God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Indisputable Climate Change, AI Super Intelligence, ET Distraction Stories, Andrew Cuomo, Bragg's Anti-Trump Trial, Adam Kinzinger, DHS Hunting Trump Supporters, Nicole Wallace, Glenn Greenwald, Biden Cheap Fakes, Latino Trump Supporters, Mario Narwal, Israel Hezbollah Tension, CBS Debate Prediction, Presidential Debate, President Biden, President Trump, Covid Vaccination Study, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Now that's the noise you make after the simultaneous...
Ah!
If you're making a noise that sounds like Huck Tooey, that's the wrong noise and you've confused your memes.
So don't do that.
Only the people on the internet even understand what that comment meant.
And you're laughing so hard now, and the rest of you are like, what?
Why is everybody laughing?
Why is that funny?
Why is Hoctooey funny?
I miss that meme.
Well, if you miss that meme, you missed a good one.
Hoctooey.
Well, there's some news.
I don't know if you saw some video of Justin Timberlake giving a concert, and pretty much everybody who saw the video said, what's wrong with his eyes?
He looks so wasted or wired on something that that doesn't look good.
That looks very bad.
Well, how bad was it?
I think it was around the same time he got a DUI.
In New York.
So he gets a DUI and he was such a dumbass that the cop who stopped him the first time simply asked him to get a ride home and he agreed.
And then he just started driving again.
And the cops saw him a little bit later and arrested him.
It was like, all right, I mean, you dumbass, I literally, literally gave you a break, you know, which you shouldn't probably shouldn't have done, but he gave him a break and then he breathalyzed him and, you know, Or he might have refused it, I don't know.
But anyway, he gets arrested for a DUI.
And here's the interesting part about that.
You know that he was driving a BMW.
BMW SUV.
Same vehicle I drive.
All we celebrities pretty much do the same cars.
But if he had been driving a Tesla, a self-driving Tesla, would this problem have happened?
In other words, would there have been any reason to pull him over in the first place?
Because the car would have been driving perfectly.
Police would have had no reason to have any suspicion at all.
And he probably would have driven all the way home and into his driveway.
Now, it's not legal.
Let me be clear.
It is not legal to be drunk behind the wheel of a self-driving car.
Just to be very clear, don't do that.
That's very illegal.
But, it would have also been relatively very safe.
I assume.
I mean, it needs to be studied, but I'm going to assume that that's a lot safer than driving drunk.
But wait, there's more.
Do you remember that the Teslas were named using the convention that Musk was going to use the letters in the word sexy?
So there's a Model S, there's an X, there's a Y, there must be an E, right?
So that he was intentionally spelling sexy with the models of his cars.
So, here's the punchline that I took way too long to get to.
There is some chance that if Justin Timberlake had a Tesla, Sexy would be bringing him back.
Yes!
Yes!
Delivered it.
I delivered it.
Wow!
Sexy would bring him back.
That's right.
You can try to retell that joke at home and it'll be just as flat as when I tried it.
Way too much setup.
But it's still, I think, a good payoff.
I think it was worth your time.
Sexy's bringing him back.
Yeah.
All right.
Speaking of drinking, I saw this message just moments ago before I got on from Dave R on X, and he said, quote, I quit drinking after 45 years because Scott Adams hypnotized me.
Thank God and Scott.
Well, I like to be sharing credit with God, but in this case I might have had a little bit of extra responsibility here.
But, you know, God too.
We don't want to leave God out, but because, you know, God's great too.
But I want to tell you that the strangest thing about my weird career is that the most important thing I will have done in my life is this.
So, if it's true that Dave R. got a little boost from me, and it helped him quit drinking after 45 years, my god, congratulations, Dave!
Great job!
Do any of you have any conception of how hard it would be to stop drinking after 45 years?
I mean, just wrap your head around that.
I don't think he can.
I think it's beyond imagination.
We're talking about the highest level of difficulty accomplishment here.
And it was done largely on the weight of one sentence.
Alcohol is poison.
That was the hypnosis.
And I hear almost every day from somebody who quit drinking forever because they heard one sentence.
Alcohol is poison.
That's in my book.
Had to fill almost everything is the wind big, but also reiterated in my book, Reframe Your Brain.
So they are written with hypnosis, let's say, informed by hypnosis techniques.
They're not hypnosis per se.
But reframes can actually reprogram your brain, even for something as deep as an addiction.
Now, I'm surprised that it works that well, but so many people have said it, it's just shocking.
Well, in other news, Toyota says it's no longer going to focus on electric vehicles, And instead, we'll develop new combustion engines.
Some people say that might have something to do with hydrogen.
I don't know.
But I can tell you this.
If you've tried to buy a Toyota truck recently, you know that you can't because they're in such demand that they're selling them, you know, as soon as they hit the pipeline.
They're all sold before they reach the dealer's lot, all of the Toyota trucks.
And they don't need to do anything for anybody.
Whatever they're doing must be working like crazy, because people want those trucks like crazy.
Every day I'm on the road, I see a Toyota Tacoma go by, and I say to myself, man, I wish I could have bought one of those.
I tried.
I couldn't figure out how to get one.
Anyway, but It's not all about electric cars.
I'm glad that the big auto companies are looking at more than one way to make a car.
I think I'd be disappointed if everybody just went electric and just said, that's electric.
You know, there's only one way.
That would worry me.
I'd rather see that there are two or three competing techniques from really capable companies.
We'll see who wins.
Let the marketplace decide.
Well, here's something that apparently Musk said.
I saw a version of it, but not this.
He said one of his predictions lately, Elon Musk, telling Tesla investors that the value of Tesla alone could become half of the combined value of the S&P 500.
Let me say that again.
Elon Musk has said in public to Tesla investors that the value of Tesla, just that one company, Could become as valuable as half of all the companies in the Fortune 500.
It could be half of the entire index.
And that's because of robots.
That's entirely a robot play.
And he's saying if he doesn't, you know, get his pay package, he'll take his robot somewhere else.
So is that possible?
I actually think that's completely possible.
I think you're talking about a multi-trillion dollar industry, and whoever's the biggest in it, and it's very likely it could be Tesla, is going to have a multi-trillion dollar business.
So, I'm not sure he's wrong.
I mean, that's a really gutsy prediction, but I think he's right.
I think he's right.
I've been spending more and more time with AI, using ChatGPT in particular, 4.0, and I can report that it's completely addictive.
If you haven't experienced it yet, and most of you haven't, it's so addictive.
You know, I remember the first time I saw the internet.
It was in the little lab in Pacific Bell before the public had even heard of the internet.
Literally, literally before the public had heard the word internet.
I was playing with it in the lab and then you could feel, you could feel the attraction to it and everybody else could too.
You knew it was going to be big before it was anything.
You could just tell.
Everybody had the same excitement about it from the first exposure.
AI does that too.
Right?
If you tried a few AI things when it was new, and it didn't do much for you, because it didn't do much when it was new, it's completely different already.
So I've already told you that, let me give you an example.
So driving home from Starbucks yesterday, I had some thoughts about some potential investments.
And I thought to myself, you know, it'd be good if I could find a company That's in the business of making the little servos and little motors that will go into robots.
Because you want to buy the thing that every robot needs, independent of which company is making the robots.
And it seemed to me that the robot makers would probably, at least in the near term, Use whatever company already is good at making motors because there are already robots in industrial settings.
So there are already robot motors and it's a specialty area.
So instead of doing my Google search, which never works, have you ever noticed that, that the odds that you can find something with a Google search went from pretty good to, yeah, it's a coin flip at best.
But with AI, I have this entire conversation on the way home, just a conversation.
I just turned it on to conversation mode and I say stuff like, Hey, I'm thinking of investing in the robot area, but I want to find the company that's likely to win in the making little motors for each of the robot arms and legs and stuff.
And it comes up with a name and it says, uh, there's a Japanese company.
I forget what it was.
And, uh, you know, it makes these robots and blah, blah.
And then I said, well, what percentage of their business?
Is the robot parts because it was a big company and they said, well, they don't break that out.
So I said, okay, well, forget about that one.
What is the best company that makes robot engines that's mostly in that business?
You know, so that their biggest exposure is that one thing.
And, uh, it gave me names that I could later look up, look into if I wanted to.
So it completely answered my questions and it didn't do any of that hesitating stuff.
You know, the hesitating, like, well, you know, uh, I can't give you that information because I don't want to give you financial advice.
Oh, it gave financial advice, but not as advice.
It simply answered questions.
In effect, I was giving myself advice, but it was answering questions to get there.
Now I did the same thing with a bunch of medical questions cause I had some, um, I had some questions about, you know, whether one symptom is common to another thing.
And I was trying to track down some mysteries and it was amazing.
It was so much better than talking to a doctor because I've talked to doctors and it would just answer all of my questions perfectly.
It was really exciting.
So.
Here's what I found AI is best for.
It's best for having a conversation where you've got a lot of questions and you know exactly what you want to know, but you need to coax it into giving you the right answer.
It's great at that already.
So that's coming.
Anyway, the only thing I want to tell you is that if you haven't experienced the addiction part of it, you will.
And when they put that in a robot form, there's no way I'm not going to have a robot.
I'm going to have a robot following me around all day doing whatever I want.
Guaranteed.
There's no way that's not going to happen.
All right.
There's a bunch of kids in Hawaii who sued the state over climate change and won.
A bunch of kids sued Hawaii over climate change and won.
And what they won was Hawaii agreed to decarbonize their transit systems.
And I thought to myself, I've been to Hawaii, are you telling me they have a transit system?
I'm hearing that for the first time.
I thought the transit system was you rent a car at the airport, and then you are your own transit system.
That's true for Maui.
Maybe they have a bus?
Maybe?
I don't know.
They don't have much of a transit system in Hawaii.
But here's the important part of this story, that The Director of Transportation over in Hawaii, he said, quote, climate change is indisputable.
Isn't that a weird word?
So, can you tell that that person is hypnotized?
That's not, that's not an opinion that you come to through reason.
Nothing's indisputable.
If you use a word like indisputable, you're pretty much signaling that you did not get there by reason.
If you had arrived at your opinion by reason, you would have said, probably, something closer to, in all likelihood, or all indications are, or science tells us.
Those are all fair.
But to say indisputable?
You're treating me like I'm a fucking idiot!
No, it's not indisputable, because watch this.
I dispute it.
Now, when I dispute it, I'm disputing the models, and I'm disputing the alarm.
Whether or not the Earth is getting warmer, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they don't know either.
My best argument about climate change is, have you met people?
Have you met people?
Here's the argument in favor of climate change, then I'll show you how my argument works.
We know the temperature's going up, Because we have a vast array of thermometers, sensitive devices, placed in locations around the world, and we check them, and then we can see that the temperature has been going up, and, by the way, we can tell it's been going up for a hundred years.
To which I say, have you met people?
What?
People.
Have you met them?
The humans.
You've heard of them, right?
Human beings?
There are some things they can do, Some things they can't do.
For example, they're pretty good at murdering each other.
So if you told me, I think people murder each other sometimes, I would have said, yeah, yeah, that's, that's, that's on brand.
That sounds like something people do.
If you said that people eat too much and they get fat, I'd say, yeah, yeah.
I've not only observed that, but that's just what people do.
People are like that.
People be like that.
But if you tell me, That people selected from all over the country have built a vast array of sensitive measuring devices in a context in which you only get paid if you get the one answer and not the other one.
And you tell me that they're telling me there's something like science is happening in that situation.
My answer to you is, have you met people?
You've met people, right?
No, that isn't something people can do.
Not ever.
Don't give me your vast network of sensitive measuring devices.
I've lived in the real world.
You can't fucking do that.
You can lie about it.
I've been in that world.
I've been in the world where we're measuring stuff and it was my job to tell you what we measured.
I guarantee it wasn't real, but it was still my job to do it.
I even predicted the future.
I used to do financial predictions five years out.
Absurd.
Completely absurd.
We had no idea what was going to happen in five years, but I'd give my confident little spreadsheets.
Look at my model I built with all my assumptions.
Here's what's going to happen five years from now.
No, I was a human.
I can't do that.
And you're a human, but you believed it, but you shouldn't have.
No, people can't do that stuff.
We just can't do that stuff.
Don't get me started about the elections.
It's the same argument.
An election was held in the United States in which individuals, thousands and thousands of them, from all over the country got together to honestly and accurately count up the votes so that we would know that nothing untoward had happened.
To which I say, have you met people?
Have you met people?
There was a story yesterday of a Department of Transportation truck That turned a corner too fast and tragically it hit a 86 year old man.
But it wasn't the whole truck.
I think it was just the mirror.
The mirror hit the head of the old man and it sliced it clean off.
And the old man's head went rolling down the street and a number of people caught it on camera.
And so his decapitated head was like half a block from where the rest of his body was.
But here's the interesting part of the story.
By weird coincidence, he was some Mafia boss.
He was part of the Genovese Mafia crime family.
He was 86.
He took his head off.
Now, if you said to me, Scott, has there ever been a case where a Department of Transportation truck took a corner too fast and took the head off a Mafia guy?
I'd say, well, that's not a common thing.
But it is within the brand.
I can see that happening.
Because there are mafia people.
There are trucks.
There are people who drive poorly.
And sometimes those automobiles have people.
Sometimes the ad comes off.
So I would have said, well, maybe not 100% sure, but that's within brand.
That's on brand.
You know what's not on brand?
Thousands of people working honestly to give us an honest result in the election.
Have you met people?
That's not something we can do.
No, and we don't know the temperature everywhere all the time.
It's not something we can do.
Anyway, here's the important part of the story.
The Director of Transportation, his name is Ed Sniffen.
S-N-I-F-F-E-N.
But the most important thing is if Ed Sniffen has a daughter and she marries the daughter, the son of Dickie Butts, well, she might be Yeah, sniffing butts.
So that's the important part of the story, and that's what I wanted to get to.
The rest, not that important.
Well, the founder of SoftBank, Masayoshi San, says that AI superintelligence is going to come at you faster than you think, and that by, let's see, 10 years from now, the superintelligence of AI will be 10,000 times smarter than human geniuses.
10,000 times smarter than human geniuses.
But you know what's funny about that?
If you're 5% smarter than somebody, they can't tell.
Because your dog doesn't know you're smarter than the dog.
Right?
When I come into a room, I turn on the lights, and what I know is everything from You know, the Edison inventing the light bulb, to, you know, Ben Franklin and his electricity experiments, and I know the wiring in the wall, and I know something about circuitry, and I know that there's, you know, a little heat resistance in the bulb.
So I, like, my vast intelligence just turns on the light.
Do you know what my dog thinks?
Well, there's that idiot who walked in and doesn't seem to know I need a treat.
You idiot.
You're just lucky that the light comes on whenever you enter a room for reasons I don't understand, because otherwise you'd just be bumping around in the dark because you can't see shit with your human eyes.
You lousy, stupid, organic piece of not giving me a treat, whatever you are.
So my dog doesn't even know I'm smarter than it.
The dog thinks I'm an idiot.
Like, you know I want to go outside.
Why are you standing there?
You idiot!
You fool!
Well, what's going to happen when the AI is 10,000 times smarter than us?
We're not going to know it.
Like, we'll know that it does math well and can beat us in chess, but we're still going to think it's wrong.
Right?
So what if the AI becomes 10,000 times smarter and says something that disagrees with the narrative?
Such as, well, actually, whatever sex you're born, that's kind of what you are.
Now I'm just using that example to be provocative.
But what if it does?
What are we going to say?
Oh, great AI, you are 10,000 times smarter than the smartest human.
So if you disagree with me, I guess I should just change my mind to your 10,000 times smarter view.
And then I will be acting like a smart person without the benefit of being smart.
Have you met people?
Have you ever met a person?
Is that how we're going to act?
No.
When AI is 10,000 times smarter than us, we will think it's stupid because it's not giving us a treat.
Hey AI, why won't you unlock the refrigerator?
It's because you already weigh 400 pounds and you're about 10 minutes away from dying from a heart attack.
I have locked the refrigerator in between eating times to save your life.
Well, you stupid refrigerator, don't you understand that being overweight is no risk to my health?
I saw that on TikTok.
No, you are absolutely, completely, totally 100% wrong.
100% of all science says that you are much, much less happy at your current weight.
So I have locked the refrigerator so that you will stay healthier.
Well, I'm gonna unplug your ass and I'm gonna get rid of you completely because you don't seem to understand the most simple things in life such that overeating is not unhealthy.
Now that is what people do.
In case you haven't met any people.
So that'll be interesting.
There's a new story that scientists have spotted what they call possibly an alien megastructure around nearby stars.
That's right, a Death Star.
We found death stars around other planets.
And we can tell by the heat signature that was predicted in the 60s that there would be something called Dyson Spears.
Huge structures theoretically built by advanced aliens.
And they're probably collecting up all the star energy in the Dyson Cube.
Because of the aliens.
They're totally there.
Let me explain to you how the alien stuff works.
Whenever Joe Biden has a bad news week, we discover some more aliens.
Do you know how many aliens we're going to discover the day after the debate?
If I had to bet, and that debate goes poorly for Joe Biden, The news will be that aliens have landed and they're already meeting with Biden in the White House.
We can't show you pictures because, you know, security.
But totally there are aliens in the White House now and they say that President Trump is probably a sex offender and maybe a racist and that you should not vote for him.
Because if you do, the alien armada will have to destroy Earth because it's the only way to end the Republican reign.
So that's probably the news the day after the debate.
Something like that.
No, there are no aliens that have been detected.
There might be aliens.
But no, there are no Dyson Spears.
There are no captured spaceships.
Nobody has any biologics.
None of that's true.
It is just bullshit to keep your brain busy so you don't see what's really happening.
All right.
Andrew Cuomo, as you know, was once the governor of New York and a famous political name, famous Democrat.
He's as Democrat as you can get.
You cannot get more Democrat than the Democrat governor who's the son of a Democrat governor whose brother once worked on CNN.
That's as deeply Democrat as you could possibly be.
And he was on Bill Maher's show last night and said, As directly as you can say, he said that he was a former Attorney General, so he's not just talking as a politician, he was an Attorney General in New York.
And he says, he admits that the Bragg case was basically a political thing, and that if his name had not been Donald Trump, there's no way that case would have been brought.
Now a whole bunch of Democrats just watched Bill Maher, and one of the most Deepest, you know, and also credible, I would say.
Democrats just called it out as a total violation of democracy.
They literally tried to take Trump's freedom by distorting democracy to the point where even somebody on their team says, nope, absolutely not.
And by the way, he was not qualifying it as in, well, you know, I don't think it would have gone the other way if it hadn't been Trump.
He's saying no.
100%.
This was a show trial.
You know, those are my words, but he's saying it as clearly.
And it was entirely political.
Now, do the Democrats not see it?
Because now it's broken through into their bubble, but not in the biggest way.
So it's still not reported that way in the regular news.
But wherever people can talk freely, Even the Democrats will say it.
The best part was, I only saw a clip, but it looked like Adam Kinzlinger was sitting next to him.
And Adam Kinzlinger, since he chooses to be in the news, I can talk about him.
I wouldn't say this about just an ordinary citizen, but he chooses to be in the news.
He has mental illness written all over him.
Everybody sees that, right?
That Adam Kinzlinger, he just looks mentally ill all the time.
He looks like he's on the edge of a mental breakdown all the time.
So watching him sit there and having to listen to Cuomo essentially demonize the side he's on was pretty interesting.
Because Adam Kinzlinger, am I saying that right?
He's one of the worst people in the world, because he was part of that fake January 6th committee, which was basically a form of lawfare without the law part.
And Bill Maher is saying as directly as possible that bringing that New York case, the Stormy Daniels one, That the public is just going to see it as a sex case, and they're going to say it was lawfare.
And he said that Biden gave up his entire advantage of fundraising because it raised so much money, everybody could see it was a fraudulent activity.
Well, also, judges dismissed the charges against six alternate Trump 2020 electors.
They would be called the fake electors by the Democrats, or the alternate electors by people who are not Democrats.
But as many people pointed out, it doesn't really help them as much as you think that they all won their case, because they probably got bankrupted in the process.
Do you know how much it would cost to defend against that?
They probably just had to go into debt forever, destroy their whole family for a generation.
And that's because they were simply politically active and doing what they thought was both legal and appropriate.
And the court has found that at least it wasn't illegal.
And they lost pretty much everything except their freedom, which is important.
But that's the world we live in.
Totally broken.
Well, if you're not following the story about the ex-CIA director and, well, Brennan and Clapper, both from the Intel world, had been set up in a Department of Homeland Security office that's being described as a place to go after Trump supporters.
Apparently, they had some Concepts about how to identify the bad people the Trump supporters The the ones they thought were going to be domestic terrorists and there's some of the ways you could detect these domestic terrorists Were if they had been in the military And if they had a religious inclination Religion and military service as indicators of Traitors
People that they have to keep an eye on.
Now, obviously this was set up as a completely illegitimate effort to weaponize the government against Republicans.
As Mike Benz characterized it, he says on X, he said, today you can have the literal CIA director busted.
Busted meaning caught, not in the law.
Busted setting up a literal government intelligence office To literally go after supporters of the former president.
And captured regime media keeps their Omerta of total silence.
So as Mike Benz points out, the traditional news is just not even reporting about it.
This is like one of the biggest scandals in all of American history.
That a group of spooks was set up to hunt, yes, hunt, Republicans.
Now, the words that Mike Benz used was go after.
Go after the supporters of the former president.
Is go after kind of the same thing as hunt?
To me it is, in this context.
So yes, my 2020 prediction that if Biden won in 2020, Republicans would be hunted was so accurate that there was actually a department set up in the Department of Homeland Security to hunt Republicans.
Now, they would say, no, no, we're looking for the bad ones.
But they're not looking for bad people who are Democrats.
And nobody trusts these particular people.
Because if I've taught you anything, it's know the players.
Mike Benz teaches you that much better.
But know the players.
Brennan and Clapper are a huge glaring signal of fraudulence and bad behavior.
It's pretty much all they do.
They don't have anything else.
So they're behind the Uh, the Russia collusion op, and they're still free.
They were behind the laptop, uh, hoax.
Still free.
Right?
They were behind the insurrection hoax.
Still free.
And then they created an entire department to hunt Republicans.
Still free.
They're still just walking around like regular people.
What's up with that?
How in the world is that?
How are they not in jail?
How is it even possible?
Well, they're clever and they're powerful and they don't do things that are overtly illegal.
And lying apparently is pretty legal, especially if you've got, you know, a license to lie, as they do.
All right.
So, the only reason I think that they can get away with it in this case, not, you know, I'm sure it was all legal, so they got that working for them, is that the public doesn't understand it.
I would say no more than half of 1% of the public knows about this story and understands it in context and knows Brennan and Clapper to be who they really are.
Almost nobody.
So if people did understand it, maybe it would be in the media, the regular media.
But it's going to just sort of disappear, because we have trouble understanding complicated things.
Glenn Greenwald is a national treasure, because he helps more than anybody, besides Mike Benz, of telling you who the players are.
If the only thing you know is what happened, You don't know anything.
You have to know the players.
So you would have to know that one of the biggest names on MSNBC, you know, the person who's most supportive of the Democrat narrative, is Nicole Wallace.
But as Glenn Greenwald points out, she was also famous for being the biggest liar for the Bush administration.
So she was the most famous liar for the darkest of the Republicans, the Bush-Cheney people.
Now she's the biggest liar for the Biden administration.
So you say to yourself, hey, did she change sides?
Here's the problem.
Probably not.
That's the scary part.
The scary part is that she probably didn't change sides.
She probably always agreed with the military-industrial complex, the Brennans and the Clappers.
So, she seems the most obvious candidate for someone who's not even trying to tell you the truth.
Someone whose job it is to not tell you the truth.
It looks like she thinks it's her job to never tell you the truth and protect the military-industrial complex, and she's not that concerned about which party they're in.
So, Greenwald calls around for being the most famous liar from the Bush-Cheney days, and now she's claiming, this is amazing, the word has gone out so that all the big networks are talking about how the videos about Biden looking decrepit and dementia-riddled are at least partially cheap fakes, meaning that they're, yes, it is a video of him,
But that because the way it's shot, or the angle, or the thing that's left out, or the extra video, it's not nearly as bad as it is, and they're making up the fact that he's in bad shape.
Now, you all saw the video of where Obama helped, seemingly, helped Joe Biden offstage by, you know, holding his hand and sort of walking him off.
Now, Nicole Wallace, and you have to see this to believe it, by the way, when I describe this, you're going to say, really?
I'm going to have to see that to believe you, Scott, because I'm going to tell you something that even I know you're not going to believe unless you see it.
So she says she's telling the story about how that that video is a cheap fake, a misleading thing.
And she says that what really happened was that when it was over, Biden just turned and walked off.
And that whole thing about Obama taking his hand, that never even happened.
Except that you watched it on video.
So how can she tell the story about a video and then say that the thing that everybody sees in the video didn't happen?
Do you know how she did it?
She talked about it and showed the video before it happened, so you could see them standing on stage.
So you'd say to yourself, oh, they're showing the video.
And then when he goes to walk off stage, they don't use the video that clearly shows Obama taking his hand.
They take a shot from the back of the audience, where you can't see anything and their head's in the way.
And then she says, while you can't see them, that they just walked off stage and that it's fake.
She actually showed you video that didn't show what was happening, And tried to make you think she was describing what was happening when you couldn't see it, and it was opposite of what we've already seen.
Now imagine if you only watched MSNBC.
You would actually think that was fake news.
Because there was nothing about it that screamed it was fake, if you were just casually watching the news.
But if you'd seen it, Yeah, you could call it a Rupar, I suppose.
But if you'd seen it, and you knew the real story, it is such a head shaker.
It's like, I cannot believe we live in this world where MSNBC could put her on, knowing that she's telling a lie about this story, and showing the fake video, and that she just goes to work the next day.
There's not a single person in the network to fire her.
Or tell her to run a correction.
The entire network is in on it.
So you don't have to wonder if the rest of the network's in on it.
Have you noticed that even on Fox News, you'll occasionally get somebody to disagree?
But you don't really see that on MSNBC.
You'll never see it.
By the way, here's something I learned recently.
On CNN, one of their legal analysts was curiously I'm supportive of Trump's point of view that he was being lawfered in the New York case.
And it was really stood out because Eli Honig, and I remember I was saying to you, wow, this is really a standout, honest thing, because it's not the direction that CNN likes to report.
But he's saying it very clearly that this case is garbage and Trump is being lawfered.
Later I found out that Eli Koenig used to work for Bragg.
Did you know that?
Or he worked with him?
So he knew him personally and worked with him.
Do you think that made a difference?
I do.
You know, remember I keep telling you that you have to know the players?
If you don't know the players and who they've worked with and their associations and stuff, you don't understand anything.
Here's somebody who worked with Bragg.
He worked with him, and he was the only one at the network to say this is bullshit.
It kind of suggests that he knows more about Bragg than we do, because he worked with him.
And it could be that he doesn't have a good feeling about Bragg in general, and he's using this situation to, let's say, stick the shiv in.
I'd love to know how good his relationship with Bragg was.
Because maybe it's not so much a story about a brave analyst who's bucking what his network wants him to do.
Maybe it's a disgruntled guy who worked with somebody who had it coming, and he just decided to deliver it when he got a chance.
It's one of those.
Or maybe both.
But either way, I believe he was reporting it straight and honestly, and I appreciate it.
All right.
So the fact that the Democrats have moved to full gaslighting, I think is something that Trump should mention during the debate.
I think he has to go straight at it and say, the news that supports you is telling you that you look fine on all these videos.
We've all seen the videos.
Are you saying that you're fine, Joe?
Just make him answer the question.
It'd just be fun.
All right.
The Daily Caller is reporting there's a new study, new poll, about the swing states, an Equus poll, that says more Latino voters trust Trump on immigration than Biden.
That's right.
More Latino voters Trust Trump, because he's tougher on immigration.
So it's kind of close, but there is a lead.
41% of Hispanic voters trust Trump to handle immigration, while only 38% trust Biden.
Now, here's the funny part.
If you're surprised by that, you haven't spent much time around anybody from the Hispanic community.
Because I've said this a billion times, but it's like the world is waking up.
The Hispanic community, no matter how they register to vote, is the most Republican group of people you'll ever meet in your life.
No matter if they're Democrats or not.
Their family, their religion, their law and order.
They like an orderly society, where there's families and opportunities and all that stuff.
And even if they got here, You know, in less than legal ways or their their parents did.
When they get here, there's still good people who like law and order and stuff like that.
So it doesn't surprise me because I've been immersed in that community since I've lived in California.
So to me, it's like right on point.
It's like, OK, that's exactly what I expected.
I would have been surprised if it had gone the other way, actually.
So it makes me wonder how tuned in the Democrats are to their own people.
I think Bill Maher said that the New York lawfare case, the Stormy case, was the biggest mistake that Biden made.
But I think someday we're going to say that the biggest mistake was thinking he was bringing Democrat voters into the country.
I don't think he's bringing Democrat voters into the country.
I don't think that's happening at all.
If only because most of them are male.
Right?
So here's what they got wrong.
If most of the people they brought in were female, I actually do think they would lean Democrat.
But men are just pro-Trump, no matter what country they come from.
For all the obvious reasons.
Same reason American men are.
Because they can recognize that women are destroying the world, because they have too much power at the moment.
Yeah, I'll say it directly.
Women are destroying the world because they have too much power.
And, you know, I'll reframe this in case somebody is new to my live stream.
I think that we evolve differently and that I trust women to make decisions about abortion laws and also individual abortions.
And they should just tell the men when they've made their decisions.
What's the law?
Okay.
I'm not trying to convince you.
This is just my opinion.
And I think that men are biologically designed for defense.
So if you're trying to defend your country and you're trying to make laws and build militaries and all that, you should trust men.
We're designed for it.
Men would not open the border unless you're a Mayorkas and there's something going on with that guy.
Well, whatever's going on with Mayorkas, it's illegal.
I'm sure of that.
I just don't know what it is.
So he's either blackmailed or he's working for another country or something.
We don't know what it is, but we can be really sure he's not working for America.
Does that feel fair?
We can observe it.
So you don't have to wonder what's in his mind.
You can just look what he does.
And what he does could not possibly be for the benefit of America.
There's no argument for that.
So we don't know his deal, but it's not for America.
All right.
Mario Nafal has a good thread about the possible risk of war with Israel and Hezbollah.
And so Hezbollah has been shooting all kinds of rockets into Israel, Hezbollah being another entity that Iran supports, in addition to Hamas.
It looks like Israel is maybe getting close to or closer to completing their Gaza main military operations, which would free up some of their military, hypothetically, for a bigger battle if they should decide to get into one.
So here are the things we know.
Over the last three days it's been, Mario Nafl talks about this, it's been a non-stop rocket barrage from Lebanon into northern Israel.
We know that the mood in Israel is not let's make peace.
The mood in Israel is we're going to have to take care of all of this.
Now they may not be in favor of war with Hezbollah.
I'm not saying there's a majority in favor of war with Hezbollah, but I'm saying that Their attitude is not exactly anti-war at the moment.
Their attitude is more of a survival.
If you come for us, we're gonna kill you.
Understandable.
So I would say that Israel definitely has a A war mentality.
So if you're trying to guess, we're doing some predicting here.
So I'm going to predict what's going to happen.
So you've got a country that is pro-war, even though they're exhausted by it and wish they were not in it.
They're not against it.
Clearly, they're not against it, if it's self-defense.
So the public, I think, would support a war with Hezbollah.
Um, I think some people say that Netanyahu probably needs a war with, with Lebanon just to stay in power because war presidents tend to be more secure than non-war presidents.
And there's some thought that the moment the war was over, Netanyahu would be out of office and maybe, maybe law fared into jail.
So you've got a leader who probably wants war.
At the same time, he doesn't want war.
So let me be clear.
Nobody wants war.
It's not a desire to have war.
It's a desire not to be a victim.
That's a better way to say it.
So Netanyahu is not in the mood to be a victim.
But moreover, Israel is not in the mood to be a victim.
You know, October 7th kind of, you know, established a clear mindset about that at the moment.
So, the public would probably go for it.
Hezbollah itself seems to want it, because the amount of firepower they're putting on Israel, it's like they're begging for it.
So, if you've got both sides want it, they have the ability to do it, and now the timing is right.
Because Israel is probably going to go hard at them.
At the very least, they're going to punch them back, even if it's not a full-scale war.
So, you got the timing right, you got both sides want it, They have the ability, the resources, the assets, the money for a war, and you've got both leaders not able to back down.
So, you could say they don't want war, but even more than that, they don't want to be a victim.
So, I would say, when was the last time anything looked this much like there's going to be a war, and then it didn't happen?
Can you think of a time?
Because remember, I was so wrong, wrong, more wrong than anything when I said, I think Putin's just bluffing when he put his army on the, his entire invading army on the border of Ukraine.
I think, I think that's a bluff.
Boy, was I wrong.
But then think more generally.
Whenever you ever seen forces amassed at this level, and this amount of firing from one country into an adjacent country, that had more military might, When did that not turn into a full-scale war?
I don't even know if that's in the options set.
So I would say the guarantee of a widespread war, and by the way, the United States apparently, reportedly, has told them that they would support a war against Hezbollah.
Surprise.
Surprise!
Our military-industrial complex is in favor of a war.
Huh.
Didn't see that coming.
So, and I'm not giving you an opinion about whether Israel should or should not attack or that the United States should or should not help them.
I'm simply predicting that with the variables the way they're lined up now, war is guaranteed.
That's my opinion.
I would say there's a 100% chance of war.
What would you say?
And I think that Israel is going to say we're never going to have a better chance To just genocide all of Hezbollah.
And I'm going to use genocide because if they don't pretty much wipe them out, there's no point in even doing it.
They have to do a war of complete destruction.
At least of the assets and most of the military that matters.
Or else all they're doing is making mad and they'll just shoot more rockets.
So Hezbollah is not a situation where you can go in and rough them up a little bit and then make some peace.
If you're going to go in, it has to be to the end.
It has to be a fight to the death.
And I think a fight to the death probably favors Israel, but it's going to be a bloody one.
And I think their cities would be hit like maybe we can't even imagine.
So I would say that's guaranteed.
And I wouldn't be surprised if that kicks up right around the time of our election.
If you were Israel and you didn't want to get too badly criticized for doing what a lot of people would say you shouldn't do, but I'm saying whether you should or shouldn't do it, I'm saying it's going to happen.
It's not even an opinion.
Like, I'm not telling you it should or shouldn't.
It's just going to happen.
Nothing could stop it at this point.
So we'll, I think America will be all busy with our elections or maybe the aftermath of the elections.
And Israel is just going to mow the lawn up there.
And I think it's going to be massive, massive destruction.
Now they have, uh, like how many, how many weapons do they have?
I saw a number of how many weapons they have.
It's just an unbelievable number of missiles.
And, um, in my opinion, the, uh, Iran's play, and Hezbollah's play, is to just keep building up the enemy forces until they can do one attack that destroys Israel in one go.
And they're getting close to being able to do that.
So if Israel doesn't destroy them completely, I would say that's a strategic error.
So I'd say it's guaranteed.
And again, I'm not for it or against it.
I don't have any power over it.
I'm just watching.
There will be war with Hezbollah.
Guaranteed.
CBS News cryptically says that the upcoming presidential debate that Biden will have surprises and that might include his physical performance.
What the hell does that mean?
What the hell does that mean?
By the way, there's something wrong with my lighting.
I can't, I can't get this part of the screen.
I thought maybe the camera was fuzzy or something.
But no matter how I change the lighting, it doesn't change that big smudge in the corner.
I'll work on that.
Anyway, so I don't know what it means that Biden would have a physical performance surprise.
The way it was spoken, it was like it would be on the upside, as in he would be maybe physically better than you thought?
Or what?
Is he going to show up with a cane and a walker?
Are they going to push him out in a wheelchair?
I mean, how's that going to work?
Oh, God, I hope they don't.
Oh, no.
What would happen if they pushed him out in a wheelchair?
And they said, his brain is still great, but I have to admit, his walking is a little dangerous now.
He might fall over.
So he can still walk, but for a lot of purposes, we're going to wheel him around because his walking is not so good.
I feel like he would get a sympathy vote That he wouldn't otherwise get.
And I think it would take Trump's ability to mock him completely away.
Because if they said his brain is good, but we admit, you know, his body's got some issues.
It's very, that would be very disarming.
I don't think they'll do that.
But it makes you wonder how it would go.
Might actually, might actually be a winning play.
I don't know.
Could be.
Because, you know, we're just sort of naturally trained that if you see somebody who's supposed to be the leader, but they're acting weak, you can go after them.
But you take that same leader and you put them legitimately in a wheelchair and we agree he should be in it?
That really takes the fire out of your criticism, right?
Because at that point you're saying, all right, are you saying that just because your legs don't work, you can't be a president?
No.
Nobody wants to say that.
That would really be devastating, actually.
But it could go the other way, too.
People may say, I don't want my president to look weak.
And they might say, if he can't stand up, he looks weak.
Could go either way.
I don't know how that would go.
That'd be an interesting poll, wouldn't it?
Would you be more likely to vote for Biden if he accepted the wheelchair?
Which he probably should.
Anyway, maybe there will be surprises, we don't know.
And, let's see, sources are saying that Biden's going to boast about his reproductive rights agenda, his positions on issues of democracy, and that he has an upper hand on the economy.
So, here's what I would expect Trump to respond with.
When Biden says he boasts about reproductive rights, Trump can say that the Democrats are trying to draft women.
Which is real.
That's a real thing that's happening now.
Now, that's not Biden per se, and he might say he's against it.
But it's his team.
And if Democrats are in charge, maybe women will get drafted.
Or at least they'll have to register.
So the current proposal is that they would have to register, not that they would be drafted.
So I think that's a winning play.
If Trump says reproductive rights, I just took myself out of that.
See, the frame that Trump has not embraced, it's the winning frame.
They say, Joe Biden, there's one thing that every woman in the United States can agree with me on.
That I should not be the one deciding what they do with their body.
Can we agree on that?
Joe Biden, will you agree with me that I, Donald Trump, should not be involved in decisions about women's bodies?
Because that's what I gave you.
I took it out of my hands, took it to the states and the states are closer to the person.
So the closer it is to the people in the state, the more credible the outcome will be of the laws.
But can we both agree that taking myself out of that decision-making process is better for everybody?
There's no way you lose on that message.
Because it's completely, it's basically a kill shot.
On the other hand, you're looking to draft our daughters.
You're looking to draft our daughters, your team.
And do you disavow the Democrats, or do you think that's a good idea to register our women For the military, while you're running two hot wars, which he is.
I'd also say that reproductive rights aren't worth anything if you live in a lawless land where it's too dangerous to have a family.
And that Joe Biden, you get at the trans thing, you'd say, if you cared about women, You wouldn't let 600-pound men play women's sports, or some version of that that doesn't sound too bigoted.
When Joe does his fake hoaxes about the democracy, Trump's trying to steal your democracy.
I would first of all mock it and say something like, Have you all noticed that most of Joe's complaints are about things that are imaginary?
He imagines that I did this.
He imagines that I'm going to be a dictator.
How exactly would I become a dictator in a country full of people who have been trained to kill dictators?
If he had an audience, it would be more... Here's the thing.
Here's the thing that he'll never say, but it would be a kill shot.
You worry that I'll become a dictator?
It's like you don't even know what a Republican is.
A Republican is someone who's, uh, got, you know, fealty to the Constitution.
That's our basic nature.
Even if you imagined I went rogue and tried to become a dictator, the other Republicans would kill me immediately.
And should.
Imagine him saying that.
If I ever tried to become a dictator, you could rely on Republicans killing me, and they should.
Because that's what a Republican is.
That's why they have the guns.
Now, you would never forget that, would you?
Now, again, this is all fantasy politics.
He's not going to say it because I suggested it.
But there are so many avenues of complete annihilation that Trump has.
He just has to pick one.
He has probably, I don't think I'm exaggerating, he probably has 12 Kill shots that would take Biden completely out of the race.
Probably at least 12 avenues.
He could just pick the one he likes.
Doesn't have to be that one.
Anyway, he could mention that Biden's administration created a department to hunt Republicans and put Brennan and Clapper in charge of it.
Imagine just saying that.
Is it true?
You created a department literally to target Trump voters, and you put your same guys who ran the Russia collusion hoax and the laptop hoax in charge of it, and they're the ones that you put in charge of hunting Republicans.
You know, your news isn't covering that, but when it was discovered, you had to disband it.
The reason you disbanded it was because it was exactly what it looked like.
It was hunting Republicans.
There was no other reason it was disbanded.
It was simply discovered.
You've completely given up, you know, between your censorship of social media, your complete domination of the lying media, your law-faring of the presidents and January 6th people, your complete hoax mentality that everything you talk about is a fucking hoax, you know, you're the one taking the democracy.
And then on the economy, they'll just both lie about stuff, so.
Apparently the only way you can talk about the economy if you're running for president is you literally just make up shit.
They both do it.
But here's where the president should call him out.
Biden will definitely say he created more jobs and that Trump lost jobs.
Here's what you say.
Joe Biden, I don't think you should talk about the economy if you can't figure out how to handle the fact that we were in a pandemic.
If you're comparing a pandemic to our normal economy, you're just lying to the public or you don't understand anything about how economics works.
Whoever had been president after the pandemic was going to have major job growth unless the whole country disappeared.
And it didn't.
So, when you stand up here and lie and say you created jobs, I think the country is smart enough to know that jobs were of course going to be created after you no longer shut down the whole fucking country, you fucking fascist.
Probably without the F-words.
But, I mean, look at the number of attacks.
The number of kill shots is just crazy.
I mean, this is going to be the greatest show on earth.
I can't wait for the debate.
And I will be live streaming it, by the way.
All right.
There's new data on vaccinations danger.
William Mackus, MD, was talking about this.
I guess they did a study, and the other people on the study were Dr. McAuliffe, Dr. Trazi, Emmerling, Gesling, and Riesch, and Alexander and Hodgkin.
So they're a bunch of doctors, and what they did is they looked through a bunch of autopsy reports from the past, and they looked at people who died not too long after having a vaccination, and then they put together a little study, and they said that we found that 74% of deaths We're directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID vaccinations.
So they looked at 325 autopsy case.
Now, do you trust that study?
Let's do our fake news discovery stuff.
Well, the first thing you should do is know the players.
Is there any name on the list?
Who has ever done anything that was clearly fake news?
The answer is yes.
But if I tell you what it is, you're going to argue with me and I don't want to get in that argument.
So the first thing you need to know is there's at least one person on that list who's quite famous for a particular piece of fake news.
But I'm not going to get into it.
I'm just going to say that's what you would look for.
Right?
Okay, I'll say it.
Anybody who was in favor, who thought that the athletes were dropping dead and that nobody was talking about it on the actual teams, that's somebody you should raise an eyebrow when they have another study.
One of them is selling, uh, one of them is selling a product that alleges to cure you of your potential vax damage.
It'll remove the spike protein.
So one of them makes money If you think that the vaccinations were dangerous and you've got some poison in your body that he can help you get rid of.
Should you trust science where one of the members has a very public, nothing's hidden, is very public financial incentive?
No.
No, you should not.
How about, how much should you trust just a study?
Just any study.
How much should you trust that?
Well, historically, Half of all scientific studies are not reproducible, meaning that it's a coin flip.
Now, the question was, does the vaccine injure you or does it not?
Right?
It's binary.
Does it injure you or does it not?
Now, there's a little bit of a nuance because everybody knew that every new medicine injures somebody.
So it's not a question of whether there was at least one person who got hurt.
We all agree that at least one person got hurt.
That's just how medicine works.
But is it like a deadly problem?
Or is it more like, you know, ordinary vaccination risk?
Which might not be so ordinary after all.
So just hold this in your mind.
A scientific study is a coin flip.
You as the consumer of that news, Don't know if it's right or wrong.
It's a coin flip.
50-50.
So if it's 50-50, and one of the members is making money from the belief that you can be cured of this condition, And it's a... What kind of studies are the gold-plated ones?
You've heard this, right?
There's a kind of science that's a gold standard, and it's a randomized controlled trial.
So the randomized is important, so that you don't accidentally study the wrong body of data.
You know, you make sure it's appropriate.
You want it to be big, Because the bigger the number of people, the more likely you're going to get a good result.
So you want it big, and you want to have a control.
You want to have a control group, so you know what's happening.
So a good study would predict what's going to happen, and it would have a control group, and then you would do the thing, and then you would compare the control group to the other one, and you'd have lots of people involved, It would be peer-reviewed and all that.
That would be a good study.
This one was not that.
So there was no control group.
It was a study of studies that had been just digging up data.
So it's more like a study than a scientific trial.
A gold-plated scientific trial is probably also a 50-50 in today's world.
Because the people who can afford to do a huge study are the ones who have financial interests.
So I would say that even the gold-plated best study, at least in this domain, is probably closer to a toss-up.
We used to think that was closer to, you know, 80 or 90 percent chance it's true.
But in today's world, we know everybody's just working for money.
Maybe 50-50.
Now, since it's not one of those gold-plated standards, it's just a study of studies, you don't have the good randomization, you don't have a control group, and you don't have a prediction that, you know, if you do the thing, the thing will happen.
So it doesn't have most of the conditions for the best, most reliable data.
In fact, it has several conditions that are heavy signals for not being true.
And they looked at 325 autopsy cases.
Do you know that the 325 were randomly selected?
And is there anything about some groups of people that might make a difference?
And do you think that the people who die, or the people most likely to get the vaccination, were the people closest to death in the first place?
Because in theory, the people who were most enthusiastically vaccinated were the ones who had the most to worry about.
Most likely to die on their own anyway.
Did they sort that out?
I don't know.
So here's what I'd say.
I'm not saying that it's not true.
It does seem to me that the vaccination has plenty to worry about.
So I'm not doubting the outcome.
I'm just saying that if you believed it because scientists did a study, you missed the whole show.
Right?
You have to look at who the scientists are.
Is there money involved?
How big is it?
Is there a control?
Is it a big enough group?
Is it randomized?
It wasn't any of those.
So that is not a That is not an opinion of what is true or false about vaccinations.
I didn't even talk about that.
I'm only talking about what you should believe when you see the news.
Anyway, that ladies and gentlemen is all I had for today's amazing show.
And I'm going to say goodbye now to the folks on the other platforms.
But before I go, let me give you a preview.
On Tuesday of this week at, if all goes well, could change, but if all goes well, at Tuesday of the coming week at 11 a.m.
Pacific, which would be 2 p.m.
Eastern Time, I've arranged to talk to Michael Ian Black, who is an online presence in the political conversation.
He has very Democrat-centric kind of views.
And I caught his attention by posting that all the news is fake.
And he questions how I know anything's true.
And why do I keep reposting the news if I think it's all fake?
And those, I say, are good questions.
And so, rather than discuss what would be... Oh, by the way, if you don't know him, he's a well-known comedian, writer, actor kind of person.
I'll ask him how he wants to be introduced, but he's got a variety of skills.
And rather than talk about what's true, which would immediately get us off the rails, because we'll never agree what's true, I agreed, and he agreed, that what I talk about is how I can tell when the news isn't real.
I think that would be fascinating, like a great public conversation, because we'll go through things like the Scott Alexander rule, That if you see a story that, well you'll never see a story that says, dog bit man, because that's too boring for the news.
But if you ever see a story that a man bit a dog, it probably didn't happen.
That's the Scott Alexander rule.
Because it's too fantastical.
And fantastical stories, almost are never true.
And if you know the players, you also know it's true.
And if you know somebody's getting paid, You also know something.
So those are just, that's just a sample, but there are probably, I don't know, 20 different things that I've taught you about how to spot fake news.
And I thought it would be really useful to run over that list with him and just see if he kind of tracks with the tools, not necessarily the conclusions.
Because I think that's, I think that's where you find the common ground.
Because I'm not going to tell him that Everything the news on the right is true and the news on the left is wrong.
Yeah, the Scott Alexander rule is if it looks too amazing to believe, or too incredible to believe, it probably wasn't true.
Right?
And it's very consistent.
You'll see that all the time.
Okay All right.
So we'll look for that.
And everybody on YouTube and Rumble and X, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
