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, Chuck Schumer BBQ, CNN Harry Enten, China's Nuclear Power Plants, 50 Cent Shreveport, Bill Maher, Larry Wilmore, Houston Voter Fraud, NYT Nicholas Kristof, WaPo Greatness, News Watching Decline, Censorship by Proxy, Steve Bannon, Body Double Conspiracy Theories, OAN Chanel Rion, Rosemont Seneca, Hunter Biden, Shaun Maguire, Mark Cuban, Stupid Lying TDS Game, Taral Patel Arrest, Frozen Biden, Alex Wagner MSNBC, Presidential Debate, Lara Trump, 2024 Election Certification, 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
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, smooth, human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard shells, a sign, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unpleasure, the unparalleled pleasure that don't be the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go!
Extra good.
Well, so what happens when AI and security cameras get combined?
Thank you for your time.
Because you know that's going to happen.
I'm sure it's happening somewhere already.
There was a story about some cameras in the subway that were reading people's emotions and trying to decide if you're a bicycle thief and all that.
I have a real-world event that happened in my neighborhood.
So, two days ago, one of the neighbors saw what she thought was a mountain lion in the backyard.
And this is like right in my neighborhood, a mountain lion.
So we weren't entirely sure if the picture was clear.
Is it really a mountain lion or, you know, whatever.
So I take the photo, uh, cause we're all connected by a WhatsApp group.
So I take the photo, I feed it up to ChatGPT and say, Hey, this animal was found.
What is it?
And what, you know, how afraid should I be?
ChatGPT identifies it immediately.
It says, Oh, it's a Puma mountain lion.
It tells you what to do to stay safe.
You know, look big, don't run away.
Cause they have an instinct to chase a whole bunch of stuff like that.
And I thought, how hard would it be for the security cam itself to have done that?
You know, why, why didn't the security cam spot a mountain lion in our backyard and send us a message on WhatsApp saying, Hey everybody, the security camera just picked up a mountain lion in the backyard.
So everybody watch out.
Now that's what security is going to look like.
And it should also identify who you are and open the door for you if you're okay.
In my incredible book, God's Debris, in the short story at the end, people don't have keys or locked doors.
Because your AI decides who comes in and doesn't.
So you just walk up to the door and announce yourself to the AI, and it either opens or it doesn't.
So you don't need keys anymore in the future.
That's certainly where things are going.
All right, the X platform apparently is going to have micro payments soon, or just payments.
And we don't know when that will come, but it looks like it's coming really fast.
It'll be in the United States first.
Also, Elon Musk is revealing that Starlink has a new portable station.
So it's about the size of a laptop.
So you could take with you your Starlink.
And you can set it up in like a couple minutes.
You just prop it up and hit a few buttons and you're online.
I guess it can stream four 4K movies at the same time.
That's pretty serious.
And some people are saying that they might get it just as their backup.
That's not the worst idea.
But I was thinking, if I have that thing, then I can just take my show anywhere I want it, right?
When I travel, sometimes you get that crappy hotel Wi-Fi.
Doesn't really work.
So maybe I should travel more and take that with me.
We'll wait to see when that's on the market.
Chuck Schumer is getting some humorous criticism for posing for a Father's Day picture in which he was clearly only pretending to be the one doing the grilling.
And the way you can tell he was pretending is he had a bunch of uncooked patties sitting on the grill, and one of the uncooked patties had cheese on it.
Who puts cheese on an uncooked hamburger?
Nobody.
Nobody.
It's funny, as soon as I saw the picture, I said to myself, I don't think he's doing the grilling.
I just feel like Schumer's not the one, if there's like a big gathering, What are the odds he's doing the grilling?
I mean, it was just so fake.
Apparently he just took the picture down and said, ah, you got me.
You know, those are the situations where I would love him just to tell the truth.
Say, I was just a stage picture.
I'm an idiot.
And I would, then I would like him then, you know, then I would say, oh, you know, just a, a human kind of a thing.
No big deal.
But, uh, I'd love him to be a little more, you know, like a regular person.
Well, Harry Enten, the pollster guy from CNN, is rapidly becoming my favorite news-related person, because he goes on CNN and he gets really excited about how Trump is doing well in the polls.
And since he's their own guy, they can't not invite him anymore.
He's just dancing on Biden's grave with the poll numbers, and he's enjoying himself way too much.
He's not calling a favorite, it's just he's way too excited that Trump looks like he's going to have historic poll numbers with black voters.
So that's what he was talking about today.
He noted that when they drilled down, well, first of all, Trump's support among black Americans went from 7% in the last election to now 21%.
But he drilled down into the details, and I thought to myself, ah, finally, we're going to find out what's the male-female difference.
Because I think it's mostly men.
But instead of male-female, he looked at age.
So apparently if you're over 50, You're more likely to support Biden, but even that's going down.
But if you're under 50, his support's just dropped to practically nothing.
I'm exaggerating.
But his support for under 50 is like in the tank among black Americans.
But they never mention gender again.
Do you think that black Americans under 50 Are the main thing that's happening, and it's just age-related?
Or do you think it's men?
I think it might be both, because when you see the street interviews, whether the interviewer is talking to a black American man or woman, they're getting the same answer, that they like Trump this time.
So it could be that I'm wrong, that the movement of men might be more of a general thing, but not necessarily Especially in the black community.
It might be just everybody young.
So I don't know.
I would still bet there's a bigger effect from males.
But it doesn't seem like it, anecdotally.
CNN did the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen a network do since the Hunter laptop story and that mess.
But they did this big segment about how the people who support Trump Uh, erroneously think America is not a democracy and rather make some strange claim that it's a republic instead.
You know, like the constitution says that it's a constitutional federal republic and CNN, the news program actually made a whole, a whole show trying to show that Republicans don't know that we're really a democracy.
And they showed videos of past presidents referring to America as a democracy to prove their point that we're a democracy and always have been.
And then they said, they speculated as to why these dumb Republicans keep calling it a republic.
And do you know what their theory is?
They had a guest on who had a hypothesis.
Why is it the Republicans keep calling it a republic?
It's because they don't like democracies.
That's CNN's take.
That the reason that Republicans correctly call us a republic is not because they're well-informed, which would seem obviously the case.
No, it's rather part of their strategy to show that democracy is unwelcome and really it should be some other kind of a You know, Trump dictator situation that we might call a republic?
Now, that is so batshit crazy fucking stupid that I don't even know what to say about it.
You know, every right-leaning pundit's weighed in already and did all the good jokes.
But there were a number of people on CNN who were not aware that we're not a democracy.
And we're never meant to be one because that's one vote for everybody and that's just chaos.
My mind is just boggled.
And I'm going to remind you of the game that I've been playing this year that you can not play in other years.
In other years, you couldn't play this game because you could argue that, well, these are just two separate opinions.
Maybe they have different information, you know, and different preferences and stuff.
So there's a reason people have two different opinions.
But this year, because Biden is not even a viable human being, much less a president, there's no real doubt about what's going on this year.
In the past, you could make an argument, well, maybe they mean what they're saying.
It's possible they just mean it and, you know, it's just a different opinion from mine.
But not now.
Not now.
So now you get to play the game I call stupid, lying, or TDS.
You take something that somebody who is a Biden supporter says, and you say, all right, that's clearly ridiculous.
But why are they saying it?
Is it because they're stupid?
Is it because they're lying?
Or because they have TDS?
And then it gets complicated, because sometimes it's all three.
So what would you say in this case?
Is CNN collectively, because a lot of people had to see this before it got in the air, are they collectively stupid?
They don't know that they're not living in a democracy and was never intended to be one?
Are they lying and they know full well what they're doing?
Or do they have TDS and it's just made them unable to function?
Well, I think this was a combination of stupid because if they were smart, they would have known they would be mocked mercilessly for being so stupid.
So it must be genuine stupidity.
But on top of it, I think you only get that stupid if you've got a little T.D.S.
So I don't think they're lying.
They look like they meant what they were saying.
So I'm going to say mostly stupid, but probably triggered by a little T.D.S.
that made them lose their ability to see things.
And they said things like, When the Trump supporters said, we're not a democracy, it, quote, stopped me in my tracks.
So one of the things that CNN does is they try to sell things that aren't true by their attitude.
All right?
So let's say somebody offered them a bottle of water, and it's exactly what they wanted.
But the person who offered it to him was, let's say, a Trump supporter.
So they couldn't tell the story quite the way it happened.
They would tell you the story, but they would add attitude to make it sound like it's something else.
So instead of saying, you know, I was really thirsty and this nice Trump supporter at the rally offered me one of his waters.
That was great.
Thank you.
Instead, they'd say, I was dumbfounded.
I don't even know what to say.
I don't even have to talk about this.
I was thirsty and then somebody offered me water.
Do you think I'm helpless?
Do you think I'm stupid?
Do you think I can't figure out how to get water?
I don't even know what's wrong with these people.
You've seen it, right?
They'll just take the most ordinary thing And they'll try to turn it into a thing by their reaction to it.
Now here's something I want you to watch for.
Watch how often the news is about the news.
More than ever.
And it's also about their own reaction.
So they'll tell a story that doesn't have much interest to it.
Like this one.
Literally just made up.
That there's some kind of controversy about whether we're a democracy or a republic.
No, there isn't.
There's no controversy.
There's no story there at all.
They made a story entirely about their own wrong reactions to something normal.
And then they put it on the air.
All right.
According to Reuters, the United States might be 15 years behind China on nuclear power.
They're firing up like 27 nuclear reactors and we have planned none.
None.
I guess we reopened a couple or opened a couple, but there's nothing in the pipeline.
Now, there are some smaller ones that might have some tests upcoming and stuff, but nobody's just building a nuclear power plant in the United States.
Do you know why?
Well, it's political.
It's not tactical.
And do you know why specifically?
The political problem here that isn't in China, apparently.
Well, it turns out that women, by a majority, a pretty strong majority, are against nuclear energy, and men, by a pretty strong majority, are in favor of it.
Now that means that the complete necessity of having a robust nuclear energy program for survival, for survival, because we're entering the AI robot era, Where the AI and the robots are going to take all our electricity and we might have to start a war just to get some more electricity.
But we would be in good shape if we had a good nuclear power program.
So, in the right-leaning world, there are a number of people who are provocatively saying that the problem with the United States is that we let women vote.
Now, I of course dismiss that as fun and provocative.
Nobody's really serious about that.
I don't take it too seriously.
And I disagree that women should not be allowed to vote.
However, the data is on the side of people who say they shouldn't.
That's just the fact.
It looks like women voting has destroyed the United States, because I don't think there's even a way to recover from this.
If we're too far behind on nuclear, we will also be behind on AI, and certainly our economy will suffer, and therefore our military will suffer.
This is actually an existential end to the United States, you know, unless we invent our way out of it, which we're pretty good at doing.
But...
Hmm.
This is a very bad person today in the comments.
So, yes, I do think everybody needs to vote.
There's no way around that.
But women, you have to be aware of the fact that you destroyed the United States.
And I don't know what the breakdown is of people who are in favor of the open borders.
But it's mostly Democrats and the Democrats are a woman run program.
So, women seem to be singularly responsible for opening the border, which will probably open up a wave of terrorism like we've never seen.
Everybody expects that.
And also responsible for destroying the only important technology of the future, which is AI and robotics, because we won't have enough energy to power it.
Now, those are just facts.
What part did I get wrong?
There's no hyperbole there, is there?
Those are two things that if you took women out of the mix, they would have gone the other way.
If men alone had been in charge, the border would be secure.
And our nuclear program would be humming along like crazy.
If men were in charge.
Now, you could say, well, but men do a bunch of other dumb things like attack Ukraine.
Well, I don't know.
I think Victoria Nuland had a little something to do with that.
Um, so I don't, you know, that's a special case, but no, uh, of course women should be allowed to vote as all adult citizens should be, but you're going to have to take, you're going to have to take the score.
The score is you've largely destroyed the country.
Watergate has its 50th anniversary.
ABC News has brought out the two people, you know, the worse than Watergate guy, and then the other guy.
And here's the funny thing.
I used to think the whole Watergate story was real.
That Nixon did some bad things, you know, with the break-in at the Watergate, and he tried to cover it up.
Then good people got together from both sides, it wasn't totally political, and ousted him.
And my current thinking is that it was always a CIA op, and I think Nixon came to believe the same, because a lot of the people were CIA connected, and it looked like Nixon was looking to cut the CIA dramatically, so Nixon was anti-CIA, and then they took him out.
So to me it looks like the CIA just took down a president, and that's one of several times they've done it.
It would be three that we know of.
You know, Kennedy assassination, Trump losing mysteriously, and Nixon.
So there could be three of them that were entirely that.
And I've always wondered about Johnson, not running for re-election.
I feel like somebody gave him the talk, but I don't know.
So I don't believe anything about Watergate, and when I see ABC News trying to, you know, kind of make them a thing again, I say to myself, you know what?
Maybe that identifies what ABC News is about.
Maybe ABC News is more about covering up the news than reporting the news.
You wonder.
Don't you wonder that?
All right.
Meanwhile, actor and hip hop artist, rapper 50 Cent.
You can call him 50 Cent.
I would not criticize you for that.
And apparently he's working with the Republican mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, to try to rebuild and modernize the city and make it a hub of American greatness, they call it.
So he wants to move the headquarters.
He's got a film and television studio.
create a bunch of jobs, he's buying a bunch of buildings there that he wants to turn into special places, he wants to, you know, make creativity meet opportunity and talent meets mentorship.
The mentorship's pretty, pretty smart. Now this will be a really interesting experiment because it's a wealthy celebrity black guy working with a Republican mayor to do what probably would just be a bunch of common sense, you know, business-y things that that people would like.
So I wish them the best.
And if it works, maybe there's something to copy.
And if it doesn't work, I'm going to say the cities are dead forever.
I suppose that's harsh.
But I don't expect cities to survive.
Do you?
I think it's just inevitable that living in the city is just too much pain in the ass, too much crime, too much everything.
So I don't think that reviving cities is worth doing at all.
If I were 50 Cent, I'd say, hey, President Trump, can you give me some of that free land, the federal land, and I'll build a new city there, and I'll put my industry there.
And then, you know, could build the city around it so it's already starting with some industry.
That's the way I'd go.
I'd go blank.
Blank land.
Well, Bill Maher on his auxiliary show.
What's that called?
What's Bill Maher's?
Oh, Club Random.
He had Larry Wilmore on.
And Larry Wilmore, if you don't know him, he's a comedian and he's black, which is important to both of these points.
And he said, quote, I have a healthy outlook on this.
I just feel all white people is problematic.
Doesn't matter what party you're in.
Then Bill said, we do live in an era now where lots of stuff can't happen in reverse.
I can't make that joke about you, and I don't want to.
Now notice that Bill Maher called it a joke.
I feel like he was kind of trying to help out his friend.
Do you think that when Larry Wilmore said, uh, I have a healthy outlook, I just feel all white people are problematic.
You think that was a joke?
It didn't sound like one.
I write jokes for a living and I didn't recognize that as any joke form I've ever seen.
It sounded like he meant it to me.
What do you, what's your take?
Wouldn't you say he meant it?
It would be a weird thing to say if you didn't mean it, you know, unless there was more to the act.
Like if it was part of an act, I'd say, Oh, he's going to circle back around and, you know, soften that after you've seen the whole thing, something like that.
But that sounded like a conversational opinion.
It didn't sound like any kind of a joke.
And, um, And then Larry explained it, you know, that it would be okay for him to say that sort of stuff, but not the other way.
He says, that's just the top dog, underdog dynamic.
Underdog gets to make fun of top dog.
Well, that would be true if the top dog could walk into any corporation in America and get a job.
What makes you the top dog?
If you don't have free speech and you don't have equal employment, what exactly is the top dog if you have fewer economic opportunities, at least job-wise, and you don't have free speech in the way that other people do?
Sort of a weird definition of the top dog versus the underdog.
And then Bill Maher says, can you imagine if a white person said that in reverse?
It's not a good thing.
And Larry said, some of them do say that.
Fair point.
There's a lot of oppression by proxy, which was a more interesting point, but here's what I say.
Yes, I agree with Larry's comment that the underdog does get to make fun of the overdog.
That's a pretty well-established human thing, right?
Kind of in lots of different scenarios, that's just the way it goes.
And you can love it or hate it, but it's sort of normal in human behavior.
Doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world that the underdogs are mocking the overdogs as they see it.
You could argue who's the underdog in this case, but that's a separate argument.
But here's my take.
I got canceled for pointing out that Larry Wilmore exists.
I didn't get canceled for my opinion.
I get canceled for simply observing that other people have an opinion and that it was documented in one case in a Rasmussen poll, which had about a 9% margin of error, which wouldn't have changed my opinion in either direction because it was a big effect.
And if it'd been off by 9% or 20% or 30%, it would still be the same point, which is Rasmussen found an alarming percentage of people Who were black, who said it wasn't okay to be white.
Larry Wilmore says, I feel all white people are problematic.
Isn't that the same opinion?
Now, tell me if I'm just being too generous to myself here.
Is it not true that I got canceled for simply observing that there's more than one Larry Wilmore with the opinion that white people are problematic?
That's what I got canceled for.
I didn't say I don't like black people, because that wouldn't be true.
I love black people.
I didn't say that you should discriminate against them.
I said you should get away from anybody with this opinion.
I wouldn't want Larry Wilmore as my neighbor, would you?
Would you want Larry Wilmore to be your neighbor after he says white people are problematic?
I wouldn't.
The smartest thing you could do is get as far the fuck away from Larry Wilmore as you can.
Why would you have any contact with him?
No, if somebody's just a flat-out racist against you, don't have contact.
I say the same thing, it's the same advice for black Americans.
If you're looking for a new town to move to, and one of them is the headquarters of the KKK, it would be a bad idea to say, well, But most of the people are nice.
That'd be a bad strategy.
If you're black, don't move into a town that has an active KKK chapter in it.
That won't work out.
You should get the fuck away from the KKK.
And when it comes to what's safe, there are no rules.
If you're doing your own safety, there's no law against any decision you make within the existing law.
So yes, you can stay away from people who state a preference that they don't like you, for whatever reason.
Anyway, this is funny, New York Governor Hochul and New York City Mayor Adams, they both want to ban masks in public places.
So they don't want you to wear a mask on the subway, and they don't want you to wear a mask for a protest.
Because they've just discovered that people wearing masks in that situation might cause trouble because they can't be spotted.
How long did it take them to figure that out?
Everybody in the world knew this.
They're just figuring out that the masks might be bad for crime.
Yeah, yeah, certainly.
Greg Abbott, governor of Texas, he's sounding the alarm, they say.
There was some Houston voter fraud.
Got caught.
And Abbott says voter fraud is real, because a judge has ordered a new election in Harris County.
So 1,400 votes were illegally cast, and they got caught.
The part of the story that I'm most curious about is part I didn't see, which is how'd they catch him?
The how'd you catch him seems like the important part of the story, right?
Because if it turns out they only caught them by luck, or a whistleblower, wouldn't that suggest that people could cheat and get away with it fairly easily?
But, if the system is set up such that that level of cheating, 1,400 votes, by the way, would be a lot of votes.
I think whoever won only won by about 500.
So it was the difference between winning and losing.
But don't you want to know if the normal election process caught that irregularity?
Isn't that the big question?
The big question is, oh, we're so well organized that if somebody does cheat, we might catch it after the fact, but in time to correct it.
I feel like the most important part of the story isn't in the headline.
So maybe if you dig down a little deeper.
Somebody fill me in.
How did they catch that person?
Anyway, the Washington Post is doing poorly with their new leadership.
I guess the staff is rebelling because the new leadership did some things in the past that people don't love in his prior jobs.
But I think it's more that he's too right-leaning.
He's more like a little bit of center-right, I think, and they don't like that.
But Nicholas Kristof, who writes for the New York Times, He said this in a post.
He said, the Washington Post is a great, great, great paper.
And its greatness, now if you're keeping track, Nicholas Kristof works for the New York Times as a writer.
Now, New York Times gets the finest writers because they have the best reputation.
So the finest writer has used the word great four times in the sentence so far.
I just need to point that out.
I just need to point that out.
Great, great, great paper and this greatness pushes the rest of us in the media world to do a better job.
Really?
You know, in what universe is the Washington Post a great publication that's pushing everybody to excellence?
I thought everybody knew it was just a garbage publication that's just a propaganda vehicle.
I thought that was widely understood.
But really?
Is this real?
So here we're going to play Stupid, Lying, or T.D.S.
Is Nicholas Kristof stupid, lying, or does he have T.D.S.?
Doesn't look like T.D.S.
because it's not related to trumpet anyway.
Is he stupid?
That seems unlikely.
Although he did use the word great four times in one sentence.
He sort of argues against that point.
But no, he's a professional writer who's done well enough that you would intuit that his IQ is high.
So I don't think he's stupid.
That would leave lying.
Do you think he really thinks the Washington Post is a great, great paper?
Or does he think it's great, great for Democrats?
I'm going to go with lying on this one.
Now, when I play this game, remember, I don't know the real answer.
I'm just saying my best answer is he's not stupid.
It doesn't seem related to TDS, because that's not even in the topic.
Trump isn't.
It looks like he's just lying.
Now, do you have another hypothesis?
If you do, I'd be interested.
Anyway, BBC says more people are turning away from the news.
So the number of people who even follow the news Let's see.
It's like 39% are turning away from the news when it was only 29% in 2017.
So far more people are just ignoring the news because it's depressing and relentless and boring.
Now the BBC is reporting this.
Do you know who's really the worst people to report on why people aren't watching the news?
It's the news!
They're the least capable to tell you that story.
Because if they knew what they were doing that caused people not to watch it, they'd probably do something different.
So they're the only ones who don't know what's going on.
Let me tell you what's going on.
We can all tell it's not real.
We can all tell it's not real.
Everybody knows it's not real.
But, you know, we still like to agree with the stories that agree with us.
But on some level, we know it's not real.
And I don't think we always knew that.
So that's new.
The other thing is there's, you know, there's social media, there are more options, blah, blah, blah.
And people don't necessarily like this long form and comes on at seven o'clock at night.
I mean, there are a whole bunch of reasons why the news would, the traditional news would decrease.
But here's what they should have said.
They should have said that the consumption of news on the X platform is at an all time high.
I don't know that to be true, but I'll bet it's true.
Don't you think if you say people aren't watching the regular news, you should mention that they've probably done what I did.
I watch very little regular news, but I'm on social media all the time, which is summarizes the other news reports, etc.
So this is probably another one of those poorly measured and the wrong people are reporting a situation.
All right.
The Washington Examiner has an exclusive that the State Department got subpoenaed for failing to turn over records on programs that Republicans are saying created censorship by proxy and revenue interference.
So in other words, the claim is that the government worked with private companies, the social media platforms, and maybe other things, in order to basically push censorship.
Censorship means interfering with elections, basically.
Mostly it's interfering with elections.
Even if that doesn't look like it every day, the effect is that.
Anyway.
So, we'll see how that turns out.
We do see that some of the censorship stuff was dismantled, but I suspect it just goes and hides in other corners.
I can't imagine that the Democrats will stop using the government to censor.
I just think they'll keep doing it, but more cleverly.
Or they'll censor AI, and that's all they'll need to do in the future.
Something like that.
But I don't think any of that is going away.
According to Rasmussen, 62% of voters approve of the prison sentence for Bannon.
Now, that's not too surprising, because that would be, of course, pretty much all the Democrats, because it's Bannon.
But that would still give you a bunch of Republicans who said, you know what?
Maybe we like Bannon, but the law is the law.
I don't hate that.
You know, I think Bannon should not be jailed over the things.
But on the other hand, there was a clear law and there was a clear violation of the law.
And if other people went to jail for it, I guess you got to support the rule of law.
But this one is so hinky that I'm not in favor of jailing Bannon.
All right.
There's a fun story on social media.
I'm going to call it a recreational belief that Joe Biden has a body double.
And that Wall Street Apes is reporting this.
And so there have been images of Biden going around that, you know, looks like it's a body double with a mask.
I don't believe that's true, but it's an interesting recreational belief.
I think he looks different because he looks different during the day.
I think sometimes his dementia face is more pronounced than others.
I think when he's tired, his face looks empty, and when he's maybe pumped up with some stimulants, he looks different, he smiles differently.
I think camera angles is some of it.
You know, I think probably it's just a whole bunch of people look different in different scenarios.
Probably.
But then there's also a claim that he's changed his signature after 30 years.
And the question was, you know, who changes their signature after 30 years?
I did.
I changed mine.
How many of you have the same signature from 30 years ago?
Here's what happened to me.
Let's see if it happened to any of you.
I used to sign my name, you know, in cursive.
Uh, and I would hit every, hit every letter.
And I'd say, yeah, nobody can copy this.
And then I started signing credit cards and stuff for $6 purchases.
You remember that?
You don't have to sign for the little purchases anymore, but for a long time, you had to sign for everything.
And I knew that my signature made no difference to anything or anybody.
So I did what most of you do.
I just go, it's not my signature.
It's just like this.
It's just like a scribble with one line.
And nobody ever questions it, because nobody cares.
It's not important that you actually signed it.
So for years, I've had two signatures.
One, if I'm signing up for a new bank or something, I'll give my actual signature.
But 95% of what I sign is just a scribble.
It's not even trying to have any letters in it.
So, I don't think it's that unusual for somebody elderly to have a different signature, because their hand works differently.
In my case, I also have a hand issue right now, so I modify my signature a little.
All right, I don't think he's a body double, but it's fun to think about it.
Chanel Ryan of OAN had an interesting report about the Biden crime family, if I could call it that, and Rosamond Seneca, Now you heard that Hunter Biden was partners in an entity called Rosemont Seneca.
What you might not know, I didn't know it till today, with Chanel Ryan's reporting, that Rosemont Seneca had a bunch of subsidiaries, also that start with Rosemont Seneca.
So it's like Rosemont Seneca X, Rosemont Seneca blah blah, so a bunch of them.
Now why would you have so many entities?
No good reason.
But here's the allegation.
The allegation is that Hunter Biden was brought into Rosemount Seneca, which had been established before he got there.
I think there was a Carey son-in-law and the guy who became Hunter's partner there.
And the allegation is that Hunter came in to help them Launder money from Russian oligarchs.
So the idea was that the Russian oligarchs wanted to figure out some kind of shady business where their money that's hard to get out of Russia could get into these entities and then the entities would launder it, basically, so that they'd have access to it outside of Russia.
That's my understanding.
Now, then the further allegation is that they sold Rosamond Seneca To somebody rich in China.
So I don't think I have all the details, but it looks like this.
It was always a money laundering operation, and Hunter was the primary person who could make that happen, and also do some connections.
There were two parts.
One was to get the money out, and the other was to create connections in America.
So Hunter could do both.
Yeah, he could get money out and he could form connections for them.
So the, if I understand it correctly, and I'm not really sure I do, I think the allegation is this, that the, the oligarch money would flow into Rosemont Seneca and that it would be kind of trapped because it'd be too obvious if he just then took that money and laundered it.
So instead they sold the whole company.
Presumably including the funds in it, in other words, they would sell the bank accounts and everything else, to a Chinese entity.
The Chinese would pay for the, I guess, the name on the company, but also they'd pay for its cash.
Which makes it look like, oh, we just got some money for selling a company.
And I think that was the money laundering scheme.
Although, I feel like I'm missing something, because it doesn't seem like that could have worked.
But there's probably more details to it.
But something in that general category of moving money to help oligarchs, and then using some rich person in China to execute the rest of the scheme.
If any of that's true, the scandal's way bigger than you thought, if any of that's true.
I would say I'd still wait on that one to see if there's any further information.
All right.
Speaking of lying stupid or TDS, I saw a venture capitalist that you've been hearing about lately, Sean Maguire, who quite prominently and got a lot of news for it, decided to stop backing Biden and become a Trump supporter because apparently he's not crazy.
But here's the story.
So keep in mind, he's a physics PhD, venture capitalist, rich guy.
So really, really smart and concerned enough about politics that he's making waves.
So he pays attention to politics and he is way smarter than all of us.
Yesterday, he found out for the first time That the Fine People Hoax was a hoax, and that what Trump really did was disavow the Neo-Nazis.
And he posted it.
He said he just found it, because he only for the first time saw the full video.
And he went, what the?
I just found out that whole thing wasn't true, and all you had to do was watch the video to know?
There were no tricks.
You just had to watch it.
That's it.
You just have to watch the whole video instead of the clip that they always show.
And Bill Ackman weighed in, famous, you know, financial guy, Bill Ackman, to say that he too thought the fine people hoax was true.
Until, before Sean Maguire found out, he had also found out it wasn't true.
So now those are two of the smartest people who had ever supported Democrats.
They had no idea the fine people hoax was made up.
Now I have one question for Sean McGuire, which is, did you really move your support to Trump while thinking he had complimented neo-Nazis?
You've got a little more explaining to do.
If I really thought that Trump had praised neo-Nazis, I wouldn't be supporting him.
So, there's a little bit of explaining to be done there.
You know, he probably had a sense that it was exaggerated.
I'll give him that credit.
So, in this case, were Sean Maguire and Bill Ackman lying, stupid, or did they have TDS?
Well, in this case, neither, or none.
I would say in this case, they were locked in a silo.
And we're unaware that they were not seeing actual news.
They're actually discovering for the first time that the thing they thought was news was never that.
It was always propaganda.
It was designed that way, it was executed that way, and it was never meant to be real news.
Now, it's the finding out it was never meant to be real news that's the painful part for your brain.
If you thought, well, here's some anomaly, but they're trying hard otherwise, No, they're not.
No, they're not.
They're not trying to be real news when it comes to Trump.
They're not trying at all.
So, I guess that was a little wake-up call for them.
And then, meanwhile, Mark Cuban weighs in on, let's see, he was weighing in on Piers Morgan and Bill Ackman talking about how old Biden is.
And so Mark Cuban says in a post, he goes, you guys both, Piers Morgan and Bill Ackman, are so consumed with pandering to your Twitter followers, you have lost all objectivity.
I'll let you both in on a secret.
And then he writes in all caps, both candidates are old, very old.
He goes back to regular text.
He says they both are going to have senior moments, misremember, forget things and have physical frailties.
I'll tell you a not-so-secret secret.
One is great at soundbites, but also thinks in soundbites.
The other is awful at soundbites, but thinks in complete sentences.
Voters will decide which we prefer.
What do you make of that?
Is that stupid, TDS, or lying?
Or something else?
Or something else?
What's your take on that?
Well, I reposted it with my own comment, and I said, I hope this is performance art, and then I saw Elon Musk gave a laughing emoji to my comment, so he was enjoying me saying that about Mark Cuban, because if he didn't know, Elon and Cuban have gotten into it a little bit, publicly.
I would like to inject one other possibility.
He might have been drunk.
Because I can't tell you how many times I get comments that are sort of not just disagreeing with me, but sort of nonsensical.
And I just reply back, have you been day drinking?
And almost always that stops the comments.
Because it turns out, I think that is the reason.
For a lot of what you think are trolls are literally just angry drunks who know that nobody can punch them because they're online.
So, when I look at this and I see that Cuban's trying to equate their performance, he couldn't possibly believe that.
Could he?
Who in the world looks at Biden and says, yeah, I think he's pretty good behind closed doors.
I don't think anybody smart has that opinion, do they?
But he's smart.
Is it TDS?
Well, there's certainly something going on there.
But maybe it's personal more than TDS.
I don't know.
But this one's kind of a mystery.
But I think I'm going to go with he may have posted while he was drunk.
That's my best guess.
Because I'm not even going to talk about whether it's a good A good point of view or anything.
It just looks drunk.
It's not even something I'd agree or disagree with.
So, I hope not, but might be.
Of course, we're being warned there's going to be another bird flu, and Alex Jones warned you.
He told you this was coming.
The former head of the CDC says there'll be human deaths coming with this bird flu.
Well, okay.
All right.
There's a story about some Democrat running for commissioner in Fort Bend County in Texas, and he was arrested and charged for faking his own racist hate mail.
He allegedly created fake accounts to make racist comments about himself.
He looks like an Indian guy.
Tarell Patel.
Tarell Patel.
Wow, that's a cool name.
Tarell Patel.
Oh my god, that's a great name.
Tarell Patel.
I could say that all day long.
Anyway, the demand for racism has once again exceeded the supply, so he had to add his own supply of racism against himself.
How many of you saw the video of Biden at a fundraiser with Obama and some Hollywood types, and it looked again like Biden was frozen or confused on stage, and Toward the end, when they had to leave the stage, Obama sort of grabbed him by the hand to sort of lead him off like you wouldn't know that he's supposed to lead.
Now, people have said, damn it, Biden, all you had to do was just get his attention.
You know, you didn't have to take his hand like he's a feeble old guy.
To which I say, I'm not so sure.
He might have had to take his hand.
Because I don't know if even the lights were on at that point.
It might be that talking to him would have helped.
As in, are we going to exit stage, right?
I think he just would have looked at him with those big dumb eyes like, uh?
So I think Obama's instincts might have been better than you think.
Because he's been, you know, he had been spending time with him.
So he knew exactly what Biden's mental state was at that moment.
And if he decided that the best way to deal with this is to hold his hand to take him off, which is what he did, I think Obama knows the score here.
But of course, the humorous Democrats are claiming that there was nothing wrong.
He wasn't frozen.
Obama just overplayed it and everything was fine.
There's nothing to see here.
And by the way, in Normandy, by the way, I think I told you this, the Normandy video where it looked like Biden was going to wander away from the other leaders, I said, he's not wandering away.
He's interacting with somebody else who's off screen.
And now that's, that's what was happening.
He was interacting with the parachute guy.
So it didn't look good.
I'm not defending it.
I'm just saying it might not have been as bad as you thought.
He wasn't wandering off.
MSNBC host Alex Wagner, a woman, a woman named Alex, worries that the debate will be unfair.
Here's why she worries that the debate will be unfair.
Are you ready for this?
Now we're going to play Stupid, lying, or TDS.
So here's why Alex Wagner on MSNBC thinks the debate won't be fair.
Because she says the bar for Biden is so much higher.
Trump's bar is literally, is he alive?
Is he standing?
Are the words coming out?
I didn't get the names confused.
I didn't get the names confused.
She's saying that the bar for Biden is higher.
And the bar for Trump is lower, because all Trump has to do is be alive and stand there and speak.
What's going on here?
Do they literally just take everything that's true and just reverse it?
But I think they also add the attitude.
It's the attitude that sells it.
I don't know.
Do they think that... I can't even tell if it's stupid, because they might be cleverly thinking the audience is stupid, which would not be stupid.
It would be evil, but... There's clearly some TDS involved, but I don't think that's all.
It's kind of a mystery, isn't it?
Now, do you get my point yet?
That in a normal election, you have to have some humility about what's true.
Because you always think your side is right, but in the real world, you know, sometimes your side's not right.
Sometimes there's some extra information that would change your mind.
You know, in the real world, things are a little gray.
But Biden has totally clarified the situation.
And if you could come on TV and with a straight face, say reality is the opposite of what you observe, what is that?
What is that?
Is it lying?
Is it stupid?
Is it just TDS?
I'm going to rank this one TDS.
Because I think nobody's that stupid.
And I think it's so obviously not true that even lying doesn't make sense.
It looks like something that you didn't know that everybody else knows is not true.
So I'm going to say TDS.
It looks like mental illness to me.
On that one.
All right, so PJ Media is reporting that we have some details about the upcoming debate, June 27th.
So Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will be moderating.
So here are the things we know.
Two commercial breaks instead of one.
We don't know about bathroom breaks, but that may have something to do with the age of at least one of the people.
The mics will be muted when it's not the candidate's turn.
That feels fair.
You know, obviously that's a pro-Biden, anti-Trump rule, but I don't really like it when somebody wins a debate by talking over the other people.
So, fair enough.
Both candidates are going to be at a podium, and their podium will be determined by coin flip.
Here's the interesting one.
No audience will be present.
Why do you think no audience will be present?
Well, so I have a lot of experience talking in front of large groups.
And I also have experience talking to a camera.
It's so different.
If you're Trump, talking to an audience is home.
That's where you would be most comfortable.
Even if half of them were booing, that's just energy.
Trump is an energy monster.
He plays to the audience.
So if you take the audience away, you've neutralized 25% of Trump's power.
You know, he would have to rely on complete performance at that point instead of the energy that he gets from an audience.
So I would say that's an entirely pro-Biden situation, but not enough that will probably make a difference.
There won't be any opening statements.
That's good.
Those are a waste of time.
And they're going to enforce the time limits, blah, blah, blah.
And there'll be a spin room, of course.
Gavin Newsom will be available for Biden.
And Trump has yet to choose anyone to represent him in the... Oh, who is Trump going to choose to represent him in the press thing afterwards?
What's your guess?
Well, I'm going to take a guess.
It's either Vivek, because that would be a smart play, or JD Vance, because that would be a smart play.
And it might be signaling who the VP choice will be, or, alternately, it could be an audition for the Vice President.
It would be a really good audition, to see if you can back the President, even if he made a few mistakes.
Because one of the things they're going to say is, Trump said that when the wind stops blowing, your TV won't work.
And then, you know, if it's J.D.
Vance or Vivek, they're not going to be able to agree that your TV goes off.
I'm just using a stupid example.
So if Trump departs from the fact-checkers' lane, it's embarrassing to defend it.
But defend it, you must.
You know, if you're going to be vice president, you better be able to handle that.
If the vice president pick Can't handle a question like, why did Trump say this when our fact-checkers say that?
Then that's not the right choice.
Vivek can do it in his sleep.
J.D.
Vance can do it in his sleep.
They're really strong.
So it could be that Trump maybe, you know, will pick somebody else for VP, but you go with his A-team for the immediate response after.
And the A-team is Vance and Vivek, I think.
I think that's pretty clear.
All right.
RNC co-chair, Laura Trump, bringing the fire.
As you know, she's recruiting 100,000 poll watchers and 500 lawyers.
That's the goal anyway.
And she said at the recent event, she said, this is the year we do it.
Yeah, she was talking at Turning Point USA's convention.
They said, we're also sending a loud and clear message out there to anyone who thinks about cheating in an election.
We will find you, we will track you down, and we will prosecute you to the full extent of the law.
Any questions?
Remember I told you that you're going to be really happy that Lara Trump has this job?
This is one of the best hires in the Trump annals of history.
She has the goods.
And do you see what she's doing here?
That's not just talk.
She's freezing out the cheaters.
She's not just saying, we're going to come get you.
She's saying, don't try.
Don't try is what we needed.
That's what we needed.
We need it at Don't Try.
We're going to have 100,000 people plus 500 lawyers putting your ass in jail.
Suppose you're a Democrat cheater and you went from business as usual and nobody's going to catch me to Lara Trump just formed an army to catch your ass.
Which one gives you a little pause?
I think she's coming hard.
And the threat is as good as the reality.
So, Laura, being smart, and the whole family knows persuasion it seems, she's going exactly, exactly with the right message.
We will find you.
We will prosecute you.
If you try, don't try.
I love that.
My God, that's so good.
And then might actually find people cheating.
So here's my prediction for the election.
Goes like this.
I believe that with that many poll watchers, there will be untold number of reports of irregularities.
Some of those reports will not be valid.
They might be somebody saw something that wasn't quite what they thought they saw.
Some percentage of them will be valid, but maybe could be smaller stuff.
Some of them might be big claims that would take too long to adjudicate, or no court has the authority, or something like that.
So there's going to be a whole bunch of claims, only because there are 100,000 people.
Now, I've told you a million times, if somebody takes a job as a ghost hunter, and you hire them to look for ghosts in your house, oh, they'll find some.
Yeah, if you're being paid to find something, you'll always find it.
If you're being paid to find the racist, you'll find some.
Plenty of them.
Even if they're not there.
So there will be plenty and plenty of claims.
But here's my provocative prediction.
There will be so many claims, and not enough time to validate them, that the Congress will not be able to certify the election.
And when I say not able, I mean that the country will be in such an uproar that they know if they certify the election it's just going to be riots in the street because people won't trust the outcome.
So what would happen if they can't certify the election?
My understanding is then it goes to a second process.
They don't hold the election again.
They can't get to the House.
The House then, if I understand correctly, We'll get one vote per state.
And I guess it depends, um, you know, who has, which party has, uh, their elected officials in those states.
I forget which elected officials, but the, each state gets a one vote.
And if it went the red blue way that the states are, Trump would win.
So imagine if you will, a bunch of claims that make the election certification impossible.
Followed by Trump winning in an alternate process.
What would Biden do then?
Well, here's the problem.
Biden would have months before the actual changeover of power.
And in that time, he's still president.
He could lock Trump up for anything, but I don't think that's going to happen.
But he could also pack the Supreme Court and then have the Supreme Court just give him the election.
So the thing I worry about is he's going to use those few months to pack the court.
Because he doesn't, you know, that would be a good time to do it if you're going to be that evil.
So I'm going to predict no outcome.
I think the election will not be decided.
Because there will be so many claims of cheating, whether real or not.
There'll be so many claims they can't certify.
It'll get kicked over the states.
That'll make it worse.
And Biden will say, this is a, you know, democracy has been subverted.
And so the only way for me to save it is this grotesque packing of the court that I know nobody wants, but this is an emergency.
What do you think?
Now there are lots of ways it could go.
The odds of me guessing it exactly correctly with that many twists and turns is very low.
So I'm not going to bet my life on that prediction.
I'm just going to say that the system design should get us to that place.
Remember I always say design is destiny?
The design of the system is a hundred thousand new people who are ghost watchers looking for ghosts.
Ghost watchers always find ghosts, even if they're not there.
How are they going to adjudicate all the claims that are going to come out of this thing?
There will be hundreds, maybe thousands, and they're not going to have time to adjudicate any of that before the changeover of power.
So what's Biden going to do?
The Democrats will not accept anything that looks like a Trump victory.
I think we can be safe in saying that.
And it could be worse if the polls are clearly pro-Trump and then he doesn't win.
It's going to really look like it was cheating.
I don't think there's much chance at all that this election will get us certified.
Especially since we have that in our mind that not certifying it is a thing.
If there had never been a January 6th, I don't think anybody would even think about not certifying it.
It just wouldn't be in our minds.
But that put it so squarely in our minds that everybody's going to think about it.
And if you can't agree what happened, you can't certify it.
And I don't think that they'll do the fake elector thing again, because the fake electors got arrested.
Nobody's going to be a fake elector and the risk of being arrested.
So instead, I think they're going to kick it to the house, where there's a majority of states that are at And then what do you do?
The Democrats would have to do something unprecedented or else give up power and all of them are going to get fired and jailed.
That's what they'll think.
They think they're going to go to jail if they don't reverse that decision.
So yes, they would pack the courts and they would come up with some bullshit case.
And immediately give it to the court and demand that the court act, you know, as an express lane for this, because it's so important.
And then they'll just put Joe Biden in power.
How else could it go?
I mean, you run it through your own mind and say, how could it not happen that way?
There's nothing about that that isn't obviously going to happen, except for the Supreme Court packing.
That is pretty radical.
But the part about there's no chance of it getting certified by the Congress, I feel comfortable in that prediction.
I don't think we have a system which can get us to a result we'll trust.
I also think that now that RFK Jr.
has said, let's get rid of the electronic voting systems, and Elon Musk has said, let's get rid of those, and I've said, can anybody explain why we have them?
No.
Six months in a row, nobody can tell me a reason why we have them in the first place.
By the way, there was an article that tied the three of us together as opponents of those machines.
I think you're going to see some other people break in that direction.
And I think voting machines may have a limited lifespan at this point, but we'll see.
Depends how powerful the CIA is, because I'm sure they want to keep them.
It could be that, you know, it's possible that the machines in the United States have never been rigged in any significant way, but that we do rig them in other countries.
And if we got rid of them at home, even if they were never a problem, it would be a big problem overseas because then the other countries would say, wait a minute, well, hold on, you Americans said we need some voting machines and you just got rid of yours because you don't trust them.
Why are you saying we need voting machines?
So it could be that they just can't live without voting machines.
They just need it.
Anyway, we're hearing now that the Pentagon ran a secret anti-vax campaign against China so that, you know, I guess they didn't want the Philippines to be too Indebted to China for trying to giving them vaccinations.
So they had a different thing.
It was Sinovac.
That was their vaccination.
A lot of people said it wasn't good.
But were any of them, were any of the vaccinations good?
I don't think so.
So just think about that.
The U.S.
military was convincing Chinese citizens not to get vaccinated while knowing it could have saved their life or believing it could save their life.
Did we really do that?
Because, you know, I know that we always do dirty tricks to each other, and China's sending fentanyl, and maybe terrorists and stuff.
But were we really doing that?
We were killing their citizens for public relations?
By killing them, I mean if they were talked down to getting the vaccination.
Or worse, did we talk people in the Philippines down to getting vaccinations?
While also believing it would save their life.
You know, you could argue whether that was true.
If that, if that story is true, that's one of the filthiest things I've seen our country do, but it might be true.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my prepared remarks.
I'm going to go do some other stuff, but not until I talk to the locals people privately, the subscribers.
