God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, some stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that will open me at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Now, if you watched the debate last night, which of course we're going to talk about in some detail, you're probably thinking, if you're a Trump supporter, this is one of the most fun days you've ever had in your life.
And you're thinking to yourself, how in the world could this live stream be better than you even imagined it would be?
And it's going to be plenty good.
How could it possibly be?
Well, there's a study that says there's a, this is kind of interesting.
That the main ingredient in Tylenol, acetaminophen, in a test it reduces, it may induce risky behavior.
So apparently if you take Tylenol, they tested on kids, they will do riskier things.
There's only one thing that could make this show better.
A little extra risky behavior.
Shall we fire it up?
Oh yeah.
Oh, I'm ready now!
If you're reading the Dilbert Reborn strip, available only on X by subscription or in Locals, today's a crossover with my other comic strip that's daily, Robots Read News.
So Dilbert and Robots Read News will be a crossover today, if you're a subscriber.
All right.
You may know by now, if you saw any news coverage of the debate, it was what I call a complete narrative collapse.
In other words, this entire papered over reality that the corporate news and the Democrats have given you, that there's nothing wrong with Joe Biden.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
Well, that's crazy talk.
He's fine.
Especially behind closed doors.
He's fine.
Well, if you watched, you know that he collapsed totally and so totally that you can see the gears of the machine.
Now that's a total collapse.
What I mean was you can see that your media has been lying to you and had to know it for a long time.
And that became crushingly clear.
That the Democrat media had been lying to them, and that they could see this for a long time.
They could see it.
You could see it.
I could see it.
Of course I could see it.
And they gaslit the country that he was fine.
Well, that didn't work out.
But here's the most interesting part of it.
My assumption is that people like me were not surprised at all.
Maybe half of the country, maybe even three quarters, are low information voters who don't really follow the news all that much, but they thought, you know, this would be a good time to wade in.
Everybody's going to be watching it.
I think I'll see what this whole presidential race is for the first time.
Imagine that you were sort of a mild Biden supporter, but you hadn't really been watching the news.
And then you watch the debate, and it was your first exposure to what's really going on.
Can you imagine what that would do to you?
But imagine what would happen if you'd been watching it the whole time, and you'd been sucked into the gaslighting that he's fine.
He's totally fine.
What would that do to your head?
It's quite a day.
Everything changed.
In my opinion, everything changed.
And I don't mean You know, the narrow question of who's going to be president.
That might have changed, too.
But I think this just rips the whole cover off the whole game.
And it's getting hilarious.
I don't know about you, but the first thing I did when the debate was over, I went right to MSNBC.
And I watched that like I was watching a comedy show.
And it was screamingly funny just watching the reactions to having their whole game uncovered.
We'll talk about that.
All right, so would you like to have the entire debate summarized in, let's see, four words, but one of them is a contraction.
Here's the entire debate summarized in four and a half words by Naval Ravikant, who posted on X after it was over.
Who's running the country?
Now, as a cartoonist, I'm a collector of great summarizations.
I love it when somebody can summarize the biggest thing with the smallest number of words.
This is a masterpiece.
It's really all you had to say.
Everything I say now is just for fun.
Everything you needed to know, four and a half words.
Who's running the country?
That was the big question.
And by the way, that's not a joke.
It's pretty obvious that we don't know.
It's not obvious who is running it.
It's obvious we don't know.
And I think everybody would agree with that after last night.
Here's another great take from Raoul Davis, CEO, branding expert on X, one of my favorite accounts.
And here's his take after the debate.
Quote, did you hear that sound?
It was the remaining testosterone being flushed down the Democrat toilet.
Winning yields testosterone production.
So that's scientifically proven.
If you win a game or a contest, your testosterone goes up.
If you lose, it goes down.
And all the remaining Democrat men who were just drained by the testosterone vampire.
Biden is a testosterone vampire.
He'll suck it out of your body.
And Raul predicts, expect tons more gender divide.
Yep.
Yep.
What I saw was every man in America abandoning him if they had a testosterone above a medically viable level.
And you could see it in some of the When they talk to the average voters, one of the panels, I guess, there were three voters and two men and one woman.
And the men said, nope, I just abandoned Biden, done with him.
And the woman's like, yeah, still, yeah, of course, Biden.
So there will be more of a gender divide and it will be screamingly obvious.
I'll talk more about that.
All right, so here's my take.
Here's how I summarize it.
A little history.
Trump destroyed the Bush dynasty with his low-energy Jeb kill shot.
So he took the whole Bush dynasty out with energy, basically, an energy play.
Then he won the presidency because the media couldn't stop giving him attention, and they blamed themselves.
My God, he just sucked all the energy out of the room and toward himself.
So he won because he managed energy better.
Then they tried to drain his energy by keeping off his social media and ignoring him.
And that worked a little bit.
Keep him in the cage.
And then they tried to arrest his followers to drain their energy.
I think it worked a little bit.
It did drain some of the energy.
Then they law-fired the piss out of Trump to try to divert his energy.
If you can't get rid of it, maybe you can divert it over to keeping himself out of jail.
But he used that to raise more money.
He took their energy and he turned it into money with fundraising.
The Democrats had one big problem, because their idea of draining his energy wasn't terrible.
The instinct was right.
But they had one problem.
The public would demand At least one debate.
They couldn't really say no.
And my guess is that Biden himself is the one who said, I'll do it.
So they let the energy monster out of his confinement for one night.
For one night, we're going to let you see Trump.
Only one night.
All the rest of the time, we'll suppress him.
We'll show a clip out of order, you know, out of context, and we'll just talk about him.
But we don't want his energy to get through to half of the country.
Half of the country sees it because they follow news that shows it.
But the other half had no access to him in his normal state.
And so the mainstream media and the Democrats decided that they could take one small chance with the energy monster of all energy monsters, Trump.
And there for one night, but really just for about 90 minutes, They would let him out of his confinement and take their chances.
And it took him 90 minutes to obliterate the entire Biden presidency and his legacy.
It's gone.
He destroyed it in 90 minutes.
So maybe you should have kept him in his confinement because he just got stronger and You gave him 90 minutes and he just took out one of the strongest people in politics.
Just like he took out the Clintons, just like he took out Bush, just like he took out the entire field of 16 really qualified Republicans to get the initial nomination.
Do you think they've learned their lesson?
The energy monster He's not getting weaker.
He's getting stronger.
And there's nothing you can do.
Imagine you're a big donor.
So yeah, go ahead and fact check and that'll help.
So imagine you're a big Biden donor and you donated $5 million.
Now, you would only donate $5 million if you could easily afford it.
But imagine how you'd feel if you were co-opted into giving $5 million To a corpse that his team knew was a corpse.
You would feel not just that you had wasted your money, but that you got cheated.
If you gave a lot of money to Biden and then you saw him do that campaign, you wouldn't think, oh, I got unlucky.
No, no, you wouldn't.
You wouldn't think, oh, I made a mistake.
No, you wouldn't.
You would blame his insiders.
For allowing you to do it.
And they are going to be pissed, the people who gave money, and the people behind the curtain, presumably knew this was a big risk.
Presumably, I think it's fair to say, you'd all agree, right?
There's no way this came out of nowhere.
You know, the H.E.R.
report?
Yeah, we had the Wall Street Journal that reported it.
There were plenty of hints.
Some people are talking about the 25th Amendment, which would require both Republicans and Democrats to say, oh, we all see it now.
And it would require a Kamala Harris to be part of it.
And I think the Cabinet is how it works.
And that's not going to happen.
Because the Democrats have just handed Republicans the gift of all gifts.
They're not going to bail them out by 25th Amendment, and then having somebody strong come in at the last minute.
Because Trump is so well known that you could replace his competition 10 minutes before the election starts, and it'd be fine.
Because people have already decided, you know, so if you put any warm body in there, the warm body would probably give 50% of the vote, you know, it would probably be a tie.
And then it's up to, you know, the vagaries of the election system itself.
But I predict that it will be impossible for the 25th Amendment to happen.
Number one, it will be a little bit too hard for the Democrats to go that far in admitting what they've done to the country, because they knew what they were doing.
They knew it.
And it would be super embarrassing because they've been saying that, yeah, it'd be super embarrassing because they've been saying that Trump should have been 25th Amendment.
And there was no sign of that.
So it's not going to happen.
Republicans won't let it happen, and Democrats, I don't think, have the guts to make it happen.
All right.
Let's look at the predictions that people made, including me, and how it looked.
Number one, do you recall that I said loudly and often before Biden was elected that he would not last one term, that his health was not sufficient to be a functioning president for four years?
Now, Can you back me that I did say that in public a lot of times?
No, I'm not the only one, right?
So it's not like a magical prediction or anything.
So I'm not taking much credit for it, because I think it would be similar to what you predicted.
But it was right.
The only point is it was right.
It wasn't magical.
It wasn't hard.
But it was right.
And a lot of people were on the other side.
Many of us were wondering if the timing of the medications would be a key, and there is some suggestion that maybe it was.
Because a lot of people observed that he started weak, but at least the Democrats said he finished stronger.
Not strong, but stronger.
And you ask yourself, how could he start weak and finish stronger after he'd been going a long time?
The only way I can think of is that the meds kicked in and that they may have mistimed the meds.
So many of us thought that would be a risk of how to time the meds. And it was. My best guess is that he needed a week, not just for the, you know, hiding his infirmities, but, you know, the fact he couldn't handle doing a job and preparing. But I think some of it was to adjust his med schedule so they could adjust it a few hours each of those days for a week until they were giving the good stuff closer to the debate time instead of in the morning when
Presumably he was getting his meds in the morning which means he'd have a like a good several hours and then they'd put a lid on it and he'd just disappear for the afternoon.
But they had to get his med schedule from the morning All the way up to late afternoon, well evening.
And that's a big, that's a big stretch.
Medically, that's pretty hard to do.
So I think it was probably his meds timing.
And I would say on top of that, he probably messed up his sleep schedule.
He probably knew he wasn't really up to the job on some level he probably knows.
And that must have been one of the worst experiences of his life.
I would imagine.
Because he had to know he was dying up there.
Anyway, my prediction that I got wrong, I'll get maybe 25% right, but I'm going to grade it wrong, is that he would do well enough, even poorly, but he would do well enough that MSNBC would be singing his praises, even if he obviously lost.
What I didn't count on is that it would be Such a nightmare that even the people who support him said, um, no, that was a disaster.
And they did.
Not all of them.
We'll talk about that.
But generally speaking, I would say I was wrong to imagine that it would be a score to tie no matter how bad it was.
Cause I did not imagine it would be this bad.
Honestly, this exceeded my expectations.
So I, I got that.
Um, I got that wrong.
I did predict.
That the Biden campaign would be increasingly incompetent and the problem would be that it's a DEI staff.
Now, if you're new to me, DEI does not mean I'm blaming black people or women or LGBTQ.
It means that if you have a supply and demand problem and you have to brand yourself as the diverse people and the pipeline of highly qualified and experienced people is not big enough, You're going to hire less qualified people because you need to be diverse more than you need to be capable right away.
And then you cross your fingers and think, well, I wish I had a, you know, Axelrod because he's been doing this a long time, but I can't have an old white guy again.
So I'm going to get some young people and maybe we can, you know, make it work.
You know, they'll, they'll rise to the challenge, but they didn't.
And even MSNBC is throwing the campaign staff under the bus for letting any of it happen, letting him pick the wrong side of the debate stage.
They're blaming CNN.
But there is a general sense that Biden's campaign is incompetent.
And I'm going to say it's fairly obvious it's a DEI problem.
And again, it doesn't have anything to do with anybody's race or genes or culture.
Not even in that conversation.
It's just supply and demand.
On paper, you could replace the... I've said this before, but I like it.
You could replace the DEI people with redheads and just say, our new thing is we need to get our number of redheads up because we don't have enough redheads.
It wouldn't matter who you're talking about if there are not enough of them and every big organization needs lots of them to show their diversity.
Hey, we got enough redheads.
You'll have to promote incompetent redheads to fill the demand.
That's the only way it'll work.
There is no other way that can work with human beings involved.
And so it was predictable, and there it was.
Plain view, total incompetence of the campaign.
And worse, if you've been around any kind of DEI environment, you can't fire anybody for being a bad employee if they're a DEI hire.
Because they'll go and complain and say it was racism and you don't need to deal with that.
So Biden trapped himself in a little DEI trap that sprung and you can see what happened.
I predicted that it was hilarious to believe that Trump could not control his presentation to be non-chaotic.
Of course he can.
We've seen a million examples Of him changing his approach to the exact situation.
What does he do when children visited the Oval Office when he was president?
He talked like he was a dad.
What did he do when he was talking to his staff that was not doing things right, according to him, behind the scenes?
Well, every report says he goes off on them hard, exactly as he should.
Yeah, we expect that from a strong leader.
So we've been watching for years, I would say decades, Watching this man change his performance—performance, that's the right word—to match the situation.
So who thought he couldn't do it this time?
To imagine that this would be the one time he can't do it?
Who made that prediction?
No, the obvious prediction is that he would do what he's been doing for 70 years, which is he'd modify his approach to match the situation.
Maybe nobody does that better.
He's sort of a master at that.
And he did.
Many of us predicted that that no interruption rule that was supposed to work against Trump would be the very best thing that could ever happen to him.
And I think a number of people noted the same thing.
I think even Michael Ian Black said that the debate rules favor Trump.
Because they basically forced him to be a non-interrupter.
And I have to admit, the interrupting would have been a negative.
So they forced him to not do the one thing that could have caused him to lose the debate.
They forced him not to be able to do the one thing that might have cost him the debate.
Being too chaotic and be too interrupt-y.
They took away their one chance of winning.
Nothing could have been better for Biden than to have said, I couldn't get a word in edgewise, he kept interrupting.
That would have been his perfect result, given that he wasn't up to the challenge.
All right, and then, so let's talk about, we'll talk about the media reaction, which is hilarious, in a minute.
But let me talk about the good and bad points in the debate.
If you looked at who won it as a debate, and you just say, it's a debate, it's a contest in front of people, who won?
Trump won more than I've ever seen anybody win anything.
It's very unusual that both sides say the same person won, and won by a lot.
I've never seen that.
So that was amazing.
So if you judge Trump on whether he's, you know, had a winning strategy, winning energy, winning confidence, winning presentation, killed it.
Killed it.
Absolutely slayed it.
And then when Trump, when Biden did his first big mumble, where he went into the ba-ba-ba-ba-ba, and you don't know exactly what he's saying, and then they went to Trump, and Trump's first comment was, I don't know what he said at the end of that sentence.
I don't think he knows either.
And then he just went on.
That was good.
That was slipping the shiv in.
Because then he were attuned to the fact that he was going to be somewhat rambling and stuff, and he was.
The other great thing, the thing that really got me was when Trump said that Biden has never fired anybody.
I wish he'd gone just the next step, which is that hiring people is the easy part.
Firing is the real skill.
And nobody's going to argue that Trump doesn't fire at least more than Biden.
And nobody's going to say that Biden's staff is doing a great job and he hasn't fired them.
That is a really, really strong point that I think he came with.
I think he got an A- on that.
But, oh, that was so close to an A+.
The slight twist would turn that into an A+.
All he has to do is say the one frame, hiring is easy, firing is the hard part of leadership.
By the way, that's from Naval also.
It's one of Naval's observations, that firing is the hard part.
All right.
Then, of course, we're all waiting for the fine people hoax to come up, and sure enough, Biden promoted the fine people hoax a week after it had been debunked in public and Snopes had debunked it.
And he went with it anyway.
And then Trump said it had been debunked recently.
It's the most debunked thing.
And then he went on.
I'm going to give Trump a D plus.
D isn't dog.
D plus for handling that.
That was a layup.
That was a layup, and he missed it.
Here would have been the three-point play.
You know, there's a fact-checking site called Snopes, and recently, in the last few months, they fact-checked that as false.
Now, that's a fact-checking site that is very well known to be Democrat-leaning, and if even the Democrat-leaning fact-checking site has debunked it, This is the biggest lie in American history.
It divided the country and it drove political thinking for years and it was never true.
The media knew it was true and they showed you an out of context edited piece and most of you believed it because the way they presented it made it look like it was true.
You have to understand that Joe Biden Told the biggest, most destructive lie in American politics.
I do expect there'll be some fact-checking, and they'll say I got something wrong, they'll say he got something wrong.
But there has never been a lie at this level.
Nothing like this has ever happened to the country.
It's the worst lie in the country, and Joe Biden did it, and the media supported it.
But now, finally, I'm glad the truth has come out.
That's what an A-plus would look like.
Trump basically let it lay there like a turd, and then Daniel Dale, the CNN fact-checker, fact-checked the fact-checker and said Snopes got it wrong, and that the fine people hoax was real.
That CNN's paid professional fact-checker decided to go with the lie, which I'm gonna give him credit and say that he's lying, Because I think it would be more of an insult to say he's that stupid.
He couldn't possibly be that stupid.
He's looked into it.
He knows it was a lie.
He knows it.
And he decided to go with the lie.
So Daniel Dale, you're the biggest fucking piece of shit of the night.
You had a chance to do something good for the country, and you decided to be a traitorous fucking piece of shit.
I could not hate you more, you fucking piece of shit.
What you just did to the country, By supporting that lie, the biggest lie in American politics, in my opinion, the worst one ever, and you fucking piece of shit, you decided to back that.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
That might be one of the worst things you'll ever do in your whole fucking stupid life.
Let me be clear about that.
Meanwhile, the ex-accounts went crazy because they all knew the truth.
Turley, etc.
were mentioning that this has been a well-debunked hoax.
And I don't think it penetrated the bubble on the other side.
So I'm going to give Trump, well really, I don't know, D-plus might be generous.
Might be a failing grade on that one.
Then there was the suckers and losers hoax, where Trump did the correct setup, which is, who would say that?
Now that's a good approach.
The good approach, since you can't debunk it as factual, since it was just something somebody claimed, there's no document, there's no way you can actually debunk it, you should say, why would you believe that?
You actually believe I was standing next to generals and I insulted servicemen as suckers?
You should know that that's not true just by listening to it.
Have you ever been watching me for the last 70, you know, whatever, years of my life?
Have I ever said anything that would be in that Category?
Of course not.
I made fun of John McCain once, but that was just about John McCain.
I just made a joke about him.
Maybe I wouldn't mention that.
So I think he got a, you know, B minus on that one.
Uh, but, but then again, then Biden got a little, uh, shiv in by saying, Oh, so then you fired him after they said that.
And Trump tried to fix that later and say, No, I fired them because they're incompetent, and that's one of the reasons.
So.
Let's see, what else?
If I were Trump, I would have tried to frame all of Biden's lies and give them some kind of a brand, because he's like the Juicy Smollett candidate, where literally everything he does is a hoax.
If you just say he tells a lot of hoaxes, you're not there.
You need to brand it.
You need to say he's the Juicy Smollett of candidates, and that it's really all hoaxes.
So if you brand it as all hoaxes, then you make people ask, well, is it all hoaxes?
And you make them talk about whether or not it's all hoaxes.
And that's a win.
Because it's all hoaxes.
The main things are mostly hoaxes.
Let's see.
Uh, January 6th, of course, came up.
I would give, uh, uh, Trump a C plus on handling of that.
Um, he said all the things you say, you know, I said, go peacefully, et cetera.
He didn't say the most persuasive thing, which is how did you imagine they were going to take over the country?
Or what did you think I was thinking?
Joe Biden with your rotting little brain.
Did you imagine that we were going to trespass our way into controlling the nuclear arsenal?
Was it the moving of the lectern that made you think that the republic was going to crumble?
Was it?
You know, that's the way to go.
He should have done what he did with the suckers and losers hoax.
He should have said, why would you believe this?
Have you met a Republican?
Show me a Republican who thinks he's going to an insurrection and leaves his gun home.
He would have had to admit that there were some bad characters there, as there are in every group.
And by the way, Black Lives Matter protests were also violent, but most people weren't.
Which would have been fun to say.
Most of the BLM people were there sincerely.
There was just too much violence.
Same with January 6th.
Most people were there sincerely to try to protect the republic that they thought they had just lost.
But they were sincere.
There were some bad actors, but let's not focus on that.
The legal system does what it does for those.
Now, there was an A-plus answer.
He didn't find it.
And I was very disappointed in that.
Then there was the election fraud, which he didn't spend much time on it.
I guess he's got some kind of big event coming up he better deliver, but he did claim it was fraudulent.
That didn't help him.
That didn't help him.
He would have been better to say, you know what?
We're going to keep looking into any claims, but it's time to look forward because we've got an election to win.
There was a way he could have been a lot better.
So, that wasn't A+.
When he was asked if he would accept the election, no matter what the outcome, I give him a D on that answer.
He said that if it's a good election, yes.
Here's the A-plus answer.
Let me understand your question.
If Joe Biden got 99% of the votes, And nothing changed between now and then.
Do you think I should accept that election?
That's the A plus.
The A plus is you turn it back to the people who asked, and of course they don't answer those questions because they're debate hosts.
They're not there to answer questions.
So I don't know what they would do, but that's the right question.
Are you asking me one of those, you know, do you still be your wife questions?
Because it seems like you're trying to get a, you're trying to get some kind of a quote you can use.
The reality is that nobody would accept any outcome for anything that was obviously fake.
Now, if the election comes out looking like it's fair according to reasonable observers, I'm a reasonable observer too.
And if it looks fair, I'm going to accept it.
The election, possibly because of the distortions of the pandemic, gave a result that nobody thought was fair.
There's probably not a single Republican who thought that was a non-rigged election.
That would be an exaggeration.
But you could say there were so many anomalies that good people had real concerns about whether that was legal.
Now, you might argue that all those anomalies were because of changes because of the pandemic and more voting.
And that's something that we need to understand.
But don't stop me from asking questions.
Don't stop me from trying to find out if our system is stable and good.
Don't stop your president for asking as many questions as he needs to about the credibility of the system upon which everything depends.
That's an A plus answer.
Trump was a D.
Then Biden went with the injecting bleach into your arm.
I think even Daniel Dale fact-checked that, but of course those fact-checks usually go, it wasn't bleach, it was, you know, some other disinfectant, so it's just as bad.
No, that didn't happen either.
He was talking about light as a disinfectant.
So they get to win by saying they fact-checked it, but still keep the win of that it's a little bit true, which it isn't.
On the question of fentanyl, I think both candidates failed.
What I heard is two candidates who don't have any idea how to do anything about fentanyl.
Now, you could say, well, that's a failure of the candidates.
I used to think that.
But it's so obvious that nobody can solve this, and that there must be forces within the country that want it to continue, i.e.
it seems to me obvious, I can't prove it, but I would say it's obvious based on the facts that the CIA partners with the cartels, allows them to do their business, in return for helping control other countries, because the cartels in other countries are powerful.
That's what I think.
On the deficit and the economy, both of them told a bunch of lies.
Probably not one of them told anything that was true about anything.
Now, here's the thing that I ask you.
Um, shouldn't the fact-checking, the Daniel Dale fact-checking, by the way, afterwards he, he said there were, I didn't count them, but it felt like there were about 20 lies that Biden told, and maybe there were 40 lies, you know, twice as many, I'm just guessing from listening to it, that they said that Trump told.
Now that might be true.
Might be.
It might be that Trump told twice as many verifiably incorrect things.
But here's the thing.
We've been fooled into thinking that counting the number of them is how you judge this.
It shouldn't be.
If you took every lie that Trump has ever told in his life, not one, if you took them all and put them together, you could weigh the weight and the power and the influence of them, the negative influence, and you compare that to the fine people hoax.
All the lies he's ever told don't come up to that standard of that one lie.
Because that one lie changed the country.
He never told one that changed the country.
And I will argue that Trump's supporters have learned to understand his hyperbole.
Now you could call it lies, you could call it not passing the fact-checking, you could call it BS, you could call it sales.
But we understand it.
When Trump says, I lower taxes more than anybody in the history of the world, what do you hear?
Well, the fact checker hears, well, that's a lie.
There was this one time somebody did it more.
That's not what I hear.
I hear I'm more likely to lower taxes than the other guy.
I hear I'm less likely to support raising taxes than the other guy.
What do you hear?
That's what I hear.
I don't listen to his specific claim because I figure those are all exaggerated.
When he says, you know, I did X for the deficit, and he did more to make the deficit worse, what do you hear?
I don't really hear that that's true, because one had a pandemic spending, that's a pretty big deficit, and the other didn't.
Now, he should have said, here's what Trump also should have said, and I give him, I guess, a D on handling this.
He should have said, I'll get back to that.
So other things, let me build back to that.
I want to hit it from a different angle.
Oh, yeah, let me do it now.
So what Trump should have said is that Biden's claims about his comparison of his economy to mine are all based on one obvious lie.
The lie that you can compare a pandemic year or going into a pandemic with coming out.
If you had switched presidents, it would be the same.
Biden would have been the one who put $8 trillion in.
Trump would have put the one $4 trillion in.
Neither of them are good.
Nobody's got anything to brag about.
But if you're Trump and you don't frame it first, if you listen to all of his claims, they're all based on picking the wrong starting point or the wrong comparison.
You can't really compare a recovering economy to a current pandemic economy.
All of you know that.
Everybody listening tonight knows that wouldn't be a valid comparison, but he's doing it.
Why is he doing that?
He's doing it to lie to you, because lying is what he has.
If he had true things he could tell you that didn't require him to compare it to the pandemic, which is ridiculous, if he didn't need to do that, he wouldn't do it.
If he had actual accomplishments, he would say those, and you know it.
You know he'd tell you if he did something good, but he can't.
He has to make a fake comparison that every one of you sees right through.
Now that's closer to an A.
All right, then it went off the rails, I think, when Trump at the end started talking about his golf prowess compared to Biden.
Biden told some lies about his professional golfing life, and they're Biden lies.
I treat Trump's lies in many ways like I treat Biden's personal life lies.
So I just got used to the fact that Biden will tell stories that we all know are not true.
About his life.
I was highest in my law school.
Uh, you know, I once won the Olympics and it's just crazy stuff.
But I also think, well, it's kind of harmless.
He's just harmless old school, you know, tale teller.
And I don't, I just take it directionally.
He's directionally telling you that he's tough or that he's done something or that he's smart or, you know, directionally.
But I do the same thing with Trump.
Just, just sort of a directional vibe that I don't mind at all.
All right.
Um, when you looked at the list of Daniel Dale's lies for both of them, and he did them very quickly, I didn't have time to sort of register them all because he ran through the list so quickly, which was fun, by the way.
Listening to him list the lies for both candidates was really kind of fun, because there were just so many of them.
But, uh, it did seem to me that he left out some of the Biden lies, like the fine people oaks, for example, that he just decided to lie about the lie.
And that he added some things to the Trump lies that I wouldn't have called lies.
So if you took out, if you added to the Biden ones, the ones that I believe Daniel Dale got wrong, or should have been added, and then you subtract a few that, not all of them, but just a few that, you know, were on the Trump side, that 20 compared to 40 Kind of quickly gets to 25 compared to 30.
Not that different, if you actually were objectively scoring it.
But like I say, they're not all equal.
One of them is an op to say that the other one is an insurrectionist and should be in jail.
That's not equal to, I lowered your taxes.
These are not the same.
And to imagine they are is a real good trick.
One of the things that Biden said was that the Border Patrol Union is endorsing him.
The Border Patrol Union posted an X immediately.
No, that has never happened, and no.
So the Border Patrol itself fact-checked him in real time while he was going.
Well, that's good stuff.
Oh yeah, I'm seeing in the comments that Bill Maher shows tonight.
Oh my god.
All right.
Um, there is a factcheckbiden.com site started by the Republicans, and I would recommend that you bookmark it, because you might need to refer to it.
Now, I don't think it's done as well as it could be, because I think it needs to start with the hoaxes right at the top, and then link off to, you know, the debunks of the hoaxes.
The other stuff is just normalize, and when the normalize are a mile long, you're just sort of not going to look at them.
But if you had like a little headline that says, the top five hoax lies, and then you debunk them, you'd probably look at the top five, and then you'd have something to refer to.
So the name of that site again is, it's all one word, factcheckbiden.com.
All right, so let's talk about the reaction of the news media, which is the funny part.
So, as I said, the narrative dissolved, and all the people have been lying to you for a few years now, had to deal with the fact that everybody found out they've been lying, and they had to deal with that.
Now, normally, You'd expect cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is when your image of yourself or what you know becomes totally falsified by direct observation.
In other words, reality is not matching what was in your head.
And then that normally triggers you to hallucinate.
But that didn't happen.
I was fully expecting the media to be something closer to crazy.
Nope.
The opposite happened.
Biden was so outrageously bad that they couldn't even hold an illusion in their head.
They couldn't even hold an illusion that maybe it was closer than he won.
So it actually was such a bad performance, it broke illusions.
Now that might not mean a lot to you, but as a hypnotist, that's gigantic!
That is so unexpected that you could get past the cognitive dissonance.
You know, it's like a brick wall.
It's really, really hard to violate somebody's, you know, understanding of reality so much that they don't hallucinate.
I'm not even sure I've ever seen another example of it.
It's so rare.
But that happened.
Anyway, so what did they say?
They did, of course, have to offer some excuses.
But they put the blame on the campaign, some on Joe Biden, but mostly on the campaign.
Here's what they did not blame, as much as they should.
I think a few of them did.
But they didn't blame themselves.
They act like the campaign gets to decide if that debate happened.
It wasn't the campaign.
That was the media.
The media supported Joe, despite knowing he couldn't handle it.
They had to know.
And they got all the way to this point, because as long as the media kept saying, he's great, he's great, don't worry about it, the public was thinking, well, the media keeps telling me not to worry about it, I guess I won't worry about it.
And they were so far from reality, which is, you should have really worried about this, that when it happened, Somehow they couldn't take the blame.
Now, I don't think that's cognitive dissonance.
That's just covering their ass.
It's just normal stuff.
But it's kind of gutsy.
It's kind of gutsy to imagine that it wasn't Morning Joe and MSNBC that caused this situation.
They 100% are the cause.
Everything else is subsidiary to the news.
Because the news tells you what's true.
And then you operate within that world.
The campaign was operating within the world that the news created.
The news was not operating in the world that the campaign created.
Nothing works that way.
So to imagine that the campaign is the problem, when they were operating within a world that was entirely created by the fake media, and the fake media didn't give them an escape path.
There was no escape path.
They set them up.
The campaign had no chance.
No chance.
Now, I think the campaign is also incompetent, but they didn't have any escape path.
Good work, media.
CNN polls said 33% said Biden won the debate.
33% said Biden won that debate, even while the biggest supporters of Biden on all the major networks said, oh, he totally lost that debate.
He lost that hard.
And still, 33% of the public said, yeah, I think he won.
Looked good to me.
So, I might have to raise my number.
I used to say 25% of the public gets every question wrong.
It's a different 25% for each question.
But you can rely on 25% getting anything wrong.
So, I might have to raise that to 33% if they're... I feel like we're getting dumber.
All right.
So I immediately, as I said, turned to MSNBC to watch the show.
And Rachel Maddow was up first.
And she had not yet checked in with all of her colleagues who had decided by that time that it was a total disaster and there was no way they could sell this as any kind of a close debate.
But Rachel didn't know that yet.
So she started out before she had the other people weighing in.
Trying to make it sound like it was a little bit closer to a tie.
She got talked out of it pretty heavily by her co-workers and co-hosts.
But here are some other comments.
Oh, there's a user on X who goes by litecoin underscore bull who had a observation that is so good I'm angry.
Because the folks on MSNBC and even CNN were talking about possible replacements for Biden.
You know, that conversation is raging now.
And one of them is, of course, Gavin Newsom, governor of California.
But as litecoin underscore bull points out, Newsom sounds like noose.
Like putting a noose on him.
And if you're a white guy in the Democrat Party, it's going to be hard enough to be taken seriously.
But if you're a white guy whose name evokes lynching, you don't have a fucking chance.
Why did it take me so long to know that his name sounds like noose?
The worst thing it could possibly sound like if you're running for Democrat office.
Why did that take so long?
I'm so mad at myself.
Anyway, even Van Jones said Biden did not meet the test of restoring confidence.
His supporters were working hard to set the bar low that Joe just had to show they had enough energy to complete the job.
They say he just has to show that he is vital enough and he can do it.
And he did not.
And everyone agrees, he did not cross the very low bar.
So, very few people are trying to say that he won.
I don't think anybody, really.
Anybody in the professional world.
I did notice that at first, the MSNBC men were trying to resuscitate Joe.
Coming up with some reason why, well, He didn't lie as much?
And the funniest rationalization I heard was that he had a bad night.
He had that one bad night.
So maybe he could rehabilitate himself by having good days, and then people will forget the one bad day.
Because I mean really, as they explained to me, anybody can have one bad day.
I call this the O.J.
Simpson defense.
OJ only had one bad day, if you think about it.
Just one bad day.
Same with Biden.
He just won.
He had this long career.
He just had one bad day.
Can you judge somebody for one bad day?
Now, here's why this is hilarious.
These are smart, well-informed people.
If I'm looking for a president, here's who I don't want.
Somebody who could even have one day that looked like that.
If it was possible for Biden to have that one day, even just possible for him to have it, that's pretty disqualifying.
Especially since, as Greg Gutfeld pointed out on X, that it puts the H.E.R.
report into a new frame, doesn't it?
Remember before you thought, well, you know, it'd be nice to hear what the H.E.R.
report says.
That was the special prosecutor or whatever he's called that decided that they wouldn't prosecute Biden because he came across as a confused elderly man and the jury would be sympathetic.
And so the Republicans said, we've got to hear that.
You know, the transcript might be hiding how bad it was.
We got to hear the video or the audio.
And that was not allowed.
So, puts that in a new light, doesn't it?
So it goes from, you know, just a little bit of a, you know, one of these technical things that you're following with half a brain.
It takes it all the way back to something terrible.
Means that they knew, and they were covering it up.
The Democrats were willing to put whatever Biden is now into office knowing it.
Knowing it.
Whoa, we have a decision on January 6 Ryder's case.
We have a decision?
Can anybody confirm that?
There's a decision about the January 6?
All right, we're waiting for... The Supreme Court ruling is in.
They're overturned 5-4.
Favors Trump.
Supreme Court just favored Trump.
And what was this decision?
Remind me what the decision was.
Give me the update on this.
It overturned the January 6th convictions.
Holy shit.
Seriously?
It's the immunity one?
Holy cow Bye.
Wow.
Well, Trump's having a nice third act.
This might be the third act.
This might be it.
Wow.
All right, we'll have to catch up with this after the show.
Let me talk more about The debate?
So somebody who's good at things on the Democrat side decided that the response to having a bad debate would be that Biden would say, it's hard to debate a liar.
Now, if I'm going to evaluate that as a technique, it's really good.
It's a nice reframe for the Democrats.
I can't, it's hard to debate a liar.
I mean, it doesn't explain away his performance.
But it's the best you can do.
So if somebody professional came up with, it's hard to debate a liar, that's good work, persuasion-wise.
Anyway, Jill, his wife, totally humiliated himself, humiliated Biden after the debate.
So he's meeting with his supporters, Biden is, immediately after the debate, and Jill Biden gives a rousing but awkward introduction.
And then she turns to her husband and she says, You did great, Joe!
You answered all the questions!
Really?
You did great?
You answered all the questions?
That sounds exactly like you ate all your Cheerios.
That's how you talk to a child.
She talked to him like a child right in front of the world.
I was, I was just flabbergasted.
Did you really say good job?
You answered all the questions.
Oh my God.
My God.
That's terrible.
All right.
Um, So Eugene Robinson said it was a really, really bad and significantly bad night because it reinforced Biden's biggest weakness.
And he said, he doesn't have a problem being president.
He just has a problem running for president.
So really, you know, if you look at how he performs, it's been great.
But you know what they never say?
Joe today is not the Joe that got elected.
If they say he did great for the first year, I would say, well, okay, you know, if you got things you wanted, and there are things Democrats did want, and some legislation got passed, I would say, yeah, that's a supportable claim, that he seems to be operating, at least getting stuff done.
You know, maybe not at 100% capacity, but things are happening.
But you can't say that today.
You can't watch that debate and say he's the same person who even got elected.
It's ridiculous.
You got a little update there, Eugene.
So they're saying he's better on substance.
They're saying Trump benefited by the design of the debate.
But also Biden looked dead when he wasn't talking.
Did you see the camera angles when Biden wasn't talking, he was just listening?
He had one eye that would close every once in a while and one eye that would get wide.
And then when he would tell his big lies, he would go wide-eyed.
And he would look animated.
But when Trump was talking, he looked like he was going to die.
Like he was just going to fall over and die.
It's just the scariest, weirdest look.
Anyway, Michael Ian Black, who I had a long conversation with, many of you saw recently, He fact-checked the fine people hoax during the debate.
So he referenced me, and he said that the fine people hoax is a hoax.
Without any caveats.
No caveats.
It's a hoax.
Thank you.
So I responded that I have a great respect for that.
Because, you know, when we had our conversation, nobody's minds were changed, It looked like we had trouble communicating, but I had been sending him sources that I didn't think he'd seen, you know, sort of DMing each other on some stuff, and what it looks like is he had access to information that maybe had been denied from his new sources, and when he took them into account, he says unambiguously, the fine people hoax is a hoax.
Good job.
Thank you, Michael Ian Black.
All right.
Joel Pollack had an interesting observation.
He said, to me, what stands out the morning after is the fear in Biden's eyes.
He looks scared.
And that fear may be what is frightening the media as well.
How many of you picked up on that?
How many of you would say Biden looked frightened?
I agree with that.
I didn't see it like I could see it after Joel said it.
But once you hear it, you think, oh, you're right.
He did look afraid.
Now, the thing is that when he's talking, you know, he can do his Biden act.
But when he is not talking, he has a frightened and confused look on his face, because he kind of doesn't know what to do with himself, I guess.
So that confused look, this is a great reframe, by the way, and an accurate one, I think.
When you say to yourself, Biden looks lost and dementia-like and confused, you can see his face like that.
But if I tell you he's scared, you can instantly see it that way, can't you?
It's one of those illusions where the moment it's reframed, you go, oh, I see it now.
It's instant.
As soon as you say that's not confusion, that's fear.
And why wouldn't he have fear?
He is completely aware of his declining capabilities.
He's very aware that he's the president and he's in front of the world.
That had to be the scariest, most awful experience of his life.
You know, besides people dying, of course.
He did have some bad experiences in his life.
I will acknowledge that.
But in terms of politics, that had to be the worst moment of his life.
And he had to be scared to death because he would have known by then whether he was up to it and probably thought he wasn't.
Blank stare.
Yeah, the blank stare, that's all dementia looking.
Well, even the Daily Show, Jon Stewart, he had a reaction.
He could see that Button lost.
And he said they both need performance-enhancing drugs, and if you can't give them both performance-enhancing drugs, can you please give me some recreational ones?
That was pretty funny.
Now the question comes, now that we see how the debate went, why did he debate early?
Some say they debated early so they'd have time to replace him.
I say, if that's what they were thinking, it was a bad plan.
Because as others pointed out on CNN, the only person who can say, I'm going to quit is Joe Biden.
What are the odds of that happening?
Low.
They're low.
Because today his campaign is telling him he did a good job.
And all he has to do is brush up on a few things, he'll kill it next time.
Joe Biden is not going to admit defeat To Donald Trump.
He's too invested.
So it doesn't matter what we think.
It doesn't matter what the Democrat fundraisers think.
Only Biden can leave the race.
And he's not going to.
Now, if he were to, let's say, have more of a medical problem or get 25th amendmented, which I'll talk about, who would be his replacement?
There are very few things I can predict as confidently as the following.
It's not going to be Newsom.
Everybody thought that Newsom was a possibility.
It's not.
No, the Democrats are way too invested in DEI.
As Bakari Sellers said on CNN this morning, you can't have the white guy skip Kamala Harris, because she's already close to the office.
You can't have the governor skip her as a white guy, the greasy, slimy white guy.
No, there is no scenario in which, if Kamala Harris is still considered for the office, there is no scenario in which the Democrats can allow the white guy to skip her.
Can't happen.
You can just take that off the list.
The only way it could happen if, you know, let's say Kamala decided not to run or something happened to her, some new scandal or something we don't see coming.
But in the normal course of things, no, there cannot be a Governor Newsom as a Democrat.
And I'm going to go a little bit further.
Governor Newsom, if you're listening, you became a Republican yesterday.
You don't know it yet, but I'm pretty sure you did.
I know you're flexible on all the policy stuff, whatever's going to get you elected, but you just found out that your own party can never promote you because you're a white man.
Now that's not an exaggeration, Governor Newsom.
You just found out, and maybe you suspected it before, but you know it now, that you will not be considered because of your race and your gender.
You were part of making that happen, a big part.
You were a big part of making that happen.
And now it came back, bitch in the ass.
You still have time to become a Republican.
You could recover.
But if you stay with a party that won't have you in the party, well, you're a fucking idiot.
And by the way, I think you're a good politician.
You know, good at his job, good at speaking, smart.
But you need to make a change, and I think you might actually find some friends in the Republican Party.
The most surprising thing that people find when they move from Democrat to Republican is that the Republicans are good people, and they accept you immediately.
Nobody sees that coming.
Because it doesn't work the other way.
If I suddenly decide to act like an actual Democrat, say, all right, I'm out.
I'm going to back this Republican.
I would not be accepted.
Not even a little bit.
But Republicans have simple rules.
All right.
Are you now in favor of the Constitution?
Yes.
Alright, we're good. We're good. You just passed all the tests.
Do you obey the laws?
I'm going to try.
All right, we're good.
Very low bar.
All right.
I think that one of the reasons the debate happened early is that Biden was the only one who could decide.
I think they thought that if they could... Here's what I think.
I think that the people closest to Biden know he's failing fast, but he still has good moments.
If they could get one good debate, where they juice them just in time for the debate, and they get one good debate out of them, they can cancel the second one.
Right?
Easy to cancel the second one.
So they probably thought the sooner it is, the sooner they have more chance of getting a few good hours out of them during the day.
They may have known if they waited till October, there'd be nothing left.
They may have known that.
But I don't think they did it because they thought they'd have time to change him out.
Because I think within the Democratic Party, they have to understand that's not going to happen.
Because only he can decide and he's not going to.
And I think the Republicans will probably play politics and not go along with any kind of 25th Amendment thing.
Because they're going to say, fuck you, you picked him, you knew you were doing it, you're gonna have to ride this horse all the way to loss.
I am hearing whispers that even Democrat insiders believe that they lost the House and the Senate and the presidency last night.
Do you think that?
Do you think that Biden cost them the House, the Senate, and the presidency last night?
Maybe.
Totally possible.
All right.
Why do men like Trump and all of his energy?
I think it's natural.
If you're a man, you're drawn to strength.
And we saw a weak person and a strong person.
And I'm going to contradict myself a little bit.
I think Trump made a mistake talking about his golf game, but it still works for men.
I think as a man, as a man watching it, I was aware there was a wrong thing to bring up, but I also liked it.
Because men do respond to winning, and sports, and strength, and how do you swing a golf club?
We actually do.
But it's not going to move any votes.
So here's where I'm going to agree with my first take on it.
The men would like it, but they're not going to vote for him because he golfs well.
It's just a feeling.
It makes you feel a little better that he's got maybe some youth and vitality that Biden doesn't have.
But I think women look at that exact same exchange and say, you narcissistic jerk.
Why are you bragging about your golf during a debate?
So my guess is that it hurt him more with women than it helped him with men.
But no way to know.
His instincts are you always go for the energy and the strength.
And he's been right.
Right?
His results would suggest that he's better at anticipating these things than I am.
But my take is maybe that doesn't work with women.
All right.
Mike Johnson says he's going to file a lawsuit to see if he can get the Biden-Her tapes that we talked about.
I don't know if you'll get it, but it'll be interesting.
A few more things.
Rasmussen did a poll that says 45% of likely U.S.
voters trust Democrats more to handle abortion, while 43% trust Republicans more.
That's almost the statistical tie between who's going to handle abortion better.
Did you see that coming?
I still think Trump could have... Trump's abortion answers are a solid B. B as in boy.
But it could be an A+.
Just with one little tweak.
And the one little tweak is, when I moved it to the States, can you and I both agree that you want me to be less involved in the decisions about your body?
Because that's what I gave you.
When you ask me if I would do a national ban or I would do a national anything, you're asking me to be involved in your body.
That's the opposite of what you want.
I think you should be more involved in your body.
And if the state doesn't do what you want, they don't have the right laws, I think you should get involved and you should vote the way that you think you need to vote.
But can we both agree that you don't want me making decisions about your body?
I'm not your doctor.
Because I think that would be just a killer, killer argument.
So people think that he has control over their bodies, when everything he's done is the opposite.
When they asked him if he was okay with the abortion pill, he said yes, which is another way to say I'm not going to get involved, because yes is the current situation.
So he's not going to change it.
So every time he says, I'm not going to get involved, whether it's just agreeing with something or saying that he already moved it to the States, that's really strong.
You want your fate of your body as far away from me and every other president as you can, as close as you can get it to you and the people who are close to you and care about you the most.
That's what I did for you.
All right.
The House Judiciary Committee is going to hold the Biden ghostwriter guy in contempt of Congress for not giving him his information, I guess.
We'll see if that returns anything.
And, well, I was going to tell you that Julie Kelly thought that the Supreme Court was waiting on the decisions until after the debate.
What do you think?
Do you think the Supreme Court was being political and they released their most important decision until after the debate?
I think so.
But you know what?
I'm going to back them.
I do think if they had armed Trump with a decision right before he walked on stage, he would have used it to beat Biden to death with a decision, because it was a big one.
If it's the one about January 6th, it's a big one.
But the Supreme Court has sort of a standard, which they don't want to be the ones controlling the outcome.
They want to make sure that they're just doing their work and not doing the work of politicians.
So I'm going to say, if they intentionally held that back for political purposes, I'm going to back them on that.
Because I think the situation was too hot going into the debate.
Now it's just news.
So it takes the heat off it.
It's still hot, but imagine if it had been the biggest news in the debate.
Now we can simply look at it with a little bit more objectivity.
Now you might say to yourself, Scott just gave birth to a rhino.
Now, you may say to yourself, but Scott, they should just do the things and the schedule they're going to do them, and they should be oblivious to how it will change politics.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I think their instinct to have the smallest imprint on politics is what I respect most about the court.
And if you lose that, I think you've given up a lot.
So if they held it off, maybe they'll even tell you.
Maybe they'll say it was a little too hot, I didn't want it to affect the debate, but we do want everybody to know, of course.
Oh, you can disagree with that and I won't argue with you.
There's evidence that Google was rigging the Trump website results.
If you go to look for the Trump website, if you wanted to donate, it's hard to find.
Biden comes up right away.
Surprise!
So now we have two situations which are clearly, I think, pretty verifiable election rigging.
So if it's true, and I'm sure it is, that Google is gaming the search results, That would be rigging an election.
It's just pre-rigging.
It just rigs the votes.
But the votes might be counted correctly.
They just would be rigged out of the election.
And then you add to that the lawfare against Trump.
I would say the lawfare is really obvious election interference.
That's the only reason they're doing it.
So you have two cases that are both obvious and observable.
Everybody can see it.
That we do not have a fair election.
Now, I'm done with the argument about whether or not it's rigged, because it's just so obvious and we don't have to do any research.
You just have to be familiar with the news.
If you're familiar with the news, you know that both the left and the right leaning legal analysts said that the lawfare case in New York was lawfare, that it was political.
There's nobody who disagrees.
That's now objectively true.
CNN says it.
Fox News says it.
It was a bullshit case.
So you don't have to wonder if that one was election interference.
The only thing you wonder about that is how involved the White House was.
But that doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if it's somebody who donated to Biden or if it's Biden saying to go do it.
It's election interference because the purpose of it Was election interference the purpose of it?
So yes, we cannot claim we have free and fair elections, or even close to it, even if you count it right.
Even in the unlikely event that you count it right, it's pre-rigged.
Which doesn't mean that Trump can't win, by the way.
Because he's going to have a commanding preference from the voters, I think.
All right.
Just a little teaser here.
The real story at the Washington Post.
Brian Stelter.
He's writing for the Atlantic about what a garbage pit the Washington Post has become.
I could not enjoy it more.
By the way, I'm making fun of the Washington poop in the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can only see by subscription on X or on Locals.
And they're talking about how the world's greatest businessman, Bezos, drove his newspaper into a ditch.
The world's greatest businessman.
Bezos.
I wonder if there's any other American who you might put in the mix of the world's greatest businessman.
I don't know.
I might have ranked him second.
But all right, you could call him first.
But I would like to point out that everything Democrats touch turns to shit.
So the Democrats running the Washington Post, it went to hell.
The Democrats are running CNN, it went to hell.
The Democrats are running MSNBC, it went to hell.
Biden is running, his campaign is run by Democrats, it went to shit.
The country itself, run by Democrats, it's got some issues.
I will, by the way, I will agree with Biden on one major point.
If you don't count debt, which is kind of a big problem, we're kind of doing okay.
Now, I know that prices are way too high.
I don't want to minimize that.
And there are dangers from Ukraine and all kinds of stuff.
But except for that, we're a very resilient country.
You forget that you need to step back every now and then.
And as an American, pat yourself on the back.
We have one hell of a resilient public.
Our public is way better than the government.
Way better.
For whatever reason, we've managed to attract a kind of people who don't say no to obstacles.
And if you're going to put some tax obstacles, they'll find a way around it.
You're going to make it hard for me 10 different ways.
I'm going to find a way anyway.
So that's very American and it helps us out of almost every scrape that we just we just don't quit.
We're just not quitters.
We will just you know, bang on that wall until we knock it down.
And so here we are with one of the stronger economies, but I'm still waiting for an answer whether we can just create a Crypto that's pegged to the dollar and pay off all the debt with a crypto that we made out of nothing.
So long as the people who get that crypto can spend it anytime they want and it's still worth a dollar.
As long as the United States is willing to accept it for tariffs and taxes, there'll always be an exchange in which you can exchange it for a dollar.
So I haven't heard yet.
Why that doesn't work.
There must be a reason.
There must be a reason why it doesn't work.
But it might.
It might.
And it's a once-ever.
There will only be one time in the civilization when we can go to crypto as a government.
Only once.
So if the only thing you did is make some weak little crypto or replace the dollar, that's a mistake.
You don't want to replace the dollar.
You want to augment it.
But at the same time, since you're creating money out of nothing, why don't you just make all the dollars that were in the debt paid off the same day?
And if somebody gets crypto, they say, Hey, I've got crypto.
What am I, I can't, I don't know how to cash this crypto.
Well, then the government creates an exchange and they say, here, just cash it right here.
Here's your website.
Now, will that work?
Here's why I'm, uh, Here's why I'm a little sheepish about it.
I'm sheepish about it because it seems too easy, which is usually a, you know, an obvious signal for something that's a bad idea.
Hmm, that looks a little too easy.
But I haven't heard a counter argument, and by now I should have.
Yeah.
Now, remember, don't confuse this with a free-floating crypto.
You can't use Bitcoin for this.
You'd have to peg it to the dollar, so it's always worth a dollar.
And the government would have to say, we'll always accept it.
So these are special cases.
It's not like anything that ever has happened or could ever happen again.
We might have one and only one chance to eliminate $35 trillion of debt.
Painlessly.
My biggest problem with that is that the Democrats would run back the debt to $35 trillion in five years.
So if you didn't simultaneously get your spending under control, which by the way would be greatly helped by getting rid of all interest payments, now that the interest payments are almost the biggest part of the debt.
By the way, all right, I need a fact check on this.
If you eliminated all interest debt on our Would that balance the budget?
Or is it so far off balance that even that wouldn't do it?
Even if you took away the biggest expense, our interest payments.
Would that balance the budget?
I have to look at that.
For some reason I don't know that.
So the counter is hyperinflation.
So here's my counter to the counter.
Nobody created money.
There's no money created in this idea.
You replaced Dollars with crypto and when you were done you had the same amount of money as before Once you pay off the debt, you're simply releasing the money that already existed that anybody could have released on their own Liquidity would be fine as long as they can immediately change it for dollars if they wanted to oh But if they exchange it for dollars Okay.
Okay, you might have me you might have me here if too many people exchange it for dollars Then you would have inflation.
Would you?
Or would it just immediately throw too much money into circulation and take it out of a holding place?
So maybe it would make the money too hot.
That could be the problem.
It would make the money too hot.
It would be the same amount, but it would be freed from being locked up, and then it would be buzzing all over the place.
And that's, yeah, that could be the problem.
I wonder if you could do it in a phased way.
Suppose you say it's a 10-year plan, and we're going to introduce this much crypto over 10 years, and then we can absorb it.
All right, so here's what I'm going to end with, at least on that topic.
I'd love to hear a smart person tell me what's wrong with it, just so I can stop thinking about it.
But I feel like there's something there.
Even if I'm only in the neighborhood, I think there's something there.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is my show for the day.
I'm going to say see you later to the YouTube and X and Rumble viewers so I can spend some time with my beloved subscribers on Locals.
I hope you enjoyed the show.
I feel sorry for everybody who has to wait to the afternoon to do their shows, because I got to say all the good stuff first.
