God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Steve Bannon, Phil Bump, Grok 2, Grok 3, Elon Musk, Kamala Harris, Community Notes, Anti-Trump Propaganda, President Trump, President Biden, OJ Defense Strategy, Project 2025, Heritage Foundation, Irony Comprehension, Sense of Humor, Tucker Carlson, Obama-Biden Relationship, Jill Biden, Biden Donor Refunds, Trump Immunity SCOTUS, Michael LaRosa, Gaslighting Awareness, Michael Ian Black, Climate Change 97%, Unhackable Election Systems, France Election System, Marine Le Pen, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
But I'm going to call up a special feed here, just for my beloved locals people, so I can see you especially.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining.
All right.
And we'll be up and running in one moment here, or maybe not.
This doesn't seem to be working either.
All right, well, starting the day with massive technological failures.
But is that going to stop me?
Possibly.
There we go.
Everything's working now.
We're all good.
All right, welcome.
Fuck me.
I think everything that could go wrong has gone wrong so far.
But let's see if we can get this going.
Oh my god, that's not working.
All right, we got another problem.
All right.
So, let's see.
Should I continue with my technology not working at all?
Yeah, I think we can do this.
We can do this.
Except I don't see any comments, which suggests that a lot of things are not working at the moment.
Oh, you know what I can do?
I wonder if I can print from my phone.
Let's see if it's the printer or the device.
There should be a button to print.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, let's see if my printer makes a noise now.
Oh, it is.
Look at that.
Everything's working now.
All right.
So that means I can put my phone onto comments.
And then the show will begin.
OK, seriously?
All right, so the show's not showing up there.
I'll find it.
This is going to work, damn it.
There you go.
There we go.
I got notes.
I got comments.
I got sound.
I got lighting.
The worst beginning of a show ever.
Let's try that again.
Welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
The worst produced show in the history of shows.
I don't think anything could go more wrong with that so far.
If you'd like to take your enjoyment to this day up to levels that nobody can even understand, starting from this pathetic beginning, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank of Charles Stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
That's so good.
Alright, looks like everything's working now.
First story of the day.
There's a new study that says drinking coffee, or actually it's a new expert saying this, an award-winning doctor is saying that the way to boost your bedroom happiness and the strength of your orgasms is coffee.
Apparently coffee can make you have stronger orgasms.
So I could use a little boost.
I don't know about you?
A little bit extra?
Anybody?
Anybody want to put a little charge in the pencil?
No?
Well, I would like to suggest a toast, if you haven't had enough coffee yet.
A toast to Steve Bannon.
Who is apparently going to die on the cross for our sins.
And he's going to be executed and put in a big cave for four months.
They're going to roll a big rock in front of it and hope for the best.
I feel like he's going to come back stronger.
I feel like that's not something that they've totally anticipated.
So we'll see how that goes.
All right.
Devin Nunes had a defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post, and that didn't work out.
So Judge Nichols has ruled in favor of the Washington Post.
And I didn't read the actual ruling, but since malice was not proven, their defense was, I believe, something like this.
You and the jury, you know we still employ Phil Bump, right?
And people would say, Phil Bump.
I've heard of him.
Yeah, he still works there.
So our defense is that we're dumb enough to hire Phil Bump and keep him on the staff.
So it probably wasn't malice.
It was probably just stupidity.
And the jury said, you still have Phil Bump on your staff?
We do.
Oh, well, we don't need to hear any more.
Rest of your case.
You're obviously too stupid to have malice.
So that worked out.
So Rowan Chung is saying that Agility Robotics, it's a robot making business, they just signed this multi-year deal to provide robots as a service.
In other words, they're renting robots to a big warehouse plant and it's subscription-based, it looks like.
You'll be able to buy robots by the hour, I guess.
So we're getting closer and closer to the day I told you is coming where currency, whatever our currency becomes, will be backed by robot time and electricity, the two things that we know we'll need forever into the future.
Robot time, not the robot necessarily itself, but like an hour of robot time.
Because robots are going to be pretty similar after a point.
You know, they're all going to be lifting things and seeing things and thinking things largely the same as the other robots.
So Elon Musk is saying, according to Mario Nafal, That Grok 2 will be released in August, and here's why it took so long.
Were you wondering why Grok wasn't updating as fast as other things?
There's a reason.
According to Musk, quote, it takes a lot of work to purge LLMs from the internet training data.
In other words, Musk was not going to be happy.
With an AI that he made that was woke.
Now, I'm putting my own spin on this.
He didn't say that.
But it seems to me that they had to get rid of all the bullshit and the lies on the internet to create an AI that's useful for anything.
Now, if you've tried using one of the big commercial AIs, they're a little bit woke.
There's a lot of stuff they won't even talk about.
They'll even say, that's not appropriate.
I can't even have that conversation.
So, let's see if that works.
And then by the end of the year, we'll have Grok 3, and it's going to be, quote, really something special.
Now, when Musk says that something is going to be really something special, has he ever lied about anything like that?
I mean, that's the man that put a Tesla in space.
When he says something's going to be really something special, he doesn't have any kind of history of exaggerating.
Not stuff like that.
So I got a feeling it's going to be pretty darn special.
We'll see.
Anyway, Musk was also mocking the politicians and Kamala Harris in particular, because he said, when will the politicians learn that you can't lie on X because it gets fact checked by community notes?
So Kamala Harris was posting on X that Trump will ban abortion nationwide.
Which is literally the opposite of what he promised.
So she got community noted.
I don't think it makes any difference.
You know, the one thing that we know for sure is that just people don't really care if something's true or not.
They really care if it's Trump or not Trump.
But beyond that, they don't really care if the politicians lie or they just want what they want.
So here's my enduring question.
Can anybody explain to me, a Democrat, can any Democrats explain to me what makes Trump so scary?
Because they're all quite afraid of him, or so they say.
But what exactly?
What exactly?
Does he have claws?
Give me a little detail.
Because I guess stuff like he'll steal our democracy, he wants to be a dictator, he's going to bring chaos, he thinks he's above the law.
And then the latest one, their new campaign ad is, he doesn't care about you.
Does any of that even sound a little bit true?
He's going to steal your democracy, become a dictator, and he doesn't care about you?
Why do they have to make stuff up if he's bad?
If somebody was really bad, you don't have to make stuff up, do you?
Let me give a demonstration.
Hitler was bad.
And he was in charge of the Holocaust.
How hard was that?
That wasn't hard.
Hitler, Holocaust, real stuff, you know.
But now let's do Trump.
Well, he was colluding with Russia.
Okay, he wasn't colluding with Russia.
No, that didn't happen.
He's going to steal your democracy like he did on January 6.
Well, no, he didn't steal any democracy on January 6 because it wasn't even a possibility.
I mean, how do you trespass your way to conquering a country?
Not really a path there.
So he thinks he's above the law.
Is that a real statement about anybody?
Have you ever met anybody who thought they were above the law?
It's not even a real thing.
It's not just not a real thing for Trump.
It's not a real thing for anybody.
Nobody has ever thought they were above the law.
It's completely an imaginary problem.
So now they're saying that Trump doesn't care about you.
At the same time, we're seeing that the Democrats have been running a brain dead zombie.
Thanks to Jill Biden, apparently she's the key to this.
And does any of that sound like they care about you?
Does Jill Biden seem to you that she's acting in a way that she cares about you?
I'd say no.
Is Joe Biden acting in a way that seems like it's good for the country?
Clearly not.
Not even a little bit.
Do you know what's the difference between Biden and Trump in terms of caring?
Here's the main difference.
Trump is still capable of caring because his brain is still working.
If Biden had the capacity to care at one point, at the moment he doesn't even have the capacity to know there's something to care about.
He would be unaware of his own dementia.
That's the way it works.
Everybody can see it but the person who has it.
So do you think Biden's doing a lot of caring about the fact that he's brain dead and he might be president again?
No!
Whatever's happening is a lot of not caring about you.
Do you think they cared about the January 6th people they put in jail?
Nope.
They only cared that it was good for their team.
Do they care that they have bastardized all of the legal system just to get one guy?
Nope!
They don't care about you.
They care about getting Trump.
So it's the weirdest, most artificial, made-up, ridiculous projection you'll ever see in your life.
But they're selling it to their idiot followers because they've been so brainwashed they'll buy anything at this point.
So Jill Biden is on the cover of Vogue.
Not the best timing.
If you were going to be accused of being the real power behind your dementia president, the last thing you want the same week is to appear on the cover of Vogue.
That's a really bad look.
That's a whole let them eat cake look.
And Molly Hemingway was reminding us on X that Vogue went four years without putting an actual supermodel Melania on the cover.
You actually had a first lady who for the first time was an actual cover model.
Nope, didn't make it.
But thank God we've got this vision of beauty, Jill Biden, so she made it.
And she said, so apparently Joe Biden was not talked into leaving.
His family wants to hold tight.
And Jill says, we will not let those 90 minutes defined the four years he's been president.
They're literally doing the OJ defense.
OJ only had 90 bad minutes.
If you look at the average over his whole life, pretty good.
Pretty good average.
It's just that one 90-minute period of slaying.
You take that out of the mix and everything looks different, people.
Everything looks different.
Sure, if you take the fact that he now has severe dementia to the point where he can't do his basic job of doing a debate, if you ignore that, yeah, he looks pretty good.
Yep.
If you ignore all of his policies, too.
Looks pretty good.
So if you ignore all of his policies, all of his performance in that 90 minutes, well, people, he looks pretty good under those conditions.
So, um, Republicans though, have a plan to lose.
I didn't realize this.
There's something called the project 2025 plan, which I'm just finding out about.
I haven't seen, but apparently there's an extensive document put together by somebody in the Republican world.
That says all the Republican-y things they're going to do when they have power.
That might be the dumbest fucking thing I've seen in a hundred years.
Do you know what is the only way you can lose this election under the current situation?
You know, unless something bad happens to Trump or some new thing.
What is the only way that Republicans can find a way to lose this election?
It's this.
Put together a big document with lots of scary stuff in it that can be misinterpreted as worse than it is.
And they did it!
Now, I'd love to know who's behind it.
Can somebody tell me who's behind this Project 2025?
Because whoever it is is not doing the work of the Republicans.
There's somebody who's trying to figure out the best way to lose an election.
It looks like this.
And by the way, I don't even know what's in it.
But I assure you, it's stuff that sounds really scary to Democrats and really terrific to Republicans who are, you know, a little bit hardcore.
Why in the world would anybody create that document, which looks like it's hundreds of pages of reasons not to vote for Trump?
I mean, it's not what it's trying to be.
You know, that didn't seem to be the intent, but that's what it is.
It's basically a gigantic document about why no Democrat should allow a Republican ever to get in office.
Why would you create that?
I mean, seriously, I'd love to know who's the author of that.
Like the main author?
Because I have some suspicions about that.
I don't think they're on your side, is what I'm saying.
Yeah, and why is it that I don't know?
Because usually a story like this would come with the author, right?
If something was in the news and it was important... Oh, here we go.
I've got pictures of the authors.
Paul Danz, Heritage Foundation.
Spencer Cretien and Troop Hemingway.
So it's the Heritage Foundation.
So is the Heritage Foundation trying to lose the election?
Is that what they do?
What does the Heritage Foundation do besides try to lose an election and destroy the country?
Do they do anything good or just only bad things like this?
It's just such a head shaker that somebody would put their effort into making their team lose.
There's nothing good that can come from that document.
All right.
I saw the account called the Fisher King.
And he said that large numbers of people are incapable of performing or understanding irony.
Comedy requires verbal dexterity, a playfulness with reality that is just beyond many people.
And he thinks that part of the Trump phenomenon and the unreal hatred boils down to this basic stupidity, the inability to get a joke.
Now, as you know, I've been on this page for a while and I've observed over many years That about one third of the general public literally doesn't have a sense of humor.
Literally.
In the same way some people can taste cilantro and it's bad and some can't.
It's really just basic biology.
Some people don't have the circuitry for a sense of humor.
Now why is it you don't know that?
If it's the first time you're hearing it, why is it you didn't know it before?
And the reason is it's well hidden.
For example, I used to give lots of presentations, and I'd look out in the audience, and two-thirds would be laughing their asses off, and one-third would be sitting there like, when is this going to be over?
And I thought, well, maybe it's just me.
Maybe I appeal to some number of people and not others.
But I contend that that's the ratio that you'll see everywhere in every context.
It's not just me on stage.
There are a number of people who will laugh, and so therefore you think they have a sense of humor.
But if you drill down on what they're laughing at, two-thirds of the people would be laughing at things that look like jokes.
One-third would be laughing because somebody fell in a mud puddle.
Falling in a mud puddle is not a joke.
I mean, it doesn't have any complexity to it.
It's funny.
I like it too.
But the people with no sense of humor will laugh at somebody falling in a puddle or getting hit in the balls.
But that's not exactly a joke.
That's literally something bad happening to somebody.
Think about that.
One third of the public will only laugh at something where something unambiguously bad happened to another person.
And that's it.
They don't need any punchline, no complexity.
I just want to see something bad happen to somebody I don't know.
That is their sense of humor.
Now, if you understand that, you understand why people would think, wait a minute, When Trump says he wants to be a dictator for a day, how can I possibly interpret that other than he wants to be a dictator?
If you had no sense of humor, you wouldn't even understand what he was talking about.
You just would have no filter.
You'd say, it sounds like he wants to be a dictator.
No, it's just a funny way to say it.
Yeah, I'll be a dictator for a day.
It's just a joke.
And a third of the country is like, no, he's a dictator.
He's coming.
All right.
I think there's more to it.
I think that, you know, actually I'll get to this.
Hold that thought and we'll get back to it.
Tucker Carlson says he has what he calls an unusually good source about Biden and Obama.
Now, if you don't know Tucker, If you haven't been watching him.
If he says something like, I have an unusually good source, that would be in the category of things you should really take seriously.
If he says, I had some guests on that said we have UFOs in a warehouse, and he believes that, hypothetically, that's not something you should believe.
Because that would be Tucker believing somebody else.
But if Tucker tells you a fact that he saw himself, such as I have an unusually good source, that doesn't mean the source is right, but it does mean that Tucker has an unusually good source. Now here's how I interpret it. Family member. I think it's a family member. I don't know who, but I don't think you would say unusually good source in this situation unless you really had somebody who's in the room, and that would have to be a family member.
Or maybe it's somebody in the Obama team.
But anyway, here's what he says.
He says, Obama's tweet supporting Biden, which happened yesterday or the day before, was disingenuous.
In private, Obama is telling people Biden can't win and is therefore in favor of an open convention.
Obama will not say whom he supports, nor, as of yesterday afternoon, had he met personally with Biden to deliver the message.
Relationship between the Obamas and Bidens have never been warm.
You know, that feels right to me.
You know, Obama and the Bidens have been selling this, you know, we're best friends story.
It never felt real.
I always felt it might be a little tortured, but that's what Tucker's saying.
And he says, at times they've been hostile, but recently they've deteriorated further, mostly due to Jill Biden.
That sounds right.
In the hours and days after the debate, she kept her husband cloistered away from anyone who might convince him to drop out, and Jill Biden is the driving force behind her husband's re-election campaign, as she was in 2020.
And other family members, including Biden's sister Val, considered him too impaired to run back in 2020.
The next generation of potential Democratic candidates understands as an opportunity in their circling, particularly Gretchen Whitmer.
All right.
So I wonder how much anybody knows about the inner workings of anything.
Bye.
I'm always a little bit skeptical when somebody's got reports about what somebody's thinking, what their motivations are behind closed doors if they haven't said them.
But these do seem within the reasonable range.
It does seem to me That Jill Biden does seem to be the key character that would be convincing her husband he's healthy enough to run.
But I won't go further into saying she's a megalomaniac who wants power for herself.
That's a little too far.
I think you could observe that she must be the influential one, because she's the one who's closest.
She's the gatekeeper.
But to go further to say what her internal motivations are, that's a stretch.
We don't like it, whatever it is.
Wall Street Silver is reporting on X that Biden's sources of funding is drying up, and that some of the donors were even asking for refunds.
How bad would you have to mess up before your donors ask for a refund?
I think asking for a refund sounds like a little bit of an understatement.
Imagine how mad you would be if you gave money under the assurances that this man was capable of running for office, and then you find out in the worst possible way during the debate that not only was he not able to run, but people knew it.
It's the people knew it.
That's the problem.
If I were a donor to the Democratic Party, I would never give again.
Because they lied in the most basic, important lie of all.
Is the candidate mentally capable of doing the work?
That's about as big a lie as you can get.
And if I gave a million dollars or more to a party that lied to me to get the money, I would never give again.
I might not give to the other party, but I would take myself out of that process so fast.
I would just say I'm out.
I'm never going to give you money again.
I wonder if that'll happen.
But here's what I'm watching happening.
Is it your understanding that the only way we could get to the point where America was surprised that Biden has dementia, the only way you could get there is if the entire media colluded to keep that information from you that was kind of obvious to all of them.
Now the media on the right, the Fox News, the Breitbarts, you know, they were always on this.
They knew exactly who Biden was and where he was at.
But if you didn't see that news, and people on the left don't see any of it, it was their own media that convinced them they weren't seeing the obvious.
But now that same media who convinced you that what you were looking at was not what you were looking at, once they got caught, have you noticed they're blaming Jill Biden?
you They're blaming Jill.
They're making a story about how she's the gatekeeper, she's the one who's behind everything, and she's the one who's kept this from you.
No, she didn't.
No, Jill Biden is the person who tried to keep it from us.
The one who actually kept us from it, given that all the signals were clear, the one who kept it from people was the media.
And to watch them throwing Jill Biden under the bus?
Now, maybe she deserves a little under-the-bus treatment.
But to imagine that she's the reason why Democrats don't know that Joe Biden has dementia?
That's not even close to true.
What's closer to true is the media didn't report it.
They could see it just like we could.
Anybody who saw the videos.
And they tried to sell it as cheap fakes.
Even when you saw it with your own eyes, they said, well, I don't know.
I don't know if you're seeing with your own eyes what you think you're seeing.
So yes, watching the media blame Jill for all of that is pretty sickening.
Trump is immune unless it's an unofficial act.
Hey, so we've got an update.
Let's take a look at this.
All right.
Trump is immune unless it's for unofficial acts.
So the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within Uh, within his authority, basically.
And he's also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Okay.
Now pulling all this together, if Trump has immunity for official acts, but not for unofficial acts, uh, now connect the dots.
If he has immunity for official acts, That would include the official acts of what?
I've confused myself on the Lawfare.
Does this affect the Boxgate or January 6th or both?
We'll have to catch up with this afterwards.
I'm not sure how this will really affect things, so I think it's going to take a few hours for the pundits to sort out whether this really matters or not.
Because something tells me that the weasels will find a way to say, well, it wasn't really official, was it?
How official was it, really?
Yeah, it wasn't totally official.
What does official mean anyway?
So, since we know that Democrats change words to mean different things when they don't like them, if they don't like this word official, they're just going to redefine it.
Well, I think official means you have to be sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office.
Well, nobody said that.
No, but that's what it means.
That's what it means.
No, but really, a reasonable interpretation of an official would be Sort of anything he does within his job.
No, he's going to have to be sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office, or it doesn't count.
Now, I don't think they'll do that specifically, but how many times have we seen them redefine a word because they don't like what the word meant?
Well, that word is not working in our favor.
We're going to redefine you until we get something we like.
All right, we'll check back in on that.
Could be a big deal.
Sure, let's see.
Yeah, the question we have to ask is, if Trump is such a bad criminal, why do the bad guys have to make up crimes if he's just such an obvious criminal?
Why do they have to make stuff up?
It all looks made up to me.
At least made up in the sense that other people would not be charged.
All right, so The Hill is saying these major media have called for Biden to resign.
The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Economist, Chicago Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
But the Washington Post has not said anything.
So I feel like there's some celebration in the Biden household.
I can imagine Jill Biden looking at the headlines and she's like, oh damn, we lost the New York Times.
What?
The New Yorker too?
The Economist?
Chicago Tribune?
No!
No, the Atlanta Journal too?
We've lost all of them?
And then, in a moment of calm, she says, thank God, we still have Phil Bump at the Washington Post.
We haven't lost Phil Bump.
And so that's something to cling to.
They still have Phil Bump, the least credible journalist in the world.
All right.
There's a former Biden aide who, Michael La Rosa, he used to be the press secretary for Jill Biden, so he's not anymore, but he says, quote, he said, I want to get his exact quotes, he said, Jesus Christ, what's with all the gaslighting?
So this Biden aide, Has realized that he worked for a group that does nothing but make up stories about the gaslighting.
So he's basically, he's out.
He lashed out at the White House's former communications director, Kate Bedingfield, and argued that she was gaslighting the American people.
Just hold this in your head.
Michael La Rosa, he was the press secretary for the first lady, Jill Biden.
That's about as inside as you can be.
And he's telling the world, publicly, they are gaslighting you.
He's telling you he knew from the inside.
He's saying they're gaslighting you.
And they are.
All right.
Michael Ian Black posted the other day.
He's sort of mocking people who don't agree with climate science because 97% of climate science are on the same page, he says, and therefore, you know, why do you think they're wrong?
I mean, come on, 97%.
That's a lot.
Am I right?
I mean, if 97% of the experts are all on the same page, well, that can only mean one thing.
They must be right.
Right?
Well, here's the fun part.
If you're a Democrat right now, and you're on your road to enlightenment, where you're waking up from the gaslighting that Michael La Rosa tells you about, here's what that path looks like.
Number one, wait a minute, what?
Are you telling me that Russia collusion was a hoax all along?
What?
Russia collusion was a hoax?
Huh.
Well, at least hoaxes are not common in politics.
At least it's not common.
Wait, what?
Those 51 intelligence professionals all lied about Hunter's laptop?
Wait a minute, that was real?
The laptop was real?
The entire media said it wasn't real.
That's weird.
Huh.
Well, but that's just two things.
I mean, you know, it's not like the media is just making hoax after hoax.
It's just two.
No big deal.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Did I just see a CNN legal analyst say that no one but Trump would have been charged with these lawfare crimes?
Wait, no one but Trump would be charged?
I thought I was on the team that was, no one's above the law, but that sounds like somebody's being abused by the law on my team.
My team's doing that.
Wait a minute, you're telling me the CNN and Fox News both agree that the New York case against Trump was made up and the law doesn't even exist?
Wow, that's weird.
But it's probably just about Trump, I mean.
It's not some kind of general thing.
Maybe that's just a special thing about Trump.
Number four.
Why do all the weird scare stories about Trump sound totally made up?
How exactly would he steal my democracy?
Were the January 6th protesters minutes away from conquering the combined military might of the United States by their method of rearranging lecterns and trespassing?
How exactly would that work?
Why didn't any of those people use guns?
At least the people who were protesting.
I thought they liked guns, but they didn't bring them.
It's almost as if that January 6th thing was completely made up, and what they were really doing was protesting an outcome of an election that looked a little suspicious.
Just like Democrats do.
And then, from there, we get the holy shit moment that goes like this.
I'm watching this debate between Trump and Biden.
Holy shit, was the entire media landscape lying to me about Biden's mental acuity?
Wait, they were all lying, except the people that I thought only do fake news?
Okay, maybe I'm not understanding this.
Let me see if I can understand this.
Are you telling me that 100% of the media that I consume knew that Biden had bad brain, but acted like he didn't?
But the media that I was sure I was told, they all told me this is the fake news.
The Fox News is, you know, the Breitbart.
Why did they get it right from the start?
But my news got it all wrong.
Every single one of them.
Huh.
And now, why are they pretending they didn't know until the debate?
Why are they gaslighting me that this was a big surprise that snuck up on them?
How could they possibly have been surprised by this?
Well, at least all of the big surprises are over.
Well, if this describes you, and you're a Democrat, and you're on your path to waking up to what has been done to you, Let me tell you where it's going next.
This will be you in maybe a few years.
At least I know climate change isn't totally made up.
I mean, how could 97% of scientists be wrong?
So at least I have something to cling to.
That, yeah, maybe it is true that my team lied to me about really important stuff.
Like, really important.
And it is true that they do ops where they make up an entire story.
Well, I want to give you a spoiler, if that's where you are.
So it's not just been wrong. There's actually coordinated operations to create narratives that weren't real. Well, I want to give you a spoiler if that's where you are. So if you are at the point where you're starting to question all those other things that have been confirmed not to be true that you were once told were true, this is what you're going to find out next.
Now, I want you to sit down because this isn't going to be easy if you're a Democrat.
Sit down.
Seriously, sit down.
The only way that 97% of experts could be wrong about climate change would be exactly the way they were wrong about the pandemic.
You know, key facts about the pandemic.
And the same way that 97% of journalists told you that Joe Biden was mentally fine.
Do you see the pattern yet?
That 97% of experts in every field have no predictive power so long as they also have bosses.
That's the pattern.
You look, you saw the wrong pattern.
If you think the pattern is if 97% of the experts agree, That must be true.
That's not the pattern.
The pattern is that if all the people who have a boss say it's true, then you've heard nothing.
That would be the same as no information.
Because the boss, whoever the boss is, or in this case it might be entities that do grants and funding, people who give you money basically, if they have to agree with the narrative because they're an entity trying to operate in the real world, And they have to make their customers and stockholders happy.
The big entities don't really have an option of bucking something as important as climate change.
So they make sure that their employees and the people they give grants to are all on the same page.
But the person who's the expert is not the boss.
The expert needs to get paid.
If there's one thing we know for sure, experts will either shut up if they don't want to lie, Or they will lie.
Sometimes they don't know they're lying, because money will distort you that way.
It's like, no, I'm not lying.
I just need money.
That's your next surprise.
And I think for a while I'm going to back off on explaining to people why climate science is bullshit.
Which, by the way, I don't know if the climate is warming, and I don't know how much, if anything, human activity matters.
I'm just saying that what they're telling you is obvious bullshit.
I don't know what the truth is, I just know what they're telling you isn't.
Because prediction models cannot predict the future.
That's not a thing.
So, now I'm just going to say, wait until you find out about the 97% of the experts.
Because everybody who's looked into it found out it's sketchy.
Everybody.
Everybody who's looked into it.
But if you've never looked into it, and you just heard on TV that 97% of experts are on the same side, that would be persuasive.
So I'm just going to say, wait until you find out about the 97% of experts.
That's when you get out of the matrix.
That's the big one.
But, you know, while it seems that every single thing the Democrats have touched is crooked, corrupt, gaslighting, or a pure lie, can we agree on one thing?
Thank God our elections are clean.
Oh man.
Can you imagine what a bad situation we'd be in if our elections were not pure?
But no, we managed to use the only kind of electronic devices that are unhackable.
All the other kind can be hacked.
You know that, right?
The kind that we use to protect our nuclear facilities, the military stuff, things on airplanes.
You know, a lot of those things you'd think they're important too, but they can't be protected because we know that the hackers get in all the time.
In fact, we think that Chinese hackers might be in every one of our critical infrastructure systems, which have the maximum cybersecurity.
But thank God they can't get into our election systems.
I mean, we're lucky about that, aren't we?
Democrats, when do you find out about our election systems?
Just when do you find out about that?
Because I feel like you're going to.
I don't know when.
Could be years.
But when do you find out that you didn't really live in any kind of a democracy or a republic?
Not really, but you believe you did.
Anyway, I think the Democrat TDS landscape is made up of the following people.
People who don't have a sense of humor, so they can't tell when Trump is joking or not, so they take him literally instead of, you know, in the fun way.
There are A lot of women who are frightened of men.
And the more of a bully that man looks, the more frightened he is.
So some people are just frightened of men.
Then there's the Hitler brainwashing.
That gets to the weakest minds.
So the weakest minds think Hitler's coming.
So that's not something that works for smart people, but the weaker minds can be convinced of that, and were.
Then there's the people who are believing things that, even on paper, don't look real.
He's going to steal your freedom?
They're actually saying he's going to take your freedom away.
Or your bodily autonomy.
He said the opposite.
He said the opposite.
He's not going to do a national ban on abortion, and he's not in favor of the abortion pill being illegal.
And he's already kicked the abortion thing to the states, which means he washed his hands of it.
He's completely done on that topic.
He's not going to do anything to your bodily autonomy.
Your state might.
Maybe you should talk to your state.
But he's out.
He's completely out of that business.
So they just have these imaginary things like, he's got my bodily autonomy, he's taking my freedom, he's gonna round us up, put us in camps.
These are purely imaginary things.
Purely imaginary.
And then there's a group that believes the news is still real.
And it's funny because they pop up on social media in my criticisms, and as soon as you see somebody who believes the news is real, you really can't have a conversation with them.
No debate can be had with somebody who's operating at such a low level of understanding that they think the news is real, or even trying to be real.
I don't think it's even trying.
And then, of course, some people are just irrational and some are team players.
But it's kind of a mental health question.
Meanwhile, over in France, they've done the impossible.
I was assured that this couldn't work.
Apparently, they did hand-counted ballots, required identification, and had a result in 24 hours.
Huh.
I don't know about you, but I've been told by the gaslighters that you can't do that.
It doesn't even work.
Do you know why France doesn't have voting machines?
Does anybody know why they don't have voting machines?
Yeah, it must be because they're bad at analysis.
Because, you know, the voting machines, they're not seeing the benefits.
For example, the voting machines would be a lot faster.
Okay, they wouldn't be faster, not actually faster than this, because they were done in 24 hours with the hand counting.
But at least the voting machines will save you a lot of money.
Okay, they don't actually save money, they cost a lot of money.
Okay.
But at least it's way easier for the voter.
Okay, that can't possibly make a difference.
But the results from the voting machines are more reliable.
Okay, they're not more reliable.
So, it's not because they're cheaper, they're not more reliable.
They're not faster.
Huh.
I don't know.
It's almost like the French looked into it.
You know what I mean?
Maybe they looked into it.
If you looked into it, Maybe you'd like paper ballots too.
Let's just look into it.
Maybe the French heard that there's no such thing as a secure electronic system.
Apparently in the United States we don't know that.
We think they are.
We should teach the French all we've learned about secure elections with our automated voting machines.
We should teach them a little lesson.
You know, they gave us the Statue of Liberty.
I think we could at least give them some voting machines in return.
Well, the big winner was the, and it's not over yet, that's just the first round of elections.
They have to do at least another round, I guess.
But in the first round, Marine Le Pen's National Party, National Rally Party, emerged as the clear winner with 34% of the vote with multiple parties.
And there was chaos.
There was chaos.
And I said to myself, why is there chaos?
What exactly is she suggesting that sounds so darn dangerous?
So I asked Grok to give me a summary of what it was.
She wants to tackle the cost of living.
I guess it's a crisis over there.
Surprise.
She wants to target immigration and have more law and order in immigration.
She wants to expel foreign criminals.
She wants to abolish the right of nationality for some immigrants, not all.
She wants to ban mobile phones in schools and reintroduce uniforms.
Interesting.
And she wants to use the respectable form of vu to address teachers.
Instead of two?
Is it vu instead of two?
It's been a long time since I took French.
Which one of these things sounds like it will destroy France?
Let's see.
I sure don't want anybody in there who's going to tackle the cost of living.
Or enforce the laws about immigration that are destroying the country, or take phones out of schools so people can learn for the first time, or reintroduce uniforms so that people are a little bit equal.
And at least at the child level, I think that makes sense.
And then respecting teachers.
Well, isn't she a crazy bitch?
I can see why they're rioting over there.
We can't have any of this law and order.
So I guess she's probably the only thing that's stopping France from becoming the first country to fall and to a complete immigration overthrow.
So we'll see how that goes.
We'll see if that's a trend that's sweeping the world.
And I guess in Great Britain, Farage, who would be considered right-leaning, is making some noise.
So we might see a big wave of anti-crazy stuff.
Nancy Pelosi, here's the most predictable thing that's ever happened.
Nancy Pelosi says that Trump's the one with the dementia.
You never could have predicted That the narcissist would blame you for what they're doing in front of you.
Oh, no.
Trump's the one with the dementia.
Now, I feel like this is a good time to say, because I know this is going to bite me in the ass later.
So I need some witnesses.
Can I get a witness?
Because later somebody is going to accuse me of not being right on what I'm going to say.
So I'm going to say it as clearly as I can.
It's not safe to elect Trump.
Because of his age.
That's not safe.
He does look fine to me.
You know, he seems completely fine at the moment.
But he's going to be over 80 if he gets elected.
I don't think there's any good argument for somebody over 80 being your president.
None.
Now, he might be a special case.
He does seem unusually healthy, right?
And his family's lived a long time and, you know, he hasn't been a drinker.
His weight's a little problem, but seems to be doing okay.
But can you do me a favor and remind me that if something goes off the rails with Trump, should he become president?
And we're two or three years in and he starts acting sketchy, like, uh, are you starting to lose it?
Can you remind people that I told you this was a pretty big risk?
So I think given the two choices of Trump or Biden, it's a no brainer.
Get it?
It's a no brainer.
Let me say it again for the people who didn't catch up.
The choice between Biden and Trump is a no brainer.
Yeah, it's a dad joke.
Anyway, but if you think you can be comfortable with any president who's over 80, you're crazy.
You should not be comfortable with a president over 80, period.
And Trump's a special case, but not that special, right?
Yeah, it's a no-brainer.
All right, there's some reports that Gaza is rearming, the fighters in Gaza.
Here's the thing.
Is it going to be impossible for Israel to actually destroy Hamas?
Because they can wait as long as they want until Israel gives up?
I would recommend this to Israel.
Israel, I would not do anything that looks like rebuilding or repopulating Gaza, ever, unless some objective standards are met.
It's got to be objective.
It should be something like, no reports of a Hamas armed person there.
Like something impossible.
In other words, something that will never be accomplished.
And they should just say, we will never rebuild it, and we will just play whack-a-mole, and we'll just shoot everybody who's got a gun, who comes above ground, and we'll just do it forever.
And if they want to stay there, then that's what Gaza is.
Gaza will always be rubble, with a bunch of bad guys, that when they come outside, they get killed.
For as long as it takes.
Because I think the biggest mistake would be to rebuild it where there's a bunch of people rearming themselves just to recreate the situation.
There will be pressure to do that because people who are not good at planning will think, well, that should work out.
Let's just rearm the people who attacked us and give them a new hiding place.
I don't see where that could go wrong.
No, the most, and by the way, I don't support Israel.
Let me say that clearly.
So I'm not a supporter of the country of Israel doing anything they want to do in any situation.
That's not my deal.
I love the Jewish people, but I like people in general too.
So I think that they get to do what they get to do because they're a country and I don't run their country.
So they get to do what they think they need to do.
That's just the way it works everywhere.
Not just them.
Everywhere.
Everybody does what they need to do.
So if I, if I simply observe what would be a reasonable thing to do, that's, that's not, you know, being, uh, beating the drums for Israel.
That's just common sense says you don't rebuild a place that's infested with armed, armed people who want to kill you.
Just let it linger.
Langer?
Languish?
I don't even know what words I have.
I think I have dementia now.
But they have no obligation, and really it would be strategically dumb, to ever even suggest they're going to build it back.
They should say, we'll build it back when there's nothing there to worry about.
Because maybe that'll never happen.
And then it's just An objective standard.
You know, they could say something like, if nobody fires at us for six months.
Right?
It could be something like that.
But they need an objective standard, which I believe could never be met.
Almost any objective standard is going to be, stop shooting us, and they're not going to do that.
So just say, you have your own fate.
The fate of Gaza is in the hands of the people there.
And whenever they want to rebuild, we're cool.
We're cool with that.
Whenever you want.
You just can't be shooting at us, of course.
You gotta give up your guns.
And the fact that there would ever be a conversation about it when the hostages haven't been returned.
They're still hostages, right?
I'm not wrong about that, am I?
They're still hostages?
Or is that not confirmed?
Give me an update.
Do they still have hostages?
Because I wonder, even if they claim they have hostages, I think I'd be asking for a sign of life, because I don't know if they have living hostages.
So that's the other thing they could do.
They could say, until we have all the hostages, or at least all the bodies of the hostages, there's no conversation to be had, now or ever.
Now or ever.
A thousand years from now?
Nope.
Nope, we didn't get those bodies back.
So that was the deal.
So, I think they needed an objective standard so that they can argue that they shouldn't start rebuilding.
And I remind you that part of the reason I don't support Israel as a country, not the people, I like the people, is because Israel, the country, doesn't support me.
Period.
It's got to be reciprocal.
As long as the country of Israel is okay with, you know, the ADL sliming people in the United States, I'd like to see them have my back.
I'd love an official statement from the government of Israel saying we disavow the ADL.
Easy to do.
But if the ADL is over here fucking with me, don't ask me to support Israel.
They need to be on my side.
Now, I know they don't control the ADL.
I know that.
I'm just saying they need to be on my side if they want me to be on their side.
So I'm not supporting Israel's war because they don't even support my basic freedoms to be free from a Jewish support organization attacking me personally in public with some bullshit.
It's got to work both ways.
So I'd love to support Israel.
But I'd love it if they supported me and other people who have been maligned by the ADL.
That'd be great.
And I'd love to see APEC show some concern for Thomas Massie's family and his recent tragedy.
Just a note that says none of this is personal and we feel for your personal tragedy.
How about maybe a little bit more respect both ways?
Works both ways.
A little bit more respect both ways would be good.
All right.
That's all I got for now.
I'm going to say a few more words to my beloved local subscribers.
And I will see you in the Man Cave otherwise, if you're in locals.
And thanks for joining everybody else on X and Rumble and Locals.
