with all the good ideas?
Are you noticing the pattern?
Who the hell did we hire for Congress if there's like one guy who comes up with all the useful ideas?
It's always the same one.
Like, I'm glad we elected accidentally one smart person.
Now Rand Paul is pretty great too, but I like Thomas Massey.
So yes, the Twitter files, as Massey says, The Twitter files show the government colludes with private companies and universities to violate the First Amendment.
Yes, proven.
And Congress must use the power of the purse to make that illegal.
Yes, please.
That's a yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
And better yet, here's the best part.
Let's get people on record to be against it.
Let's see who's against having the government reduce your free speech.
Let's find out who's bold enough to say, yeah, I would like to use the government power to restrict your free speech because we wouldn't want you to get any bad information about the pandemic.
Right?
Cause that's the good argument.
Yeah.
We wouldn't want you to get any dangerous information about like Russia collusion.
Or the real nature of the Hunter laptop.
Yeah.
We certainly wouldn't want any misinformation.
All right.
Jonathan Turley is all over this story about the so-called Hunter Biden sugar bro.
Now I mentioned this, but it's such a head shaker.
And Turley is making a point that The fact that the regular media, you know the corporate media, is not treating this as like the biggest story ever, just sort of ignoring it, tells you a lot.
So this is a dog not barking situation.
So the situation I'm talking about is, there's this fellow named, it's a friend of Hunter Biden's, who has given him millions of dollars, Kevin Morris, and he just says he's a friend, he wants to help, no ulterior motive, he just likes to give his friend millions of dollars.
And apparently he gave his friend all of his money because he doesn't have any left.
That's what you do for your friends.
Yeah.
When your friend needs money, you don't give some money.
You give them all your money.
What?
What?
So Congress, of course, wanted to talk to the sugar bro to find out what the deal is.
And the CIA said they had some relationship with the sugar bro and said, no, you can't talk to him.
What?
Wait, what?
We can't talk to the person giving millions of dollars to the president's son because the CIA says you can't know what that guy knows?
Maybe it's exactly what it looks like.
I've been saying that a lot lately.
Maybe this story is exactly what it looks like.
Yeah.
Like, uh, like everything bad.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And if you tie this together with the, uh, the Mike Ben's view of the world, that Ukraine is basically a play to get the, uh, energy resources from Russia has nothing to do with Ukraine or liberty or democracy.
In fact, we're not interested in even a little bit in Ukraine being democratic.
Apparently that would just work against our interests.
So there'll be more on that a little bit in a moment.
It's a whole week of complicated stories.
Do you notice that the news is really complicated now?
For example, there's a story about the EcoHealth Alliance boss, Peter Daszak.
And apparently, he's in big trouble for some documents that have been found that suggest there was some kind of coordinated effort to hide the involvement of the Wuhan lab, if I have that right.
Uh, is.
Apparently they used the personal email to avoid getting caught.
There are some people involved who were deleting emails ahead of time before they got FOIAed.
And the nature of the conversations that we have seen suggests that they know they were guilty and that they were trying to hide it.
At least that's how it's being interpreted.
I'll just say that's how it's being interpreted.
Can't know their inner thoughts.
So it looks like everything you thought was true about the pandemic was true.
It came out of the Wuhan lab.
It was gain of function.
We were behind it.
Right?
America was behind it.
Everything and they covered it up.
So every bad assumption you had about that apparently was all true.
Apparently.
Now that's a complicated story.
So I don't know if I have all that nuance there, but that's the basic idea.
There's a Democratic consultant who's been indicted for creating a deepfake of Joe Biden's voice that did a bunch of robocalls and told people not to vote.
Stephen Kramer.
So he's being charged with voter suppression and faces up to six billion dollar fines.
So that's the future.
The future is people faking voices on robocalls, but got caught.
Speaking of AI voices, you know the story about Scarlett Johansson saying that ChatGPT illegally stole her voice and they hired somebody to sound like her because she had declined the offer to do it herself.
Well, it turns out that this story is way more complicated than you thought.
Because it's not so simple as, we stole your voice.
Because the voice they used is a real person.
Who was not doing an impression.
And the real person says, this is new, nobody in my real life has ever told me I sound like Scarlett Johansson.
Now, do you believe that?
Do you believe that everybody who listens to it says, oh, it sounds like Scarlett Johansson?
But then in real life, and nobody's saying that it was altered voice, it's a real voice, nobody told her she sounds like nobody.
Never once.
I've been told I look like John Denver and about 50 other people.
I hear it all the time and nobody's ever said that.
I don't know.
I don't know.
So OpenAI's story is that it never intended to copy Scarlett and wanted her for it, but they found somebody who was not her, that was just a voice they liked.
And there you go.
That's their version.
But this is going to have huge implications for Hollywood.
Because what happens if you can create people who sort of are in the vibe of Scarlett Johansson?
Is that going to be okay?
What if you created an AI that didn't look exactly like her, but was a highly attractive blonde of the same age, And then you gave it a voice that was based on not her, but somebody who sounds a lot like her, according to other people.
Is that going to be legal?
There's going to be massive lawsuits about all this stuff.
So we'll see.
I would just like to note, because the important part is my connection to all stories, that Scarlett Johansson's husband once mocked me on SNL.
She's married to Colin Joust.
So he mocked me about a year ago on SNL.
So good luck with that, guys.
There's a study of brains.
They found there's a part of the brain that might be involved with causing somebody to be a narcissist.
Let me tell you something that I realized maybe 40 years ago.
I remember the first time I heard that They found that the brains of addicts, and alcoholics in particular, were different.
And they were saying, hey, we think that alcoholism might have a genetic propensity.
To which I said, what?
I thought that was free will.
I thought you either decided to drink or you didn't.
Are you telling me that your brain might be different and that some people cannot just decide not to drink?
And that was the case.
Then later, people said, we found in the brain, a part of the brain that makes you more likely to be gay.
And I said, what?
I thought that was just a choice.
You tell me that your brain could be the decider of, in your genes, could be the decider of whether you're born gay?
And then I said to myself, what's going to happen to free will once we find and map all the parts of the brain?
Once you know that there's a physical part of the brain that causes all of our behaviors and you can identify it and you go, Oh, there it is.
We just scanned you.
You got that big narcissist thing in your brain up.
That's why you're acting that way.
Or Oh, found out you've got that tendency to be an alcoholic.
There it is.
It's right in your brain.
What are you going to think of free will when we identify all the parts of the brain that cause all of our actions?
Well, I realized that that day, that the idea of free will would get smaller and smaller as we got smarter and smarter about what the brain does as a machine.
And so here's the newest one.
Now if narcissism can be identified, and everything from intelligence to, apparently even your propensity to be conservative or liberal can be identified, In your brain.
So if your brain has an influence on these things, are you still clinging to the idea that you have free will?
Because that idea is going to get harder and harder to hold on to.
Harder and harder.
All right.
The debate over whether the government was trying to kill Trump and have him assassinated by including in their Mar-a-Lago raid authorization, they're authorized to use deadly force if necessary.
So there's some people who are saying, well, it's just standard procedure. They just say that all the time.
And there are other people, Mike Cernovich, Dan Bongino, for example, who say, no, you idiots, that is not a standard procedure.
Now, how could it be standard procedure, but also not a standard procedure?
Well, it turns out it can be, and Bongino gets to the heart of it by asking this question.
If you think it's standard paperwork, would the DEA be allowed to serve a search warrant on the White House with armed agents in the cocaine case?
Why not?
Do you think that armed people with authorization to shoot to kill Would have gone into the White House to look into the cocaine situation.
And by the way, in both cases, there was full cooperation on the physical part.
So at Mar-a-Lago, there was never any indication anybody was going to resist anything.
And the Secret Service were always in the communication.
They were always talking to them.
Never once said, if you come in here, we're going to prevent you.
In fact, they negotiated so that there would be no problems at all.
So the question is, if you knew there were going to be no problems, because you'd already negotiated it, why'd you have to put that in there?
So I'm going to take a middle view of this.
I don't think somebody sat down and said, all right, I got a plan to kill the president.
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to create this situation and then we'll put this authorization in there.
And then as soon as something goes wrong, we'll just start blazing away and gun down the president.
I don't believe that even for the slightest second, because nobody's that dumb.
But did they create a situation where the possibility would go from zero to non-zero?
Yes, it does look like they did that.
It looks like they very much created a situation where there was a non-zero chance of killing him.
That did happen.
So I'm with Bongino on that.
But I wouldn't take it so much as they planned to kill him.
Because if they had planned to kill him, it would have gone down differently.
It would have been more of a surprise, less of a negotiated situation.
And by the way, I say this often, but one of the things I always value in Dan Bongino is his talent stack.
He's done one of the greatest jobs of assembling, uh, talents, everything.
And this is another one.
So he's got this background in, you know, uh, law enforcement type stuff, but on top of that, he knows politics.
And on top of that, he knows all the players and on top of that, he's great at the media stuff.
So he's got the full package and that's why he's doing so well.
All right.
Um, so Trump went to the Bronx and gave his, uh, big speech.
It was a giant hit.
There were no real problems of any scale.
It was all positivity.
Um, we're all Americans.
Doesn't matter what color your skin is.
People were wild for him.
If anybody thought he would get a bad reception in the Bronx, you were wrong.
The crowd was the most diverse for a Trump crowd.
There were plenty of white people.
But there were plenty of other people too.
So plenty of Asians, plenty of blacks, plenty of Hispanics.
AOC seemed to be flipping out.
Cause remember I told you the Andre Agassi strategy, where you don't go after your opponent's weakest shot, you go after their strongest shot.
Cause if you get lucky and you can, you can make them lose their confidence in their strongest shot, they're dead.
So you basically can decapitate somebody in the first set just by making sure they lose their confidence in their best play.
So the best play that the Democrats have is that the deepest, bluest states absolutely cannot stand any Trump anything.
So he went into the deepest, bluest place and blew their doors off.
He Andre Agassi'd them.
You could see the panic in AOC's, um, you know, complaints about him going there.
Why would you even complain about it?
Like, why would that even be a conversation that somebody running for president would visit a highly populated area in America and make his case?
But they had to complain about it because he was going right into the belly of the beast.
They could tell he was going for their forehand.
He wasn't going for their weak backhand.
He went right into the middle of the dragon and fucked it up.
Now, and I agree with some people who say he's not going to win this state.
He might.
By the way, I'm not on the page that he's not going to win the state.
The part we can't predict is how far Biden will fall between now and Election Day.
You see the rate of decline, right?
Have you seen a video of Biden talking one year ago?
Completely different.
One year, completely different.
We'll talk about this.
So Biden gave a press conference, very rare.
Apparently, he had all the people he was going to call on, on a card.
He gave them only one question apiece because that's the one he was prepared for.
And then he read his responses, it appears, from a card.
In other words, it wasn't a press conference at all.
It was a Q&A with written questions and written answers.
He just stood in public and did it.
Do you think he would have had to do that a year ago?
A year ago, he might have been able to bluff his way through, although they were hiding him a year ago.
But I think he could have gotten through it.
Today, he is clearly not capable of handling a question that's not written in front of him with the answer.
That's completely different in one year.
What's he going to be by November?
By November, I don't even think there'll be a choice.
It could be really one person and one person who's just not even going to be alive in a few months.
So could Trump win New York?
I'm going to say yes.
I'm going to say yes, but not because of steady state.
It's because there could be a big There's going to be a big drop in Biden before November.
I think his health will just fall off a ledge.
I think it already has, and they're just hiding it from us, but it's going to be hard to hide it for a few more months.
I suspect that the Democratic National Convention, where Biden has to give a speech, could be really, really touch and go for the Democrats, because I don't think they trust him to be able to even read the teleprompter at this point.
Imagine him going up there, if it happens, and giving his acceptance speech, and he does the mumbly thing.
Oh my God.
It's bad enough if he does it just in a stump speech, but if he does it standing in front of the whole country at the DNC, and I think he will, it's not a good look.
Apparently, I don't know, is this true?
I need a fact check of this.
Did Trump actually say at the Bronx rally, and I quote, I don't eat bacon anymore, it's too expensive?
He didn't really say those words, did he?
Because I've been laughing about it all morning.
It sounds like something he would say.
In his normal hyperbole.
We do assume that he can still afford bacon.
But if he said that, it's hilarious.
Because I think the difference between Trump today and prior Trump is that now we understand him.
Like, we get him.
No, you didn't mean literally, you can't afford bacon.
Of course.
But is it funny?
It's totally funny.
Yeah, it's totally funny.
So that's all we care about.
So meanwhile, Trump goes and does, by everybody's account, everything right.
Now, may I remind you again that Trump's performance as a candidate this time around is unlike anything I've ever seen.
I mean, it's just all good all the way.
I mean, he's just doing One home run after another.
I mean, he's hitting frozen ropes into the outfield at bat.
It's crazy.
And this Bronx thing really highlights that.
Because he's not just playing it safe.
If I told you he's made no mistakes, but he's also playing it safe, you'd say, ooh, that's not the Trump we want.
We're not looking for the play it safe guy.
So here he goes into the belly of the beast, and the Bronx kills it.
That's who we want.
We want the one who can do the thing you think can't be done.
We want the one who says, why would I be afraid of that?
Why would I be afraid of that?
That's the one we want.
Meanwhile, the governor of New York, Hochul, said that she referred to Trump supporters as clowns during the rally.
Clowns.
Have we noticed a correlation?
That the Democrats think that Republicans are pieces of shit.
It's a pretty clear pattern.
Yeah.
Just remember that you have one leader who is saying very clearly and consistently, we're all Americans.
We can pull together.
And one who says we're better off divided because that's kind of what he's saying.
Biden anyway.
Um, Here's something Biden said in a post.
He says, Donald Trump and his mega Republican allies don't care about securing the border or fixing America's broken immigration system.
If they did, they would have supported the toughest border enforcement in history.
So it was a bill that just got turned down by mostly Republicans.
Instead, they put partisan politics ahead of our national security.
So here's my question.
First of all, you can see that he's dividing the country.
By referring to MAGA Republican allies.
Now he's specifically talking about the elected politicians.
But how do you hear it?
I don't hear it that way.
I hear that he is just saying if you're a MAGA Republican he wants to piss on your head.
That's what I hear.
Do you hear it differently?
I think he's insulting the citizens at the same time he's insulting the people they voted for.
The so-called MAGA allies.
So that's his usual piece of shit, divisive, terrible president framing that there are bad people and there are good people and he's the good people, I guess.
Do you think that the Democrats are catching on?
This obviously was a fake border bill that had poison pills in it.
Do you think that the Democrats haven't figured out that it's all theater and bullshit?
Do they really think that the Republicans looked at a perfectly good border bill and said, we're going to turn this down for the good of getting elected?
I'm not saying they wouldn't, but it's not what happened.
They didn't really have a chance to look at a good border bill.
I think it's strange that the president's name is Biden at the same time.
We're all wondering the same question.
on election day, will he still be alive by then?
What are the odds that his name would be by then when all we're waiting for is if he's still going to be alive by then?
That's a weird coincidence.
All right, Biden also posted, or somebody did for him, Trump is not running to lead America.
He is running for revenge.
But you can't build a future on revenge.
I'm running to lead America into the future.
What future is that?
The one where you live for another four months and then we bury you?
What exact future are you talking about, old man who can't even do a press conference?
You're not part of our future.
You're just not, in any way, our future.
But okay.
But here's my bigger complaint.
He says Trump is not running to lead America, he's running for revenge.
Revenge is what I want.
Revenge is called the justice system.
Do you think the justice system was set up for fairness?
No.
Do you think the justice system was set up to rehabilitate people?
No.
It's revenge.
That's what it does.
And the risk of revenge is the only thing that keeps society together.
Why do you not do bad things if you're a good person?
Why do you not do bad things?
Because we're going to get revenge on you.
We're going to put you in jail.
If you don't want to call that revenge, fine.
You can call it a flower.
You could put a different word on it, but the justice system is very much about revenge.
And that's what makes it work.
And you know what?
Revenge is the animated, the animating part of it.
The part of the reason that Trump has so much support is that you put 2000 fucking people in jail for political reasons.
You're trying to jail the president for political reasons.
And Peter Navarro is still in fucking jail.
So revenge is going to be at the top of the menu.
Revenge is at the top of the menu, and it fucking belongs there, because that's what justice looks like.
Justice looks like honest revenge.
Who else needs to talk about, let's not have revenge?
Did anybody else have to talk about that?
Do you remember Jimmy Carter saying, oh, don't do revenge on me?
Do you know why we didn't have to do revenge on Jimmy fucking Carter?
Because there was no reason.
Do you know why we didn't need revenge on fucking Bill Clinton?
There was no reason.
There was no reason.
Do you know why nobody's ever fucking talked about revenge before ever?
There was no reason.
If he's talking about don't do revenge, it's because he created the whole situation.
Nobody's going to be talking about revenge unless something really, really fucking big and terrible had happened.
And something big and fucking terrible is happening right now.
Peter Navarro is still in prison.
No.
You let Peter Navarro enter prison and the other 2,000 fucking people, you drop the stupid lawfare charges, and we'll stop talking about revenge.
But right now, I want to see hundreds of Democrats in jail.
I want to see hundreds of Democrats in jail.
Minimum.
And we do have the goods.
I mean completely within the legal system.
I recommend no actions outside the legal system.
No vigilante anything.
Don't do that.
But yes, the justice system has plenty of evidence of crimes at the highest level.
So yes, revenge, revenge, revenge, revenge.
And every time you say don't do it, you remind us why we need to.
Because nobody else needs to even fucking talk that way.
If you're talking somebody out of getting revenge, revenge is called for.
Because it isn't even in the conversation.
It's just not part of the conversation until you've fucked up really badly.
And you have.
Peter Navarro is still in prison.
Peter Navarro is still in prison.
Remember the Alamo?
And yes, you can build a future on revenge, it's called the justice system.
Speaking of justice, the Amuse account on X tells us that there's something called the 65 Project.
And it's apparently mostly to cancel anybody who's a lawyer who's trying to help Trump.
And it's run by David Brock, And it's funded by George Soros, and it's, as Muse says, it's an all-out war on the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
Revenge.
Revenge.
All right, American First Legal, that's the Republican-oriented group that's trying to create a counterbalance for the in the legal system and is trying to use legal means to get justice in a variety of ways that Democrats have tried to take it away from you.
But there's this new story that frankly I do not understand.
There's something about a new document that's been undercovered Some Obama order from his days that's been kind of secret that says that there should be something about keeping copies of all the classified stuff on a server.
And the argument doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it does to you.
So I've asked for a clarification.
But here's what it sounds like.
It sounds like America First Legal is saying that Trump's legal problems with the Mar-a-Lago documents are not a problem because there are also copies of them that the government never lost.
They've always had the copies.
Now, I don't understand that.
Do you?
Why would that make any difference if they have copies?
I assumed they had copies.
Didn't you always assume they had copies?
Would the government in 2024 not have a digital copy of everything important that came across the government's desks?
I mean, I just assume so.
So I don't, I don't understand the importance of this, but American First Legal is playing it as very important.
So I've asked them to explain it.
Give me the dummies version of, I don't get it.
Like, why is this important?
How's it, how's that have anything to do with anything?
So if they come up with that, I'll talk about it again.
But at the moment, all I can say is that people who know more than I do about the law, I think there's an important thing that happened and I have no idea what it is.
Block the FBI from arresting dangerous Iranians.
Yeah, that's a boring story, but I see what you're saying.
So there's some story about John Kerry blocking the arrest of some known Iranian bad guys because he was trying to get a deal done with Iran.
Is that the biggest crime in the world?
Here's the thing.
That might be just real politic.
Meaning that if you're this close to getting a deal that's a really big deal, maybe you don't arrest those people on Tuesday.
Maybe you get the deal, arrest them a few weeks later.
So I don't know how real that story is.
It's not that far from something I would think is normal business, but I guess I'd wait for Dan Bongino to set me straight on that.
So I guess I don't have enough of a hook into that story to care about it.
There's a report that the US and the European Union are moving toward an agreement for a massive loan for Ukraine.
But their clever technique is they're going to use Russian assets frozen in the West as collateral.
Here's the thing.
I've been saying that our form of government is not a democracy.
Of course, it was designed to be a republic, you know, federal republic with democratic principles.
But it's really not that either.
It probably hasn't been since the fifties.
We are essentially a criminal organization and colonizers.
We're basically the Borg trying to, you know, take everybody's assets.
And apparently we've always been that way.
That's what America is.
Now, if that sounds like a criticism, here's the twist.
I don't think there's a better form of government because if you don't coordinate your government with your big capitalist entities, Somebody else will, and they'll be your daddy.
So unfortunately, if you're not the baddest criminal in the criminal world, you're going to get dead.
So being the baddest of the criminals might be the best form of government.
Maybe.
Because, you know, I think democracy has its issues too, if you let dumb people make big decisions.
So I don't know, but when I see a story like this, it just reminds you that we're a criminal organization trying to steal Putin's stuff.
You know, the Mike Ben's take is that Ukraine is really just an energy play and that Hunter Biden is part of that with Burisma.
That's why Hunter was part of Burisma, all part of the big energy play to steal the energy from Russia.
And since we couldn't get all of their energy, we're going to settle for keeping their assets that we could freeze.
I mean, I get that there's a war going on, but we're prosecuting the war like we're just criminals.
We're just looking to steal shit.
It's hard to not see it as just a criminal act against another criminal.
And again, if it sounds like a criticism, believe it or not, it's not.
We seem to be a very Effective criminal organization, because we've overthrown lots of governments, we've got access to lots of resources in other places, and maybe it's not working out so well in Ukraine, but it seems to be proving the point.
But to me, Putin has said that he's willing to negotiate a ceasefire along current lines of who owns what.
Now, I say there's no chance of negotiating until Trump gets there, because the Biden play, it was never about stopping a war.
They're not really concerned with ending war.
They're only concerned in stealing Russia's energy game.
And if they haven't done that, And they think they still have a chance.
They're not going to negotiate.
So it's basically, they're going to save the negotiations for Trump, who, as far as I know, does not have a massive interest in a big energy deal or stealing things in Ukraine.
So he could just say, yeah, let's just end this.
When Trump says he could end it in a day, I would bet against it, but I wouldn't bet against ending it in a month.
Because I think he can get it done in a month.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
It all comes down to race and religion, somebody says.
Does it?
Trump didn't let Zelensky rip up the Minsk Peace Accords, Biden did, and that was the start of the war, you think?
That's what you think.
So, um, All right.
I had another topic, but I think too controversial.
I think we overestimated Russia's willingness to negotiate.
Creating a well, Here's what I think we should do.
I would love to see Trump do a grand deal where we just work on our differences with the three superpowers and just agree to rule the world in peace and they can have their part and we'll have our part.
You know, I realize that Taiwan's a problem, but at this point we are moving our chip facilities out of there.
And I think Taiwan knows that in the long run, there's really no way that they could become, they can't be independent in the long run.
It's too dangerous.
Could you imagine China having a major ally in Cuba and, you know, being right at our doorstep and I don't know.
It just seems to me that we're fighting history if we're trying to keep Taiwan out of China's control.
Here's what I think we should do instead.
Vivek had a good plan.
I think what we should do instead is create a hundred year plan.
Do the Hong Kong plan.
Say, you know what?
Wi-Fi history.
In a hundred years, sometime within that hundred years, Taiwan will be China.
But if you wait a hundred years, you don't have to worry about microchips.
Because something will be very different by then.
And it won't be, you know, depending on Taiwan.
So I think if we said, how about we just agree now?
That it's a hundred year plan and in a hundred years Taiwan will figure out what its role will be.
So there'll be future negotiations of does it operate a little bit independently compared to the mainland?
Nobody knows what the mainland would even look like in a hundred years.
You could have a democracy in China in a hundred years.
Anything could happen.
So I think you do a hundred year plan and just take the violence off the table.
Because if you're President Xi, and you know you got it back, you just won't be alive when it happens, that's a big win.
And if we can take that off the table, then we can deal with China at a much better level.
Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity.
I don't believe that.
I thought it was a 99-year lease.
Hong Kong had a 50-year plan that the CCP removed.
Yeah.
Well, it's a risk, but here's the thing.
Hong Kong didn't really have a chance of staying independent forever.
Taiwan doesn't have a chance of staying independent forever.
If it were our hemisphere, we would insist that we had that much control.
And, I don't know, I just wouldn't fight history.
Many think it was a deal, so I'm seeing people say that the narrative of Hong Kong is all fake, and that they did not have a deal to give it back.
I'm doubting your framing of that.
I think it was a 99-year lease, and when it ended, the UK gave it back.
But I will note that there are people who are saying that's not true.
Yeah, a managed democracy with an authoritarian streak.
The one thing I don't see is China looking like they want to control other countries.
Except economically, of course.
But Taiwan's special.
So, I think something will happen there.
Sooner or later, it's going to happen.
So I think it's a deal that Trump could make.
I think he could say, look, about Russia, you make your money.
China, you make your money.
We'll make our money and let's play.
I think you can pull that off.
I suspect that the biggest reason we can't get along with Russia and China is that we can't stop Doing covert things to each other continuously because we're sure that the other is doing it too. So, you know I'll tell you that the theory that China is doing everything it can to stop reproduction in America is looking better and better. I Don't think that they're that clever, but maybe All right. That's all I got for you and on
YouTube and rumble and X I'm gonna take a few minutes with just the subscribers on locals Yeah.
