God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Denmark Cow Fart Tax, Immortal Mice, Assange Plea Deal, Wikileaks DNC Files, Tucker Carlson Australia, CNN Presidential Debate, 16 Biden Donor Economists, ABC News Fake News, Triple-Click Fake News, Liz Cheney, President Trump, Georgia Locked Room Ballots, Election Integrity, First Amendment Censorship, Social Credit Scores, DHS Mayorkas, AG Garland, Biden Crime Family, Democrat Word Changes, Hoax Architecture, Trump VP, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
If you'd like to take your experience today up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, smooth human brains, all you need is A copper mug or a glass of tanker chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquor, night-like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it happens now.
Delicious!
Well, if you follow the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can only see if you subscribe on X or if you're members of local, plus you get a lot more on locals, you would know that Ratbird, who works for the Washington Post as a writer, has been assigned a CIA person who will be telling him what to write.
So, look for that.
Well, in the big news, let's start.
I'm going to start with the big news and then we'll work the little news later.
In the big news, Denmark is going to institute a cow fart tax because of the methane emissions.
So the farting cows are warming the earth.
We're all going to die.
And so Denmark has decided to increase your taxes if you've got a cow that farts.
Now, As I've told you there that's not the first thing they tried the first thing they tried was corks They thought you know if we just put a cork in these cattle's ass, but what happens was the the gas That couldn't be expelled from the cow It started building up And eventually the cows would turn into dirigibles you know if they inflated enough they would be lighter than air and a lot of the cows inflated and
Ended up sort of drifting over to France.
And, uh, so they said, well, that's no good.
We're not going to cork their asses anymore.
We'll just tax them.
We'll just tax them.
So if you ever think to yourself, can I reduce my taxes by, by putting a cork in my own ass?
No, no, don't do it.
Cause you might find yourself in France and nobody wants that.
Um, the good news, uh, scientists have found a way to make mice live forever.
So they've found a molecule that will influence their telomeres, you know, the part that makes you old, and it'll increase their memory and speed and coordination and their grip strength.
You know, if there's one thing that's been bothering me for a while, is that mice, they have, the older ones, their grip strength, it's nothing to write home about, let me tell you.
Like, if you put your finger out for a mouse, we call a single one a mouse, and it grabbed you, And it tried to hold on with just his little hand strength.
You'd be like, are you serious, mouse?
That's your total hand strength?
Not very impressive.
Not very impressive at all.
But scientists have figured out how to make those mice stronger, smarter, reduced inflammation.
And it's going to be great for mice everywhere.
There's some thought that something like this could someday be useful for people.
But that's down the road.
The immediate benefit is to the mice, and we're gonna have the oldest, healthiest mice you've ever seen.
So if you've got a mouse in your house, it might be a fair fight in a few months.
There's a report in the New York Post, and this is the kind of news that we need, and the science that we need.
You know, there's a lot of frivolous news, and science you can't trust sometimes.
But every now and then, the media will get it right, and the science will be right.
Here's an example.
The New York Post is reporting that a quarter of the respondents surveyed in a new study said they've orgasmed from being tickled.
Just being tickled.
Wow!
That's quite a headline, and I'm glad I read the whole story.
Because a quarter of the respondents surveyed A quarter of them.
Now immediately I say to myself, hmm, hmm, the Scott Alexander rule that says that if something sounds fantastically unlikely, even though it's in the news, you're going to soon find out it's not true.
Because I'm pretty sure you've met other human beings.
You may have met more than four people.
I'll bet you would know If a quarter of the people you know would have an orgasm from being tickled.
Don't you think you'd know that?
You'd probably know.
There'd be some story in your life that's like, well, I was just tickling somebody and you wouldn't believe what happened.
Tried it again, worked twice.
So if you read down the article, it turns out that what they mean by a quarter of the respondents is a quarter of the respondents who had said in advance That they have a fetish for being tickled.
So of the universe of people who have already responded to a survey saying, Oh my God, I like being tickled.
It gives me a sexual thrill.
A quarter of those people actually had an orgasm.
Now that's not so impressive, is it?
I'd like to do a survey of people who like milk.
All right.
You're all the people who said you like milk.
All right.
Here's the question.
Do you like milk?
Wow.
Almost every person.
Wow.
That's called science.
It's not just science.
It's science you can use.
You can immediately apply this in your own life.
Well, I read that, and just to make sure, I tickled myself.
And sure enough, major orgasm.
Speaking of breakthroughs, you know that solar panels are usually made from the same old silicon stuff, but there's this thing that could work better called perovskite.
So over at Rice University, which is weird, did you know there's a university just for rice?
I don't know.
But Rice University, where the students are just, I assume, just various versions of rice.
But it's smart rice, because the rice came up with this idea of how to modify or make a, I don't know, I think it's a fake version of this perovskite.
Now, the perovskite is not only useful for making, potentially, much more efficient and reliable solar power, solar cells, But Perovsky is also the name of the newest general for Russia and Ukraine.
Oh, I have an update.
He's been replaced.
He's been replaced.
As you know, Assange made a deal, and a lot of us said, hmm, huh, I feel like the story about Assange making this plea deal is maybe missing something.
I know it's the Fog of War, it's the first day, but It really feels like there's some big variable that might be missing.
And we found out what that big variable is.
Kim.com tells us, and others do too, that apparently WikiLeaks agreed to delete the DNC files.
So they had to delete the stuff that was real.
And that was apparently part of the plea deal.
But here's the good news.
Kim.com is helpfully reminding us that they're all still available at the Pirate Bay.
I don't know how legal it is to access the Pirate Bay, but since it's been taken down from the WikiLeaks site, just know that if you ever really, really needed it, you could get it.
Kim.com doing us a solid.
How many of you have seen the now viral video Of Tucker Carlson in Australia going off on a reporter who asked a series of dumb questions in public.
Well, I'm not going to try to characterize it, because it would ruin your enjoyment of watching it.
I'm just going to say, if you don't like the fake news, You're really going to like that video.
So you'll see it in my feed, or you could just Google or search on X for Tucker Carlson and the Australian reporter, and you're going to have fun.
Because he starts out tough, and it just gets tougher.
And he just destroys her in public.
Just absolutely dismantles her.
And she just starts acting stupider and stupider.
And he just keeps laughing at her and destroying her.
And it's just great.
I recommend it.
So, did I say that Tucker's in Australia?
Australia?
Where did Assange go?
Back to Australia.
Who is the kind of person you'd expect to be the first to interview Assange?
Hmm.
I would expect Tucker to be the first.
Maybe.
Well, as you know, there's a debate tonight, and CNN has rolled out some technology, some anti-Trump technology.
They've got some Voice suppression and microphone cancellation going on.
They're probably working hard to make the lighting worse for Trump than for Biden.
It's funny that we don't trust anything about this, the debate.
We don't trust anything about it.
But that's what makes it fun.
So I will be watching it live.
I'm going to live stream.
A lot of people will be live streaming, I'm sure.
A lot of podcasters.
But I'll be live streaming too.
And I will do it probably just for locals.
I think I'll just do it for locals, because the other outlets will be doing their thing.
But maybe, well, let me think.
See, the problem is if I live stream it on YouTube, YouTube might give me a strike for copyright infringement.
So I might have to, I might, we'll see, I might stream it on X and Rumble and Locals and forget YouTube this time.
I think that's probably what I'll do.
All right, Axios, apparently when they reported about these 16 economists who say that Trump will destroy the economy, 16 economists, they got to sign a letter.
Wow, they couldn't get 51?
They can only get 16?
They should take some advice from the intelligence community that can get 51 people to sign any damn thing.
But here's something that people are saying that Axios left out of the reporting.
This is Fox News busting them.
Apparently these are all donors to the Biden campaign.
They're all people who are just known hardcore Democrat donors.
Don't you think that would be A little bit important to mention.
Now, it is the case that if they legitimately came to the opinion that Trump was the menace to the economy, then it would make sense they would also be Biden supporters.
But I don't think that's what's happening.
And I think the Axios would have owed us a little bit extra clarification of who they were.
Were they a randomly picked group of people who are all over the political spectrum?
Or are they hardcore Democrats who are just going to say what Democrats say?
Because it's not much of a story if the story is 16 Democrats agree with Democrats.
Because that's really all it was.
No, you don't have to tell me that Rice University is well known.
There may be some people here who are having trouble with satire.
So, seek help.
All right, ABC has a new fake news technique that I thought was so clever.
I'm going to call it the triple-click fake news.
Triple-click.
Now, you know the scrolling trick, right?
Where the news will say something completely fake or misleading in the first paragraph of a long article.
Because they know you're not going to scroll to the end.
Or a lot of people won't.
And in the end, they'll say, and it should be mentioned that everything we said in the first paragraph is completely opposite and wrong and misleading.
Now, they don't say it in those words, but the words they do use are basically just that.
Yeah, everything in the first paragraph is a lie.
And now that we're adding the context, you can see that it's really the reverse of what we said.
Very common.
But now there's a new one, the triple click fake news.
So it goes like this.
Trump claimed a retribution.
So this is the top-level article on ABC, so it's ABC's own site.
It claims that Trump wanted retribution, and it mentions that people like Liz Cheney are concerned that they would be the targets of retribution.
So if you were going to read that by itself, what would you think that Trump had said he was going to do?
Wouldn't you think that Trump maybe had mentioned some people, like Liz Cheney, Because she's worried.
Well, or maybe he said something that was close enough that it would make sense she'd be worried.
And so the article linked to the backup story that backs up their claim that Trump had claimed he wanted some retribution.
So I clicked on the story to see what exactly did he say that would make Liz Cheney afraid?
And then that story Simply refers to yet another page, also on ABC News, that's the base story.
So now I've gone down three different stories to the third story.
I've gone to the third story to find out what exactly did he say about retribution?
And when you get to the third one, it's not about Trump wants retribution against Liz Cheney or any individuals.
He wants retribution against the government.
He's saying, you know, the government was your enemy.
My retribution will be going in there and cleaning things up and making the country work.
And by the third time that they'd hidden out behind, well, if you click this link, you could find out more.
By the time they get to the top level of the hoax, they're suggesting that he said something that would make Liz Cheney afraid.
It's a pretty good trick.
It's almost as good as the, uh, the correction.
You get 100 million clicks on the fake story and 1,000 clicks on the correction.
The AP has said this, that Trump's claim that the 2020 election was rigged has been disproven.
Has it?
I feel like that would have been a big story if it had been disproven.
It seems like that would be a big headline.
Can you find me that story?
Can anybody find me the story in the news, any news, even the fake news, that says that there was some kind of process that disproved the claim?
Of course not!
Nothing like that happened in the real world.
There is no way to disprove the claim.
You can only show That the claim was not accepted by a court, which is true.
There were no individual claims that a court has accepted or endorsed.
Now, in many cases, it's because they said they didn't have a standing in a variety of things, some technical reasons.
There's a locked door in Georgia that if it were unlocked, we could find out if those ballots were real or fake, but they won't unlock it, even though the judge said they should.
And now the lawyers for that locked door are saying they'd like permission to destroy the ballots that they can't show you.
Now, I had speculated early on that that so-called locked room, by now, if there was anything illegal in there, had been removed.
I think Tucker had mentioned, somebody said Tucker had mentioned it was like a two hour window when the security cameras were down.
So I think it's already removed.
And I think that the reason the lawyers would ask for it to be destroyed, as opposed to just opening the door and say, why don't you take a look?
You'll see they're all valid.
And then, you know, once you're happy, we'll destroy them.
Why would you do a legal process to do something that would be as easy as unlocking a door that the judge told you to unlock?
Why would you go through all that trouble?
Well, the most likely reason is that there's nothing in the room, and the lawyers are going to act like they didn't know that, and they're going to say, my clients asked us to get permission to get rid of the stuff they say is in the room.
So the lawyers will be in the clear, because they will never have looked in the room.
They will be taking the word of their client, that they need permission to destroy what they say is in the room.
So the lawyers won't be breaking any laws, because they could just say, we don't know what's in the room, we're just doing the work of our clients.
And I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the room.
Now, does that mean that election rigging has been disproven?
It's a lot closer to the opposite.
That every indication is that it was rigged, and that the cover-up is in full, you know, full swing.
But I can't prove it.
But I'll tell you what I can't prove also.
I can't prove it was not rigged.
That's not even a thing.
And I was in a news article being mocked because some election official schooled me on the fact that our elections are fully auditable.
And therefore we can now essentially prove that the election was fair.
Now I got some questions for you.
Why is it that the security software and systems for every highly secure business and facility has to continually update their software because they found vulnerabilities?
Why would they do that if it's so easy to secure a digital system?
Why is it that there's a major company that's being blackmailed right now by hackers who got control of their very important critical infrastructure?
Is it because they didn't know how to do cybersecurity?
Or could it be that if you're good enough at hacking, let's say a state actor, and you could get insiders, and you can get people to switch SIMs in different places, and you can put them to embed passwords in their code, that sort of thing.
Do you think you could catch that?
I don't.
And here's another question.
Apparently, Texas Is talking about a law to, you know, put some kind of numbering system on the ballots?
Do you know why?
Because if you don't do it, you can't audit the system.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
They have to do a significant change in Texas to make it possible for the first time to audit a critical part of the voting, like a really critical part.
Why would they be talking about improving something that's already fully auditable?
Why are they even having a conversation?
Is it because Texas likes to do things that don't need to be done?
Is that part of the Texas character?
Hey, we found some stuff that does need to be done.
Let's put all our energy into doing it!
No!
You've been fucking lied to forever that our elections could be audited in a way that you would know that they're fair.
I don't even think they're doing signature verification in many cases.
That's not just not auditable, that's clearly working in the other direction.
We're as far from a reliable, credible system as you could possibly get.
And even if the votes were right, which seems really unlikely in my personal opinion, just based on everything we see about everything, it seems very unlikely.
We do know that the intelligence people ran an op to give 51 people to lie to you about something that would have changed more votes than the margin of victory for Biden.
That stuff we know for sure. That's not a guess. And the only purpose for it was election interference.
There are no questions unanswered in that story. We know every part of the story.
It's all transparent and it's public. So anyway.
Well, the First Amendment died in the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court ruled that they're not going to stop the government from interfering with social media.
Thank you.
So the government can lean on social media to get them to do what they want, and apparently that's still legal.
So that would be the end of free speech.
No, I'm just kidding.
It's not the end of free speech.
You know, sometimes I speak in hyperbolic terms, and I have to stop and say, oh, not everybody understands hyperbole.
It's not the end of free speech, people.
Can I just be clear about that?
It's not literally actually the end of free speech.
Because free speech ended a long time ago.
So you can't end something that's already gone.
Let's go to the whiteboard.
Here's our current system.
Let's see, how about...
Right there.
So there was a time when the government was all about the rights and your rights were either taken away or granted by the government.
You know, you could say God granted you your rights or nature did.
But in effect, the government had to agree with it or you didn't really have it.
So that got outsourced.
So the government's not in the, you know, suppressing speech business, except indirectly.
So now what we have is a situation in which the government, but really just the Democrats, because the Republicans don't participate in this sort of stuff.
So the Democrats set the narrative.
For example, they might say, you know, everybody has to love transitioning children.
Or everybody has to love DEI or climate change.
Right?
That sort of thing.
So the narrative is set.
And then because we're a big free market, not really free market, but you know, sort of, country, the big businesses, they don't really have the freedom to violate the narrative.
Because if they did, there would be complaints from their stockholders.
The stockholders would say, the government told you what is right and correct and true.
Why are you saying the opposite?
I can't even do business with you.
And by the way, if you disagree with the government on the big stuff, when you need the government to do something for you, and all the big companies eventually do, you gotta have a rule or make a rule or suspend a rule or you gotta enforce something or not enforce something.
You gotta change some kind of regulation, some kind of code.
You're not going to get anything unless you're compatible with the narrative, the common narrative.
So big business, because they're responsible primarily by design, they're responsible to their stockholders, and the stockholders will never be well served if they try to tell the truth.
If it violates the narrative.
So, you, if you work for a big business, and you could substitute any big organization.
It's not necessarily just a profitable business.
It could be any large organization.
And pretty much every individual is working for, or needs to work with, or selling to, or is a customer of, or has an association with large organizations.
And you couldn't really operate as a modern person in the modern world without lots of associations with organizations of one type or another.
And they will cancel you.
They will cancel you.
Now you might say to me, wow, you know, when you say it that way, Scott, it does sound pretty bad.
And it sounds like all that happened to free speech is that when the government was not allowed to suppress it directly, they just used the free market to do it.
And the Supreme Court just upheld the government's ability to pressure, because it is pressure.
It's not just requesting.
When the government requests something, it's not just a request.
They have guns, right?
I mean, they don't use them unless they've got to put you in jail and you resist, but they have guns.
They can make you do what you want, and you're probably going to want to do it anyway, just stay out of trouble, you know, stay under the radar.
But one of the things you might say to me is, Scott, at least we don't have that Chinese social credit system.
Am I right?
That would be pretty bad.
Imagine if the United States implemented like the Chinese style social credit, where every little thing you do gets added to the database of who you are and, you know, it starts restricting your rights if you get to a certain level.
Well, Let me give an alternative view, which is that the Chinese system might be better than our system.
Both are terrible, so I'm not supporting the Chinese way.
I'm just saying, if you think it's worse than our system, you're not paying attention.
Let me say why.
If you jaywalk in China, you violate a, let's say, a rule of traffic.
Maybe it gets caught on a camera.
And then it hurts your social score.
But that's a real thing you did.
You actually broke a real law.
Now, again, I'm not supporting the Chinese system.
It's terrible.
But it seems to be based, or the intention is to base it on real things you did.
It's not based on making shit up.
I don't think.
Now, obviously, they're not going to talk out against the government there.
So, you know, they don't have that going for them.
But we don't either.
You're allowed to say bad things about the government, so long as they're not terribly important.
But if you say bad things about the government that matter, well, maybe somebody's going to whisper to your social media platform that, hmm, I really think you need to get rid of this one.
Not for the things they said we don't like.
No, no.
But we look through the feed.
And we found some things that look, you know, like they might violate your terms of service.
So, you know, even though we really hate the, the main thing that the person is saying, that's not why they're being canceled.
Cause we have free speech.
No, it was the thing down like a year ago.
They said, you can't have that on your platform.
So if I were you, I'd get rid of that.
So, no, we do not have any kind of free speech.
We haven't had free speech for a long time.
The only way you can say something even remotely honest and true and useful is if you've already been cancelled and you don't give a fuck.
That's not many people.
I happen to be in that group, so I thought I'd tell you the truth.
All right.
So we got this Department of Homeland Security guy, Mayorkas, who's led in millions of people, and he's bragging that they did something that will reduce immigration by 40%, which I believe is something similar to what Trump was doing, which means they could have done it all along.
And they knew it.
Of course they knew it, because all they did is take away the executive orders that were keeping, you know, the immigration low.
And they knew that they were doing that.
So if you remove the only tool that we've figured out how to use so far, that reduces it, and then it goes up, that's got to be seen as intentional.
So I would say that Mayorkas should be seen as a criminal and certainly a traitor to the country.
And I think that's obvious.
I don't know how that could be more obvious.
He is working full time.
To give the country not what they want, but rather some other thing.
And it's certainly bad for us, you know, at the level that it's happening.
I like my immigration, but at a lower level.
So you got this guy, head of the Department of Homeland Security, and I guess there's an amendment that just passed the House to defund his office.
Now, I don't know if that has a chance of getting through the Senate.
Doesn't have any real chance of getting signed by the president, so it's more symbolic, I think.
But at least it's something.
Then you've got Garland, Attorney General Garland, who's in contempt of Congress for ignoring subpoenas or something like that.
So he's the person or his group that wants to put, you know, Biden, Bannon in jail and Peter Navarro is already in jail for the same stuff.
But apparently, He's above the law, literally.
He's just putting himself above the law because his department won't prosecute, and nobody else's.
And then you've got Biden himself, who's clearly part of a larger crime family situation.
I think that's well demonstrated enough that we can say it not humorously that Biden ran Or he was the head person of a crime family.
I think that's well enough established that I can just say that we all can see that that's a fact.
So we have the most criminal government that I've ever seen.
I've never seen anything like this.
Where we're fully aware of the crimes.
Is this unprecedented?
Where the most important people in the government are obviously criminals?
Like right in front of you?
Well, as Democrats would say, there's no evidence of that.
Others have asked this too.
How are the 51 Intel people who obviously lied on the laptop story, the Hunter laptop story, how do they still have security clearance?
How do they still have jobs?
Some of them.
It's just the weirdest thing that these crimes are being done right in front of us.
This literally was a coup.
There's no other way to put it.
I mean, maybe it wasn't illegal.
They may have found a way to do it legally.
But it's the most illegal thing you could ever do, whether or not it's technically illegal.
I don't know.
It should be.
So I think this is one of those cases where we just hung too long until we got used to it.
How did we get used to the fact that the major characters in our government, people whose names we know and they still appear on TV to talk, have done the worst things that have ever happened to this country unambiguously?
There's not really any question about the facts.
Weird.
Well, Democrats continue to think that they can change reality by changing the definition of words.
So here's what they call the laptop coup.
Now you and I would say, well, if a bunch of intelligence people colluded, and the collusion is obvious in the letter, they got together and did a thing together, and there's no way that they thought it was true, obviously, isn't that a traitorous, treasonous behavior?
Those are the words I'd put on it.
But do you know what Democrats would call that?
They would call it, oops, we really thought it looked like Russian disinformation.
So they don't change any of the facts.
They just put different words on it and move on.
Ah, yeah, probably a big mistake.
No, it was a coup.
It changed the outcome of civilization intentionally.
It diverted the entire democratic process.
No, that wasn't just a mistake.
Anyway, um, and then of course I did the same thing with the Russia collusion hoax.
How are any of the people involved in the Russia collusion hoax still working?
How do they have jobs?
What's up with that?
These are the worst crimes against the American people.
I mean, they literally changed the, they essentially took away your entire republic.
Right in front of you.
There's nothing like it that's left.
I guess things are just so weird that we just get used to it.
But then they can call the protests on January 6th an insurrection because to them, words are what matters.
Now, here's one of the things that I was curious about that I'm going to go to the other side of the white board to talk about, which is how is it that Democrats keep falling for these obvious hoaxes?
And when I had a conversation with Michael Ian Black, he said something that triggered What I think is the answer.
How can they believe things that are so insanely obviously not true, you wouldn't even have to research them?
Here's how.
Apparently the main evidence that Democrats use to support their belief in hoaxes, and I'm not making this up, are the other hoaxes.
So, for example, why would you ever believe the fine people hoax?
Because even if you didn't do the research to look at the transcript, just on the surface, you should have said to yourself, OK, well, I don't think a sitting president just praised neo-Nazis.
I mean, you wouldn't have to research that, would you?
That obviously didn't happen.
You don't even have to ask around.
But how would you believe that?
So with Michael Ian Black, when I was talking to him, and when I showed him the debunk, you know, you could see that the president was claiming that Trump had praised the neo-Nazis.
And then I showed that the Snopes site had debunked it as fake.
He responded that, but you have to see it in the larger context.
And I said, what?
What's the larger context?
He goes, well, remember when Trump came down the stairway and he said that the Mexican immigration was bringing in rapists and murderers and they weren't sending their best people?
And I said, wait a minute, wait a minute.
You can't support your belief in the hoax by referring to another hoax.
And then he would say, that's not a hoax.
And I would say, well, I didn't say this, but Yeah, I wish I had.
What part of what Trump said was racist when he talked about too many criminals coming in?
Because do you think that he would have had a different opinion if they were Canadians?
If we had people streaming across the border from Canada, taking American jobs, and they all looked exactly like Trump, do you think he'd say, whoa, whoa, that's good, they look like me?
Nobody believes that.
Has Trump ever said, I'm really against crime?
Well, I mean, except when white people do it.
No, nobody says that.
Nobody thinks that.
It's not even a thing.
I've never met a single person who would have the opinion that you should open up the border to 25 million Canadians.
Well, I mean, they're white, so why not?
No, nobody has that opinion.
Trump is a nationalist.
United States is his frame of reference.
No, when he says too many criminals are coming in, it's hyperbole, first of all.
But there's, you know, more than zero is too many.
A lot of people would reasonably say, if it's crime.
So, literally a hoax.
But why would you believe, in the first place, that Trump was talking about some kind of racial thing, when there was no mention of any racial anything?
Why would you believe that?
Well, because you also believed the Central Five hoax.
So he had that sort of in his reputation coming forward.
Now, if you're watching this and you're a Democrat, you're saying, what hoax?
That actually happened.
Trump actually said that those five innocent people should be executed because they're black.
No, he didn't.
Nothing like that happened.
Nothing like that happened.
Not in the real world.
No.
There was an accusation against five young black people that they were part of some mass horrible rape.
He did, right after that, and probably I assume triggered by that event, ran a full-page ad saying that, you know, there are too many monsters and criminals running around unchecked and that we should institute the death penalty for the worst of them.
Never mentioned the specific crime.
He just used it, probably was triggered by it, but it really wasn't even about those five people.
And there's also some question about how innocent they really were, but that's a separate question.
The point is, even if he was wrong, he wasn't talking about them.
It was a general statement that wasn't about those five people.
It was just way too much crime in his opinion.
So, if you believe the Central Park Five hoax, Then you were already primed to believe the too-many-rapists-and-criminals-coming-across-the-border hoax.
If you believed those two, you were primed to think the fine people hoax was real.
And then by the time he referred to some shithole countries, you said, he must be talking racially.
Why?
Not because he ever mentioned race, because he didn't.
And not because race was implied.
Because it wasn't.
He was talking about the, you know, the economic educational, you know, situation in other countries.
And if they're coming in from more industrialized, high education countries, we're probably getting people who will more immediately impact our economy in a positive way.
So, then by the time, by the time you get to, let's see, all right, so then, How did anybody ever believe that Trump once said to a general that the people joining the military, the ones that died, were suckers and losers?
Now, if you heard that a president said that to a general, you would have said, that didn't happen.
Why would anybody believe that it was real?
That's like a president saying that neo-Nazis are fine people.
You shouldn't need to dig down and do research That's obviously not true.
It couldn't be more obvious that he would never say that to a general.
I think that's the most obvious hoax in the world.
But why would anybody believe it?
Well, it's because they also believed the framing of the media, I'd call it a hoax, that when he made the joke about McCain, in which he said, I like people who don't get caught, That's literally a Chris Rock joke.
And it didn't really have anything to do with any people in the military.
He was literally just mocking one guy about one thing, and a joke popped into his mind, and he popped it out.
The worst thing he did was say something insensitive about McCain.
But because the media said, well, he must not like the people in the military, because look how he's treating them, That primes you to believe the other one that was, you know, obviously ridiculous on the surface.
How do you get somebody to believe that he once suggested drinking bleach?
Again, you don't need to do your research to know that that didn't happen.
But if you say, Scott, Scott, okay, I agree, he didn't say bleach that word, but he said disinfectant.
And, you know, that's the same thing.
Yes, it would be the same thing.
Except it didn't happen.
The disinfectant he talked about was light.
If you see it in context, it was obviously always light.
He never changed the topic, but he did use the word disinfectant once in the context of light, which is how others used it as well.
Now, why would you believe that?
Well, maybe you believe it because they told you that he once asked about using a nuclear weapon to stop a hurricane.
If you said, if he's going to talk about nuking a hurricane, he might, he might say, drink some bleach.
Now, it took me a long time to piece this together, that all of their hoaxes are, they know that the hoax isn't exactly on point, but they think it's probably close enough because of the other hoaxes they believe.
So they've created a hoax architecture where you think you can take out one of the pillars and it will all fall down, but they're all supported by the other hoaxes.
So every time you debunk one, they say, as Michael Ian Black did, some version of this.
You have to see it in the larger context.
And the larger context is always the other hoaxes.
And that's the world you live in.
Now, when I say that the government is a hoaxocracy, not a republic, I mean that literally.
The main things we believe about the world and the government Are literally hoaxes.
So we have an entire civilization built on known hoaxes.
Speaking of sketchy things, uh, Vivek says that he has not been asked to be vice president.
Uh, there was a hint that Trump had flown into his town or something.
So they thought, thought maybe, maybe he had been asked, but he says he had not been asked.
Now, Let me just have some fun with this.
Vivek is not a liar.
And so when he says, I have not been asked, I think that's literally true.
Here's what's left out, which makes it fun.
I'll bet he hasn't asked anybody.
He said he picked.
He didn't say he asked anybody.
So don't conflate.
I haven't been asked.
With It's Not Gonna Be Me.
Those are not the same.
And notice how carefully Vivek picks his words.
Now, I think it won't be him.
I think he won't be the choice.
But he'd be a great choice.
But I think it won't be him because I think he'd have more value somewhere else in the government if he chooses.
But I think that the candidates and also Trump are coordinating, let's say, a show.
So I think they're all aware they're putting on a good show of, hey, which vice president do you think he's going to pick?
And, you know, who's it going to be?
And I've got a hint that it might be Vevek, but Vevek denied it.
But is it a real denial or is it really just a denial that he was asked?
Because that's kind of specific.
I just love this.
Nobody but Trump can do this.
You are so going to miss this after Trump.
I love the fact that he's treating it like it's a TV show and it's so well scripted.
Well, it's like a reality TV show where there's a little bit of non-reality that, you know, gives it a structure.
The non-reality is, I think they all know to keep the suspense.
And that is part of the show.
It's kind of brilliant.
I just love every part of it.
So, um, I saw that Elise Stefanik was added to the short list, at least by one publication.
So that would mean the speculation is down to Vivek, J.D.
Vance, Senator Tim Scott, Doug Burgum, Elise Stefanik, and Marco Rubio.
So that's what they're calling the shortlist.
Does that mean that he will pick somebody on the shortlist?
It does not.
It does not.
This is the media shortlist.
How many people saw Mike Pence on the shortlist?
I didn't.
I don't think the media saw that one coming.
So I don't think there's any way.
I don't think there's any way to guess a VP.
But I'm going to still agree with Simon Atiba, who just for fun, he thinks Doug Burgum might be the one.
And I say Doug Burgum is boring enough and yet substantial.
He might be the one.
So just for fun, I'm going to say Doug Burgum.
But I tell you in advance, my odds of getting this right are very low.
You know, no better than 10%.
It would just be luck if I did.
Nobody can guess Vice President.
All right, the 538 polling site.
They used to be Dayton Silver's site, but I guess he sold it.
I think ABC owns it now.
And one of the things they do is they aggregate a bunch of polls about the presidential election so you can see the average.
And according to them, it's about a tie.
If you look at the average of polls, it's roughly a tie between Biden and Trump.
Now, does that agree with the polling you've been seeing?
It doesn't agree with the polling I've been seeing.
So, how can this big polling site come up with an average of polls that shows it's going to be a tie?
How is that possible?
Well, it's not every poll.
Apparently, they tossed out Rasmussen.
Because they said it didn't meet their standards.
Rasmussen also consistently shows that Trump is ahead.
Is that a coincidence?
Do you think that they looked at the other polls and said, you know, based on the quality of this poll, I think I'll leave it out?
Or do you think maybe they only did that for right-leaning polls that have not been unfriendly to Trump?
So here's something, if I teach you just one thing about data.
If you're doing something like averaging together polls, the way you get the result you want is by you, in your own opinion, subjectively deciding which polls are good enough to be in, and which ones are not good enough to be in.
So it's not about the polls, it's about the person making the poll.
And they will make it, kind of do what they want.
Does that sound familiar?
It's an average of polls, but they also get to decide which ones are in the average.
What does that remind you of?
Something else.
Climate models.
A climate model, the people who put together the average of the climate models, just like this, they get to decide which models are good enough.
Which means you've never seen anything like climate models.
You've seen the opinion of the people who compiled them.
That's it.
To imagine you're seeing science is actually really naive, because it's not even trying to be science.
Science doesn't predict the future in 80 years.
That's not science.
That's some kind of speculation that might be informed by data or science, but it's not science.
Yeah, it's the person picking what's in and what's out.
And then beyond that, they also pick which variables to emphasize, and that's why there are different models.
So yeah, the modeling is so transparently fake that it's laughable that anybody was ever convinced by it.
Meanwhile, Nath Silver, the actual Nath Silver, who is credible in my opinion, not right every time, but credible, He says there's a 66% chance of Trump winning, so a 2 out of 3 chance that Trump is going to win the election.
And I like that way to express it.
When you say, here's the average of the polls, if you show the average of the polls and it shows one person is likely to win, and then they don't, you start thinking the polls were wrong.
Not necessarily.
But the way Nate Silver goes about it is he says there's a 66% chance of winning, which is a different frame.
So if he says there's a two-thirds chance of Trump winning, but then Biden wins, is he wrong?
Here's the question.
If Nate Silver says there's a two out of three chance that Trump will win, and then he doesn't, was he wrong?
No.
He wasn't wrong.
He said there was a two-out-of-three chance.
Now, he might have been wrong, but not because Biden won.
Biden winning doesn't say anything about whether he was right or wrong, because that was one of the outcomes he said was at least a one-third possibility.
So if a one-third possibility comes through, nobody's really surprised, right?
So that's a better way to frame it.
It hides your mistakes, but it's also a more honest way.
So the Biden campaign, as you've all noted, and I think even the Democrats have noted, is maybe the worst presidential campaign in history.
Now, much of that is the candidate himself.
He's not fully functional, so there's just so much you can do with him.
But I would say it's really obvious at this point that the campaign is incompetent.
And there are plenty of Democrats who are saying the same thing.
It's just really obviously incompetent.
And they've got a new ad that's out, and it's not even worth talking about.
It looks like a high school project.
So, compare the political ads from Trump, which are sometimes hilarious, and sometimes just have soaring, you know, feel and music and, you know, imagery, like, ah, we're back, America.
They're really well done.
And I think I'll probably say it every day until the election.
The level of improvement in the Trump campaign compared to other prior runs is so obvious.
I would love, love, love, love to know the inside story of who is, let's say, most influential advisors are.
Because remember, Trump was the candidate in the other cases too.
And it's his job to pick the best advice.
You know, he may have had limited options the first two times.
He seems to have better options now.
So he seems to be getting great advice, but also great execution.
I think Laura Trump is a superstar.
I think whoever does his videos is better than anything I've ever seen in the political realm.
His speeches are perfect, you know, for what they're trying to do.
And his messaging.
He's calmed down his messaging.
Here's what I think is funny.
The Democrats have this strategy of trying to get under Trump's skin so that he will exhibit behavior that people will say, well, it's chaos.
He's unstable.
He's a dictator.
Look at that chaos.
Do you know why they think that's a good strategy?
Why do they think it's a good strategy to get under Trump's skin and make him act like a crazy man?
There's one reason.
They brainwashed themselves into thinking he's a chaos guy, which he never was even close to it.
They brainwashed themselves to believe that he can't control his presentation based on the situation.
We've watched him for 70 years crafting his presentation to the situation.
Perfectly, consistently, for 70 years.
He meets the opportunity with the right presentation.
If you put him in a situation where the fake news is just giving him the business, he knows that fighting back, you know, giving that some energy, that's going to look good.
It's going to be popular with the base, and it will be based on reality.
So he's going to fight back.
You put him behind the scenes, and you have a bunch of people who aren't doing what he tells them to do, and then you hear that he went off on them, and he yelled at them like he just went off on them.
That's what we want him to do.
I want my president, if he tells somebody to do something, And they just won't do it or they, oh, I got problems.
I want him to just fucking go off on them.
I don't want him to say, well, you've got good reasons.
I guess we'll have to not do that.
No, he needs to fire them or yell at them, scare them, motivate them, whatever it takes.
He just needs to get it done.
And I've never seen anybody who was better at changing his presentation for the situation, right?
Yeah.
There's no time when he invited a world leader to the White House, and the cameras are going, and then he went off on the world leader.
Ever?
Never!
Never, because that wouldn't be smart.
There's not one situation, which anybody's even heard of, that's real, that would suggest he would just go crazy.
But you know who might believe he would?
Somebody who believed he staged an insurrection.
They might believe he would do something crazy.
But he didn't.
That's just Democrat propaganda.
Somebody who believes that he tried to strangle the driver of his own car on January 6th would think he might be unstable.
But that didn't actually happen.
That was fake news, according to the driver.
So you could go right down the line.
Did he stand in front of the public And say that the neo-Nazis were fine people?
No, that was a hoax.
But the Democrats believe it.
So just hold this in your mind how funny this is.
The entire Democrat debate strategy from his DEI staff is that he's got to treat Trump as if all of their propaganda were true.
But it's not.
It's just the best trap in the world.
All Trump has to do is just show up and be Trump.
He doesn't even have to adjust, because there was never any truth to the claims that he's crazy and chaotic and can't control himself in every given situation.
There's no evidence of that over 70 years.
So, I think this is the funniest thing ever, that they fell for their own hoaxes.
And falling for their own hoaxes allowed them to come up with a strategy that can't possibly work.
The odds of that working would require him to turn into a different person before it happened.
Since when has Trump ever turned into a different person?
Never!
Never!
He's always Trump.
That's the one thing you can be sure of.
So that's hilarious.
Anyway, their new ad looks like a high school project.
And I said that, you know, it's obviously a massive incompetence problem.
We can all see it.
Even the Democrats see the incompetence in the campaign.
And it's somewhat obvious that DEI is the problem.
Would you say that's a fair statement?
I'll give you some details.
But you'd agree with that, that the Biden campaign is being destroyed By the very thing they tell us is good for the country.
More DEI.
Clearly his campaign is a DEI driven campaign because the David Axelrods and the people who know what the fuck they're doing are totally frozen out.
Sorry old white guy, we got a young black guy who's really nailing it.
Am I saying something bad about black people?
No, absolutely not.
I wouldn't do that.
And that's, there's nothing in this story that would suggest that.
Because here's the test.
If DEI was only about promoting redheads, you know, white people, that's about as white as you can get if you're a redhead.
If DEI were only about, you know, making sure you had good representation of redheads, it would destroy the system.
Because there are not enough redheads.
But everybody would need one, because if they couldn't prove they didn't have a redhead, then they'd have to answer to their bosses.
Their bosses have to support the narrative from the Democrats.
So if the Democrats say you have to do this redheaded hiring stuff, we're not going to accept that there weren't enough of them.
You're going to have to hire redheads that can't do the job and hope for the best.
So if you could replace the people in the story with redheads, such as they're sending too many redheads across the border, and some of them have criminal backgrounds, then you know it wasn't racist.
Let's call it the redhead test.
The redhead test is if you switch out the black people in the story or the LGBTQ or the women in the story, the Hispanics in the story, whoever is your diversity target.
If you switch them out and just replace it with a redhead, does it look exactly the same?
And it would.
DEI would look exactly the same.
It's a supply and demand problem on top of human motivation to not be fired.
So you're going to hire the redhead, no matter what their qualifications are, and you're going to put him in charge of the engine development on your fucking Boeing airplane, and then it's going to fall out of the sky.
By the way, I don't think that's the problem with Boeing.
I'm just using them as an example.
There's no indication that there's any DEI problem at Boeing.
There is an indication that if they continue pursuing DEI, which they say they are, it's guaranteed to make a plane fall out of the sky.
Guaranteed.
The only thing we don't know if any of that's happened yet, that would be unfair to say, but it's guaranteed because the system design is such that it can only go in one direction.
All right, let's do a little, uh, Survey of what the Biden campaign is telling us is true and important to the election.
You got the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, the suckers and liars hoax, the January 6th insurrection hoax.
You've got two impeachment show trials.
You got the immigration bill hoax.
You know, the one where they say, if only Trump had not killed our immigration bill, We'd have a closed border.
No, that's just the talking point.
Trump didn't kill it.
You ended his executive orders.
Trump didn't need that law to close the border-ish.
So you don't need it either.
It's ours.
There's the inflation is down, but really that's just how you carve the numbers.
There's the jobs are better under Biden, but not really.
It's because he's counting the pandemic like it was a normal year.
Yeah, he might look a little unsteady in public, but behind closed doors he's a genius, which is fucking stupid, and you're just insulting my intelligence to imagine that he's all okay behind closed doors.
That's not happening.
He's saying things that are ridiculous, like Trump is going to put your democracy at risk when he's been lawfared, tried to keep him off the ballot, tried to put him in jail, and may or may not have rigged an election.
They say that he thinks he wants to be dictated for a day, which is just pretending they don't understand how language works or the context of it.
They say he's the chaos candidate, although there's no evidence whatsoever that that's ever happened or anything like it.
They say he might fire Rachel Maddow and put her in a camp, which is fucking retarded.
They think that white supremacists are forming an army up in the hills, but nobody can find one.
They think the militaries may have a little problem, but they couldn't find it in there.
They say no one is above the law while they're law-fearing the fucking people's pants off.
They say Ukraine is about protecting the democracy from Putin, which is a transparent lie.
We know that Hunter's laptop was not exactly real, you fucking assholes.
We know that the fake impeachments are bullshit, and so is those show trials.
And we know that they've weaponized the Department of Justice.
So what do Biden's lawfare dogs tell us today?
They tell us that if you don't agree with accepting the election before you see the results, if you don't agree in advance that it's fair, no matter what it looks like, even if the outcome was, hey, Biden got 99% of the votes.
Even in that condition, the Democrats are telling you that complaining would be inappropriate, no matter how obvious the rigging of the election.
Now, I don't know if the election was rigged.
I don't have any proof of that.
I'm just telling you it sure looked like it was rigged, and that a reasonable person could say, you know, There's a lot of non-standard things happening here.
At the very least, the 51-people laptop thing affected the elections.
Certainly, Zuckerberg money affected it.
Certainly, some sketchiness with the mail-in ballots affected it.
Certainly, the not checking signatures probably had a little effect.
But the law dogs say that no matter how obvious it is, That you should go to jail, basically.
That's me paraphrasing.
You should be punished in some way if you believe that an obviously rigged election is obviously rigged.
And you say it out loud.
Because you're free speech.
They're trying to make sure that free speech is not even tempting.
Don't even try your free speech.
Because if you say it obviously looks rigged, it doesn't matter if it does obviously look rigged.
What's important is you said it.
Can't say it.
And so apparently the lawyers against Trump are using the fact that he once said he wouldn't accept the results automatically as evidence that he planned an insurrection if he didn't win.
Are those the same?
Saying that you won't automatically accept an election without knowing what it looks like?
Is that the same as saying you planned an insurrection?
No, you fucking idiots, that's not even close!
But they're going to watch this debate to get more lawfare, that apparently they are, to watch more, to get more lawfare zingers against them.
Because we live in a fair country in which nobody's above the law.
Anyway.
Here's some things that voters in America are being told.
Number one, our elections are secure and there's no evidence of any rigging At a national level, you know, nothing that would change the outcome.
So we're told the elections are secure and that we know that.
The way we can know that is because our elections are fully auditable.
So you can be quite sure because they're fully auditable, right?
So that's what they tell us.
They also tell us that we need to make changes to our system so that it can be audited.
It's already fully auditable.
That's how we know they're secure.
But we've got to make some really big changes in lots of states in lots of different ways because it's not secure.
It's totally secure.
But we got some really big changes we better make to make it secure while it's already secure.
They're telling us that right in front of us.
Now, there's no such thing as a secure election.
There is only such a thing as you got a result and people accepted it or they didn't.
There is no way to know if a state actor that is capable of hacking the Iranian nuclear program, as one example, or the Chinese hackers who are allegedly already inside our most secure infrastructure in the United States, according to our own experts, How in the world would you know if they co-opted an insider and covered their tracks?
Of course you wouldn't.
But the idiot Democrats, who are just a hoaxocracy, you know, running the country, have decided that they can tell you that it's secure while also telling you at the same time they have to make some big changes because it's not secure.
Okay.
And then my favorite ridiculous story.
Joel Pollack is writing about this in Breitbart.
There's a billionaire Hamas official that said, although Gaza is destroyed, that's not all bad news, because it's the first step toward liberation.
How do you deal with an enemy who kind of likes death?
And thinks that a noble death is your best situation because then you get, you know, get your virgins and you get your paradise and stuff.
It's the weirdest situation where they're glad that they're being killed because they're sure that feels like winning.
I don't feel like it's even unethical to kill somebody who thinks it's better, they're better off.
It's sort of a gray area.
Wait, explain this again.
You believe that life is better after death.
Oh, yes.
The whole deal is we're playing for the afterlife.
That's the big game.
You know, this life stuff is important, but, you know, afterlife is permanent.
So that's the big game.
So, if I killed you while you were in the service or trying to, you know, chase something for your religion, Or any other reason.
You would have the best possible outcome.
Yes, yes I would.
I mean, I wouldn't be helpful here on Earth anymore, but it would be the best outcome for me.
I'd be living with God, and it'd be great.
I'm not so sure it's unethical to kill that person.
I don't know, it's a little bit of a gray area.
Giving somebody what they want more than anything in the world An honorable death.
It's hard to feel bad about that.
Now you might say, but Scott, but Scott, those are the people fighting.
Is it?
Is it just the fighters?
If you took the 10 year olds who have been through the brainwashing and you just separated them and said, all right, your parents aren't watching.
You're 10 years old.
You know, what do you think about dying as a martyr?
Oh, good stuff.
I cannot wait to die.
I am so looking forward to dying as a martyr.
I can't even wait.
And you talk to mom, you say, did you do this?
Well, I mean, I didn't do it.
The schools did it, but you know, I agree with it.
What?
You agree with it?
So even you're okay with your child dying?
Yeah.
I mean, if it's a, if he's doing the right stuff, he goes to heaven.
Good stuff.
I don't know.
Now, obviously the people from Gaza are not of one mind, and so I'm, you know, it's a parody of an imaginary person.
So don't assume that they're all like that, or they all feel the same way.
But you're fighting a group that's presenting itself as the unified thing, and that unified thing seems to want to die.
Literally.
So, I'm going to say it again.
It's a tragedy when, you know, anybody's being killed.
So as a human being, I see it as a tragedy.
But if you're going to look at it politically, it's hard to feel sorry for a group of people who prefers death, you know, in the context of fighting for something better.
And it's hard to follow somebody who gives them what they want under that condition if the alternative is that you're going to be dead and you're not crazy about that idea.
So, you have a situation.
I'll need a religious check on this.
Can somebody give me a fact check on this?
Is it true that if you're Jewish, you don't believe in the afterlife, per se?
You know, not a heaven with virgins and stuff?
You're more about what's happening while you're alive?
Is that fair to say, or do I have a mischaracterization?
And would it be fair to say that Islam has the opposite emphasis?
You know, the worldly stuff is important, but you're really playing for the afterlife.
So how do two people live in peace when one thinks that the afterlife is the important part and the other thinks that the being here is the important part?
Draw that up on paper.
Just draw that on paper and act like you've never heard of, you know, Israel or Gaza.
Just on paper.
You got two enemies.
One likes to be dead, one likes to be alive.
Yeah, I'm summarizing, but that's basically it.
Where is that going to end?
The incentive system is very clear.
The ones who want to stay alive will do everything in their power to kill the ones who want to be dead.
And so they both win.
You see, the mistake that observers make is that there could be a win-win if they make peace.
It's a win-win if you both have the same idea of where the payoff is.
If you think the payoff is during life, you're not going to find a way to compromise with somebody who thinks the payoff is after life.
I don't think that's doable.
I mean, not in the long run.
In the short run, you can, you know, use the reality of the threats to do things.
But on paper, Israel should eventually kill everybody who believes that.
It might take a while.
But if both people want the same thing, I want to kill you so you don't kill me, and you want to be dead, I think we could work out an arrangement.
And apparently that's what Gaza is.
It's a bunch of people in Gaza, too many of them.
Again, not all of them.
There's no group that are all the same.
But Gaza said, hey, I think we'd rather be dead than what's going on now.
And Israel said, you know, kind of agree with that.
I think you would rather be dead.
We'd be happy with that, too.
So, every time somebody says, why don't they get together and resolve their differences, I sit here and think, what differences?
I don't see the difference.
One side wants to be dead, and the other side wants to kill them, for very good reasons.
How am I supposed to feel about that?
Why should I get involved in that?
Now, if that sounds a little too pro-Israel, Let me balance it out a little bit.
I don't give a fuck about your Holocaust.
Period.
I don't give a fuck about your Holocaust.
Don't tell me that I have to make decisions based on your Holocaust.
A lot of people have had hard times.
I also don't give a fuck about your slavery.
I really don't.
I don't care at all.
I don't care.
And if you're looking at the past, I don't care that much about you.
You're not somebody I want to spend a lot of time with.
If you want to figure out how to start from wherever you are, and I will acknowledge we're not starting from the same places.
There is systemic racism.
It's real.
We're not starting from the same places.
If you'd like to figure out how to optimize your situation in the future, I'm all in.
I wrote a book on it.
Ask me some advice, I'll give it to you.
I'll tell you how to maximize your situation in the system you find yourself in.
I'm all in on that.
If Israel says, how do we start today and build like a really good civilization?
All in.
I'm all in.
I don't want to care.
I don't want to hear about your Holocaust.
It's exactly as bad as you say it is.
I don't care.
Stop making me care.
I don't care.
Don't care about your slavery.
Don't care about your Holocaust.
You're not going to make me care.
I can be your friend and I can help you in every way that I can possibly do it.
But don't make me care about bullshit.
Well, it's not bullshit in the sense that it's important and it happened, but don't make me care about it.
It's just not helping you and it's not helping me.
All right, so that is my provocative show for today.
It's going to be lit.
Let's see if the needle gets moved by the debate.
My prediction is Trump will not become chaotic.
But they'll find at least one thing he says that they'll sell as chaos.
Because they're so committed to finding it.
If you hire ghost hunters, because you think there's a ghost in the house, they're going to find one.
Because they're ghost hunters.
It doesn't matter if there's a ghost there.
They're ghost hunters.
They get paid to find a ghost.
They're going to find a ghost.
If you think that chaos is going to be there, and you're in the press, and you think it's your job to point it out, you're going to find some chaos.
Even if it's not there.
So you can guarantee that something will happen, that they will call chaos, and that you and I will look at it and say, are you kidding me?
That just looks like another hoax to add to your hoaxocracy.
So that's guaranteed.
You can guarantee that even if Biden falls asleep and falls out of his chair, has a stroke, that the CNN and MSNBC people will say, you know what?
That was a lot better than we were expecting.
I'd call that a win.
He beat expectations.
Yeah.
So, to imagine that there's going to be a kill shot in the debate, I think is optimistic, although it's fun.
It's not impossible.
Yeah, there's a non-zero chance of a total kill shot.
And here's what I think.
I think Trump's strategy is going to be to get under Biden's skin, but not in the normal Trump way, which would be a little over the top.
I think he's going to just slide it in.
Look for the kill shot to be said in mild tones.
Right?
Here's not a, this would not be a kill shot.
Your whole family is a bunch of criminals.
That's not a kill shot.
Not at all.
Here's a kill shot.
He said the election was rigged.
He was rigged.
Here's a kill shot.
Does anybody know why we have election machines?
They don't make things faster.
They're not more credible.
They're not cheaper.
They're not easier.
Why do we have them?
The only reason I can think of is for the purpose of rigging an election.
Now, I'm not saying that that will be the one he uses.
I'm just saying that the kill shot is going to be the one he says In a matter-of-fact way.
That will be the kill shot.
Because if you really want to get under his skin, you don't want to make it a shouting match, because he'll just shout.
Like if you go, ah, ah, ah, you're a criminal, he's just going to yell back, ah, ah, you're a criminal.
So you got to say that factual, that the factual thing that nobody can argue against, which is we don't know a reason why voting machines exist, There might be one, by the way, but it's the fact that we don't know what it is.
We the public.
All right.
So I don't think there'll be a result, but I also don't think that the election will give us a result either.
I'd be very surprised if we think we've actually had an election and a president was picked fair and square.
Whoever loses is going to say it was rigged.
And it might be.
I think it's entirely likely, actually.
All right, that's all for now.
I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and Rumble and X. I'm going to talk to my beloved locals subscribers for the extra.
Thanks for joining, and we'll see some of you tonight.
