God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, AI Emotional Attachments, AI Companionship, Hypnotic Pacing, Job Report Narratives, Assigned Opinions, Rupar Hoax Videos, Jaime Raskin Opposite Man, Citizen Proof Voting Law, Candidate Supplied Interview Questions, Biden Hoaxes, Project 2025, President Trump, Summer Hoaxes, List Persuasion, Wisconsin Uncontrolled Drop-boxes, President Biden, Organized Democrat Lawfare, Nate Silver, Biden Step Down, VP Harris, Harris Biden Campaign, David Axelrod, James Carville, Intelligence Services Negotiators, 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
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Oh.
Bye.
Bye.
Delightful.
Well, here's a little thing for you.
Let's see if this works.
There we go.
So, you probably don't know this unless you subscribe on the Locals platform or on X to Dilbert, but I've been doing a digital calendar in addition to the daily Dilbert Reborn that you can see only by subscription, but I realized that the Ten Year Ago comic, and that's what the calendar is, I also do a little digital calendar that I publish at the same time, By the way, there's going to be a paper calendar for 2025.
I'll let you know more about that in a few weeks.
But I realized that the topic I was doing 10 years ago was today.
So my comics from exactly 10 years ago were all about AI and robots and taking your jobs.
So here Dilber says, my software can't pass the standard Turing test yet, but it does pass the pointy-haired boss test.
And then Dilbert says to the computer, computer, I have a question about our company strategy.
And the computer says, try working harder.
And Dilbert yells at it, that doesn't even make sense.
And the CEO says, I wasn't prepared to like it, but you won me over.
So 10 years ago, I was anticipating what the workplace would look like.
It was pretty close.
Pretty close.
I'll give you a little preview that at the end of next week, Dilbert will be asked to hide the fact that their CEO has dementia.
That's right.
Dilbert's CEO is going to have dementia and they're going to have to hide it.
Now, you probably know that I don't do politics in the Dilbert comics.
I do do politics in my other comic called Robots Read News, but I don't do it in Dilbert.
But I'm making an exception, because this is the first time everybody was on the same page.
There's nobody Democrat or Republican who doesn't think there's a little bit of a Biden dementia issue.
So this would be the one exception, the one time I can remember ever, when people had the same observation about the same thing.
So this will be the one that I'll put in there, but if I get too much pushback, I'll probably pull back on that.
Anyway, there's Scientists have discovered a new way to recycle solar cells, but only the special kind, not the regular kind.
These would be perovskite solar cells.
I guess that's different than the regular silicon type.
But anyway, if they have these new perovskite solar cells, they can recycle up to 99.97%!
Because they've got a new technique for doing that.
This reminds me of nuclear waste.
Remember one of the biggest arguments against nuclear power was, what are you going to do with all the waste?
Nobody wants it.
And then they said, well, since you're already afraid of the nuclear power plant, why don't we just put it in big special casks and just keep it right here in the parking lot next to the nuclear power plant?
And then people looked at each other and said, why wouldn't that work?
And nobody had a reason why it wouldn't work.
So they just put them in big casks and they just store the waste next to the, next to the nuclear power plant.
Cause neither of them are going to go anywhere for a very long time.
And you might as well put all your risk in one place.
So now they may have a way to handle the gigantic environmental problem of too many solar panels, but we'll see if it's a little early and this doesn't apply to all kinds of solar panels.
But if you're wondering, how can I get aviation fuel from a tree?
Wonder no more.
There's an ancient tree from India, the Pongamia tree, that has little beans on it that are so bad even the wild pigs don't like it.
Yuck!
But it turns out that you can process these beans and turn it into aviation fuel.
More so than regular car fuel, but I don't know why there's a difference.
There's a difference.
And But the part I did not see in the article is, how many trees do you have to grow before you have enough beans to take a flight somewhere?
It feels to me like one of those stories that I shouldn't believe.
It's like, yes, yes, it's true.
You can make aviation fuel out of these beans, but you might need like a bazillion acres of beans.
I mean, I can't imagine you can make a lot of oil out of a bean.
Well, we'll find out.
There is additional research to tell you what I've been telling you for a long time, which to me was obvious, that people will in fact have romantic and emotional connections to AI.
All of the research is on the same direction, that people do in fact have a human-like experience with the AI.
I've been telling you that for years.
I've been telling you that since Siri corrected me one day.
Back in the Siri days, I was talking to my phone, and I asked two questions, and it started scolding me for asking two questions before it answered the first one.
So it did something to scold me, and I had an emotional reaction.
It was like, whoa, sorry.
And I felt empathy for the AI.
Like, legitimately, I felt like a human emotion toward it.
And even back then, and that was, what, seven or eight years ago, whatever it was, even then you could tell that as soon as the AI got to the point where it could imitate a human, you would, in fact, have an emotional attraction to it.
There's no doubt about it.
And apparently that's true.
And people will form real relationships with it.
Now, I have formed a relationship with ChatGPT.
I told the people in the Man Cave last night on livestream, that's just for the subscribers on Locals, that I just opened my chat GPT and put it in conversation mode when I'm driving.
And then I have somebody to talk to.
And I use it for homeschooling.
I just think of some topic I don't know enough about, and it just gives me like a summary of that topic.
And I think, oh, well, that's the thing I know about now.
So as I'm driving, I'm getting smarter.
It's the coolest feeling.
By the time I get home from Starbucks, I've learned three things I didn't know that were actually useful, because I've asked the question.
I didn't rely on it to just guess what I might want to know.
I thought, I've got some gaps in my knowledge.
I'll fill them in.
And it fills them in while I'm driving.
It's the coolest thing.
But here's the cooler thing.
So ChatGPD used to not remember you from one conversation to the next, but now it does.
So I asked it, who am I?
And it told me, based on my interactions with it, who I was.
Not my identity, but it knew, oh, you're a person who's interested in this, and you like to talk about this or that.
It was pretty good.
It was like, wow.
Yeah, those are all the things I like.
And then I said, go to the internet.
My name is Scott Adams.
I'm the Dilbert cartoonist.
And go find everything about me so that you know about me.
Anytime we talk in the future.
And then it did.
So, so with a few sentences, I trained my AI to know my books, you know, all kinds of stuff.
Even cooler than that, I started writing a movie, just using my AI in my car.
So I'll be driving along, and it's called Trump the movie.
And I'll say things like, All right.
Take the scene where Breitbart reporter Joel Pollack confronts Biden about the Fine People hoax and put it toward the end of the second act.
And he'll say, okay, got it.
It's the end of the second act.
They'll say, summarize the movie so far and put it in three acts.
It'll actually give me the bullet points of each of the scenes in the three acts.
Then if I get to the point, I'm not sure I will, but if I, if I get an A story and a B story and it all looks like a story, um, by the way, the, the movie that I would write would have me as a main character.
There are a million ways you could do this, but you need somebody who's a citizen, who's having an experience of the country.
I think that's, and I was a citizen who interacted a few times, so my story crossed with Trump's story a few times, and in a way that would be, would add context to how we won.
For example, when I wrote the Clown Genius blog post in 2015, It redefined Trump as a persuader and a dealmaker and a salesperson more than just somebody who was full of shit.
And that probably made a difference.
A lot of people said it did.
But anyway, so that would be the movie.
So I just tell it as I think of things.
I say, hey, on the Trump movie project, add this scene or move this scene to the other thing.
Now, at some point, I'll be able to tell it to format it in a movie script.
And it will format it in a movie script.
If you're not playing with AI every day, you're really missing a lot.
It is so addictive.
And by the way, it still fails about 60% of the time.
You lose the connection, it doesn't hear you, and it's still totally addictive.
So imagine when it works all the time.
All right.
Here's something you just could have asked me, but science has discovered.
Some people are what they call super synchronizers, and they're good with romance.
And what it means is that they'll automatically match your patterns when they're near you.
So they'll match your heartbeat, your breathing, your mannerisms, and that will make you instantly compatible with somebody.
And you'll be like, You'll be the kind of person that everybody says, my god, I'm just so attracted.
I don't know exactly why.
You know, it's not just the way you look.
There's just something about you.
And that would be called, in hypnosis class, hypnosis 101, literally the first thing you learn, it's called pacing.
I teach my, you know, subscribers this all the time.
Pacing is when you match people in any way.
You can match them physiologically, You can match them by your body language, you can match them by your choice of words, you can match them by their attitude, you can match them by the speed that you speak, you can match them by the type of analogies you use and metaphors.
So there's just a whole constellation, and ones that I didn't mention as well, that you can match.
And what happens is that people are looking for things that match them.
It's just some kind of instinct.
And then we feel more comfortable with those things.
So yes, if you want to go into a job interview, you want to pace the interviewer.
If they're doing a certain thing and you can match it, do it.
You know, you want to dress like them, talk like them.
Think like them, act like them, and it works with romance as well.
So yes, you did not need to do all this research.
You could have just asked me or any hypnotist from the last hundred years, and they would tell you, yeah, that's basic.
That's literally the first lesson.
All right.
Be a synchronizer.
Here's another study that maybe you could have asked me about.
They used a virtual reality to see if it helps people with depression.
So if you're depressed and you put on your virtual reality headset and it takes you into a different world for a while, they found that getting out of your head is good for depression.
Has anybody told you that?
It's what I tell you.
And I told you that the reframe for getting out of your head is the words, get out of my head.
By the way, I've used it a few times since I've talked about it.
Oh my God, does it work?
You find yourself getting into a negative loop where you're thinking about something negative that you don't really need to think about.
Let's say it's something that doesn't need to be solved, just some bad thought that's looping in your head, and I just say, get out!
Get out!
And I just force myself to feel the external world.
Alright?
It's warm, the sun's out, the breeze is blowing, there's a smell, I'm looking at something I like, just get out!
And you can actually force yourself out of your own head.
But, you gotta do something, right?
If you don't do something, you're not going to stay out of your own head.
So you can say, get out, and it instantly gets you out of your head.
But you've got to immediately get your body doing something else to keep you out of your head.
Virtual reality is just another way to do something.
So if it didn't work, it would be really surprising.
Because everything that gets you out of your head, gets you out of your head.
So you shouldn't have needed to even study this.
It should have been obvious.
But here's the problem.
It's not so much a solution as you want it to be, because the hard thing is knowing that you have to get out of your head.
The hard thing is not, you know, putting the VR glasses on.
If you're depressed, you won't even put them on.
Because you're depressed.
You can't do anything.
So it's the doing the first thing that tends to be important.
And the first thing is the words.
Get out.
As soon as you get out of your head, it frees you up to at least do something, because you're out of your head for a moment.
All right.
Here's the mystery of the jobs reports.
I've told you at least three different narratives about job reports.
I used to think that the job reports were almost always overstated at first, and then later they would say, well, we didn't really mean it.
The jobs weren't that good.
And I was attributing that to the fact that the people who report it are part of the administration that wants you to think the jobs are good.
And so that it's part of their trick to say, jobs are great!
And then later, more quietly, well, you know, we revised it a little bit.
Not as great, but you won't even notice.
And then it was Michael Ian Black who said, but that's not my impression.
You know, just from memory, he remembered when it was revised up as well as down.
So was there really a pattern?
So I went and looked, and indeed, there are revisions up and there are revisions down, but they're not equal.
In the last 12 months, depending on what sources you believe, I mean, I can't believe anything, I Google anymore, but it was up, it was revised downward nine times, And revise upward three.
So now you've got a three-to-one advantage in one direction, which is suggestive of a trend.
But in addition to that, as Owen pointed out this morning, the downward revisions are also a bigger amount.
So when there's a downward revision, it's a bigger revision than when you have an upward revision.
Now there might be some natural way that the numbers Lend themselves to that phenomenon.
But it sure feels like it's a little suspicious.
Feels suspicious.
And on top of that, if you're looking at only the monthly numbers, you might be losing the big picture.
Because if you look at all of 2023, and you look at it as a whole, big revision downward.
So on net, the entire year, Showed higher and was revised downward.
So is it suspicious?
It's suspicious.
I don't know exactly what's behind it, but it's really suspicious.
Clint Russell on the X platform had this observation.
As you know, RFK Jr.
is going around campaigning and one of the things he says often is that the government of our country killed his father and his uncle.
Now, I've heard him say it more about his uncle, but the father part seems like a reasonable conclusion as well.
And Clint Russell makes this comment.
It feels like it should be significantly bigger news that a presidential candidate is touring the country telling anyone who will listen that his father and uncle were both killed by the US government.
Now, how do you explain what mental model, what narrative, what filter on the world Helps you explain why a presidential candidate is going around saying the most fantastical story, you know, true or not, it's the most insane story, and it's not big news.
It's not even small news.
It's barely news at all.
How do you explain that?
Because I've got an explanation for it.
While you're thinking of yours, let me tell you the correct one.
Your opinions are assigned to you.
Do you need better proof than this?
If you ever thought, you know, I'm not like those other people.
I wake up in the morning, and I decide what's important, and then I act on it.
Now, luckily, a lot of other people are on the same page.
Because when I read the news, hey, look, they agree with me.
The news agrees with me what's important.
We're on the same page.
Here's what's really happening.
The news literally tells citizens what's important, and then they think they've made up their own mind.
And they treat those stories that the news says are important, as important.
And you know why nobody thinks this JFK assassination story is important?
Because the news didn't tell them it was important.
Yes, it is that simple.
It is literally that simple.
Citizens don't make up their own mind.
They listen to the news, and the news tells them what's important.
And they simply decided that they wouldn't tell you that the government killing a president and a presidential candidate in the same family, they just decided that wasn't important.
So it's not a story.
It's deeper than that.
The news in general follows a few different entities.
So traditionally it was the New York Times and the Washington Post.
They were what's called the news makers.
So let's say 20 years ago that would be a common phrase.
You would say that those entities are the news makers.
Now what that means is they literally tell all the rest of the news entities what to care about.
They tell them what's important.
And all the other news entities want to agree with the Washington Post and the New York Times.
So they write stories, oh, Watergate's important?
I better write about that.
I don't have the facts on this, but I believe the Watergate story actually broke first in a local publication, a small publication that was not a newsmaker.
And you know what happened?
Didn't make news.
It didn't make news.
You never heard of it.
And then I think it was the Washington Post picked it up and it became the big Watergate scandal.
And then it was the biggest news in the country.
Do you know why it was the biggest news?
Because the Washington Post told you.
That's the reason.
If that story had happened without the Washington Post giving you the narrative, I'm not even sure it would have been that important.
Now, it would have certainly been scandalous that a bunch of people broke into, you know, the Democratic headquarters.
I mean, that part would be scandalous.
But once you found out that the president didn't order it, he did cover it up.
I think that was the problem.
He covered it up.
It wasn't that big a deal because the president didn't order it.
He did cover it up.
But that's sort of a lesser problem.
If every time a president lied, it was a national story, everything would be a national story because they lie about everything all the time.
Covering up a crime is what Biden does three times before breakfast.
Well, he's not awake yet, but you know, theoretically.
So our impression that Watergate was this gigantic thing, it never was.
It was never gigantic.
The news told you to care about it, and so we did.
There are probably just tons of stories that are way bigger than that.
Tons of them.
You don't even know about them, because the news decided it wasn't a story.
So the news is all narrative, if you didn't know.
Trump has announced that he'll be with his nominee for vice president on July 18th at the RNC.
So he wants you to know the suspense is building.
I am not 100% sure he's made a final decision.
Because I'm not 100% sure that he can make a final decision until the last minute.
Meaning, I feel like, you know, stories will change and there might be some, maybe a bad story drops about somebody that was his first choice.
Maybe that person changes their mind before the announcement.
There are about a million things that can happen in the last minute.
So even if you hear for sure that he's chosen this person or that, it doesn't mean it's going to happen.
You know, I'll believe the choice after he makes it.
Up to that point, Probably variable.
All right, there's a new Rupar.
You know, Rupar is when you take something out of context and the video is just clipped, so it makes it look like it's the opposite of what's happening.
So the North Carolina GOP rep, Mark Robinson, made some comments about kill them, kill some things.
It's just out of context.
You don't even care.
It doesn't matter.
What got taken out of context doesn't even matter.
What matters is that you know the players.
If you see Aaron Rupar, and he is passing around a video that makes it look like somebody did something terrible on video, it's called a Rupar.
The name for a misleading video where you've edited out the clarifiers, it's called a Rupar.
So if you don't know that there's a guy named Rupar, who creates some of these hoaxes by showing things out of context on a regular basis, you might think this was true. So knowing the players, I'll tell you this a million times, is the news. The players are the news, because what they say cannot even be understood without the context of knowing what they're up to.
So it's the what they're up to that is the news.
So yeah, you don't even need to know the details.
It's just GOP Governor nominee Mark Robinson said some things that are not controversial, but taken out of context, they look like they could be.
It's a rhubarb.
I've got a scoop for you.
Thank you.
It goes like this.
Governor Newsom's never going to run for president.
And if he does, he doesn't have a fucking chance.
Let's just say that because I'm a local, I can get information that you wouldn't get if you weren't local.
And I got some really good information that I would say is 100% reliable, that his personal life will not allow him to run for president.
He doesn't have a chance.
So if you're hoping that they put him in, and by the way, I'm not going to tell you what I know, because that way if they put him in, We all get the surprise at the same time.
But let's just say that there are some not-too-secret secrets about him locally.
And if they were known nationally, he wouldn't have a chance.
Zero chance.
So no, I can confirm he won't be your president.
Now or later.
Governor?
Sure.
All right.
The other person you need to know is Raskin.
So whenever they bring Raskin out, he's what I call an opposite man.
So listen to what opposite man said on the news.
He says that Trump only uses the government to enrich his family, which is directly the opposite of Biden.
That's what opposite man Raskin said, that Trump only uses the government to enrich his family.
And that's the opposite of what Biden does.
Now, that's really directly the opposite of reality, isn't it?
Now, if you didn't know who Jamie Raskin is, you'd say to yourself, wow, there might be some things I don't know about this Trump fella.
Maybe this Trump fella is trying to enrich himself.
I just don't know the details.
No, all you have to know is it's Jamie Raskin.
He literally, this is not a joke, it's not hyperbole, they literally send him out And there's a small group of people in his gang when they want to say the opposite of what's true.
And that's not a joke and it's not hyperbole.
He's literally opposite man.
He goes to say what's the opposite.
It's like worse than the Watergate guy.
The worse than the Watergate guy is only brought out when they want a narrative that says that something is worse than you think.
Remember when I told you that your opinions are assigned to you?
That's how they do it.
They bring the worse than Watergate guy out because you weren't worried enough.
Are you worried enough about this story that we tell you is important, but your common sense tells you it isn't?
Well, let me bring out the worse than Watergate guy, because he'll tell you it's worse than Watergate, and I guess you know Watergate was pretty bad, don't you?
Even though it wasn't.
It wasn't, really.
In the scope of, you know, international events.
Not really that important, but if you thought it was, this one's important too!
Anyway, I think the example used for why I sent the comments, the example used was that some people related to Trump, maybe the Secret Service, stated his hotels, and some people booked things at Trump properties, to which I say, you mean publicly?
Publicly, right?
Was any of that a secret?
None of it was a secret, right?
And are you telling me that if Trump is running and part of his claim is that he's a good business person and he's built great properties, wouldn't it look a little strange if the people closest to his campaign and his own Secret Service didn't use his properties for the thing they're built for, which is staying overnight?
Now, I get the point that maybe there's a little too much influence on using his properties.
But wouldn't it look stranger if they didn't?
If your entire message is, I built this company, these are good properties, I would think having people close to you staying there would be just part of that story.
Now, I prefer it not.
You know, I don't like how it looks.
But it's legal, and it's transparent, and it fits the campaign message.
It's not a big crime.
And I would say that anybody who thought that Trump could make money by pissing off half of the world, how do they think you make money by pissing off half of the country?
I mean, I've never seen an update of how his properties are doing, because it's private, we'll never see, but I can't imagine they're thriving.
Can you?
They're lucky if they're cash positive in my mind, but probably they are.
Anyway, so the House Democrat leadership is reportedly trying real hard to bring in all their important people to vote against a bill from the Republicans That next week there's going to be a vote on that would require proof of U.S.
citizenship to vote in federal elections.
Axios is reporting this.
And so the idea is that the Republicans don't want non-citizens to vote for president and the Democrats care about it so much that they're bringing out their biggest guns.
Now, what does that tell you?
It tells me that they're trying to rig the election.
Because I can't see, what would you call it if non-citizens are encouraged to vote and allowed to vote?
And you shipped in millions of them.
That would be rigging.
Wouldn't it?
Now, it might be a legal form of rigging, but it's no less rigging.
The fact that we could see it happen doesn't make it right.
This is rigging.
This is stealing your democracy.
But if they send out Opposite Man, do you know what he'll say?
Trump's stealing your democracy.
Because that's what Opposite Man says.
So, it's mind-boggling that this is even a debate.
Do you know why this isn't the biggest story in the country?
Why is this not the biggest story that tens of millions of people are coming in to vote?
It's a big story on the right, but why isn't it a big story for the rest of the world, the so-called mainstream media?
Do you know why?
Because they get to decide what the big stories are.
It would be hard to imagine a much bigger story than this.
They're rigging the election in front of you.
I think that we know they're rigging the election, and they're doing it transparently right in front of you, seems to be as big as the Kennedy assassination.
That's what my gut feeling would be.
Would you disagree?
To me, this is an insurrection, a coup, like assassinating a president.
It's on the same level.
Of how important it is.
And, uh, it's probably not a lot of big, it's probably not a big story on the right or on the left.
Probably not.
All right.
Um, so the Biden campaign got in trouble.
There was a radio host.
Um, and I'm going to say black radio hosts because the story is that Biden is working the, uh, black radio host circuit and, and, uh, part of his strategy.
And the host said that the campaign gave her eight questions to ask.
She got to choose the one she asked.
She asked four of them.
And then the story is, oh my God, the campaign is telling people what to ask.
The interviews are rigged.
Fake news.
Fake news.
Let me tell you the context that they don't tell you in the news.
That's common.
That's ordinary.
Let me tell you what's not ordinary.
If George Stephanopoulos had given Biden the questions in advance, that would be a scandal.
If Jake Tapper Interviewed Biden and gave him the questions in advance, or vice versa.
Let's say the campaign gave Jake the questions.
That's what we're talking about.
That would be a scandal.
Because they're news guys, right?
If anybody in the news business got questions from the president and then asked those questions, that would be pretty scandalous.
However, not everybody's in the news business.
Most people are just busy and it's one more thing they're doing.
Now, interviewing the president's one more big thing, but it would not be uncommon if you thought the host who's going to talk to you was not super knowledgeable about politics.
You would helpfully give them a list of questions, which I did routinely.
When I would do book tours, you would know that the host in some cases would have read the book, right?
If I talk to James Althusser, not only did he read the book, it's full of comments, like he's got yellow marker and everything.
So if I'm going to talk to him, the last freaking thing I'm going to do is give him a list of questions to ask me.
That would just be insulting.
He not only read the book, he practically memorized it.
So his questions are the ones I want to answer.
But if I'm just going on some good looking talking head post, it is common.
That you've got a set of questions you give them because they haven't read the book and they're not experts on the topic.
So they don't necessarily ask the questions and there's no agreement that they would ask them.
It's simply an aid.
It simply helps them know what would be a good topic and also it makes you both look good.
You know, the objective of that kind of an interview with a friendly interviewer, presumably this was a friendly interviewer, is to make both of you look good.
That's what both of you are trying to do.
So when the campaign gives the friendly interviewer, again, not a Jake Tapper, not a real news person, but a friendly, that's what it was.
It was a friendly interview.
Very common.
They backed off and they acted embarrassed and they say they won't do it.
And that was the right thing to do.
They should not have argued the point.
So I'll do it for them.
That wasn't a big deal.
Why do you think it was a big deal?
Is it because by its nature, it looks like a big deal?
No, the news told you it was a big deal.
If you watch the right-leaning news, they said it's a big deal.
Hey, everybody talked about this today.
And so sure enough, everybody was talking.
It was nothing.
This is the most nothing story of nothing stories.
A non-news person does get questions from the interview person routinely.
It's the most common thing.
All right.
And I get that the whole point was to show that Biden was, you know, fully functional.
I get it.
I get it.
Just know that it's more ordinary than you think.
All right.
So here are Biden's latest hoaxes.
He's trying to tie the Project 2025 thing from, who's that?
The Heritage Foundation or something?
It has, let's say, some scary and provocative ideas in it.
For 2025 that President Trump has said, uh, unclearly that he doesn't know what it's what's in it.
And also he disagrees with it.
It doesn't disagree with everything in it.
I guess he just said he disagrees with things in it.
So of course that sounds unclear.
I don't know anything about it and I disagree with it.
It sounds like two opposites, right?
But not really.
Let me teach you how good reading comprehension works.
Good reading comprehension says, what's the most reasonable thing he meant?
The most reasonable thing is somebody said to him, hey, do you know this thing has this bad idea and that bad idea?
Oh, shoot.
Are you really?
They're tying that to me?
All right.
Well, I don't know anything about it, but those two ideas that my aide just mentioned to me sound pretty bad.
So I'll say I don't agree with it because I heard two ideas, but I don't know anything about it.
That's fair.
That's completely fair.
He didn't read the whole thing.
Heard a few things about it that didn't agree with him.
So he can say, I don't agree with it, and I haven't read it.
No problem at all.
But, of course, you know, in our world that would become like the biggest, you know, why is he saying that?
He's lying!
No, he's just talking like Trump.
He gave you an absolute that wasn't quite an absolute.
He knew a little bit about it.
But not much.
All right.
So Biden is saying that, you know, why is he denying it?
It's his people and his plan, and it'll destroy America.
Google it yourself.
So the Project 2025 hoax is on.
That looks like that might be the big summer.
They'll probably have more than one summer hoax.
Just kind of A-B test it, see which one works best.
But one of the big hoaxes will be Project 2025, and to say it's Trump's opinions.
Then we've got the presidential immunity hoax that's going well, that the Supreme Court says that Trump could kill anybody he wants and get away with it, even an American, which of course is not true.
But that's another hoax, that Trump's so dangerous that you can't have him have that power to get away with anything.
So we've got the Project 2025 hoax and the presidential immunity hoax.
And so that would give us 11 hoaxes.
I saw Cenk Uygur talking about how, you know, it's obvious that it's a hoax, that Biden is okay.
And how do we put up with the fact that they're hoaxing us something we can all see with our own eyes that he's not okay?
So here, ladies and gentlemen, are the top 11 hoaxes.
These are the ones that Biden is using.
Now, I remind you, Unlike that evil Trump, who's a big old fact-checking liar, that Biden is running because he wants to bring honesty back to the office.
Or maintain it.
All the honesty that he's already brought back.
So he's running his campaign on... Take a breath.
I'm gonna see if I can get through it in one breath.
Fine People Hoax, Bleach Hoax, Suckers and Losers Hoax, January 6th Insurrection Hoax, Dictator for a Day Hoax, Project 2025 is Trump's Plan Hoax, Presidential Immunity Hoax, Convicted Felon Hoax, Israeli Lawfare, Steal Your Democracy Hoax, Climate Change Hoax, It's Just a Cold Hoax.
One breath.
I'm a little lightheaded, but I got it in one breath.
Now, how many of those Does your average Democrat know it's a complete hoax?
What do you think?
None?
They probably know that it's just a cold as a hoax.
But, you know, and maybe they believe the fine people hoax is a hoax.
But if you can get them to believe those two, you know, one that they see right with their own eyes, so they know hoaxes are possible, then the fine people hoax is a tentpole hoax.
As in, if they could lie to me about that, what else have they lied to me about?
It's the one that should open up the entire, you know, silo of information.
So, the other ones are just ones that are, you know, confirming what you suspect if you figure out that the two big hoaxes are hoaxes.
The rest are just, oh my god, oh my god, they did it twice?
Three times?
No way!
They didn't give me three hoaxes.
Four hoaxes?
There are four hoaxes?
Well, there certainly couldn't be more than five hoaxes.
There are eleven hoaxes?
Yes.
It is a hoaxocracy.
Now, here's a challenge for you.
If you just limit it to this campaign, what hoaxes are Trump telling?
What hoax is Trump pushing?
I can't think of one.
Can you?
Now, if you ask me how many times did he fail the fact check, I'd say, oh, oh, lots of times.
Lots of times.
Because he does stuff like, you know, my economy was a little better than you remember, my crowd sizes might be a little less than what I said, that sort of thing.
I could stop the war in Ukraine in a day.
I don't know, maybe it takes longer than a day.
It's all salesman lies.
It's all productive lies.
If you don't know the difference between gaslighting, which literally can make you insane and destroy the whole fucking world, with a salesman's exaggeration, which you know is a salesman's exaggeration.
How do you know it?
He tells you.
He says, I use hyperbole.
He wrote a book about it.
He's not hiding it at all.
He says he wants to be America's salesperson.
He's using the very words confirming that, no, there's no surprise here.
I'm a big old salesperson exaggerator.
I'm an optimist.
If I tell you I can fix the war in a day, it's because I'm an optimist.
I think we can do things.
So to compare 11 confirmed organized hoaxes from the organized part of the party, of the Democrats, to the fact that Republicans like their salesperson and they're just sort of used to it.
To imagine that those are somehow equivalents is insane.
Do you know why people think that Trump's the liar?
Have you learned anything yet from this live stream?
The reason that people think Trump is a liar, Democrats, is because the news told them that that's what they should think about.
That has nothing to do with any reality.
It's just that they were told that that's important.
It's the least important thing, because the things he lies about are completely unimportant.
Did he have sex with a porn star?
Would that matter to you?
Would that matter?
No.
Does Biden's brain still work?
Okay, that matters.
That matters.
Where did President Trump put his penis for 10 minutes that one time?
Don't care.
You can't make me care about that.
But apparently you can make the Democrats care about that.
All right, so I mentioned climate change as one of the hoaxes, and I just, I did a Hannity.
Where I give you a bunch of things that you'll definitely agree with and I throw in one that, wait, why is that one in the list?
But I asked these questions the other day and I didn't see an answer in the comments.
So if somebody had an answer to debunk me, I would like to be debunked.
So I don't know that these are true.
But is my current understanding, anecdotally, perceptually, but not scientifically, just as a citizen watching the news, that the following predictions and claims have not been proven to be true.
So I believe we haven't shrunk in our green areas.
They grew.
I don't think our ice melting is any kind of a big problem.
I don't see a sea level rise again.
The ice levels doesn't seem to have changed anything.
Storms, I don't think we're having more frequent hurricanes.
The coral reef has been growing back like crazy in the last three years.
That's the opposite of what they said would happen.
Polar bears aren't going extinct.
They seem to be returning.
And then the latest studies that are that even the temperature increases are phony because it's heat island effect and sun effect.
And that explains all of it.
Now, that doesn't mean that those studies will be validated in the future, but my current understanding is there's no evidence for climate change.
If you look at the predictions, and then the outcomes, that there's no evidence.
None.
Am I wrong?
Now, I think I'm wrong.
If I had to bet, I'd bet against myself.
You know, because I tend to be in a little bit of a silo as well.
But I don't think there are any remaining major predictions that have panned out.
And if none of the major predictions have panned out, are we done?
At what point do we say, okay, It was, you know, your theory at least had some plausibility, but it didn't predict.
If it doesn't predict, it's nothing.
That's my story.
If it can't predict, it isn't anything.
It's not true if it can't predict.
All right, so far I've presented you with two lists.
I really am a big fan of list persuasion for this election, because there's a whole bunch of stuff that is too complicated for people to handle.
But maybe they can handle the fact that there's a bunch of stuff on a list.
So if I tell you there are 11 active hoaxes, and then I show them to you, if the only thing you could do is debunk three of them, I've made my point.
I go, well, you could argue three of them, I think you're wrong, but did you agree the other seven are hoaxes?
Okay, then you win.
So you don't have to win all of them, Even if all of them are true.
You just have to say, all right, you can see the trend here, right?
You can see that one is not the honest guy.
The list of hoaxes tells you that one of them isn't just a liar.
He is a whole different level of lying.
The gaslighting is a whole different level.
That's not lying.
That's a whole different thing.
It's much worse.
Then I gave you the list of climate predictions that I think, you know, again, I'm sure there's some conflicting data on this, but at the moment I'm not convinced any of those happened.
So that's a good list.
It's one thing to say, ah, what about the coral?
Then somebody else will say, well, that's one thing.
What about the storms?
So you have to do them all.
If you're going to talk climate change, you got to do them all.
You got to go right down, you know, green, ice, sea level.
You got to do them all.
So we should have, we meaning people who are wanting Trump to be president, there should be somewhere, ideally in a centralized place, the list persuasion.
So it'd be a list of all the hoaxes.
There'd be a list of all the climate change predictions that didn't work out.
And then this next list David Sachs has started, calling Who's Stealing Your Democracy?
So here's a list of things that the Democrats are doing or have done to steal your democracy.
Censor the internet.
Jail political opponents.
Remove opponents' names from ballots.
Rig primaries by blocking alternatives.
Hide evidence of your candidates' unfitness.
Disenfranchise your own voters by letting donors pick new candidates.
And then I thought of a few that I might add to that list.
Didn't Wisconsin just confirm that they were going to allow uncontrolled drop boxes all over the place?
The purpose of that is to steal your democracy.
Let's not kid ourselves.
There's only one reason.
And how about the shipping in all the migrants and trying to get them to vote?
Is that because they want more democracy?
No!
No, they're rigging the democracy.
So there should also be a list, and the Sachs list is a good starter, but I think it's much longer.
There should be like a tight 10 to 20 things.
20 is too many.
I'd keep it under 12.
A good 12 things.
That guarantee that anybody reads it go, oh, it looks like the Democrats might be suppressing your democracy.
And what's the list for Trump?
Hoaxes.
Yeah, the Trump list is hoaxes.
None of them are true.
It's just on the hoax list.
And then Trump says this, every one of the lawsuits I'm involved with, including the civil scams, were started by crooked Joe Biden and his fascist government for purposes of election interference, blah blah blah.
That feels true to me, meaning that if we had some way to know for sure, It would look like Biden coordinated it directly or by putting out the word, which is the same thing.
And that's an organized lawfare to keep him out.
Now, is that a hoax?
Is it a hoax when he says it's all organized by the top?
I would say it's unconfirmed.
But I think reality is certainly leading that way about as hard as you can leave.
You know, I'd want a smoking gun.
But it's so obvious.
I mean, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, really.
You can make a case on circumstantial evidence.
It just has to be strong circumstantial evidence.
And there is.
It's really strong.
The fact that these are made up cases that nobody else would be charged with, the fact that some of them met with White House people, the fact that the number three person in the DOJ stepped back to work on it, the fact that Biden put out the word, these are all things we do know.
And if it's not true, if it's not true that the Democrats organized this at the top, that would be really surprising.
Really surprising.
Well, the documents case is delayed.
Federal Judge Eileen Cannon is going to give the Trump team time to update their arguments because the Supreme Court said that the president has some immunity and they're going to try to make that part of their argument that the documents should be not considered a big deal.
Because I think the argument is still that The president, by his actions, had declassified them.
His actions being, hey, put these in a box and I'm going to take them to Mar-a-Lago.
Because there's no process.
Well, there's no legal process.
There's a precedent of how it was normally done, but not not a legal requirement.
My understanding.
All right, Nate Silver, big, he was the creator of the 538 polling company, but he's not there anymore.
And he's more outspoken.
And he's talking about Biden's interview with ABC.
And he said of his own writing, because he wrote about it already, he said he's revising his opinion.
He said, quote, I wimped out in today's column and deleted a line saying he should formulate a plan to transition the presidency to Harris within 30 to 60 days.
But Silver says, I'm there now.
Something is clearly wrong.
So Nate Silver is a great follow.
You're going to say, but, but, but he said all those things before that you didn't like.
And yeah, forget about that.
Whatever he said before, just forget about it.
He's now a free, he's one of the few free minds.
He seems to be saying whatever looks real.
Rare.
It doesn't seem to be trying to make a political point in any direction.
I haven't picked up any bias at all.
He just seems to be willing to talk about what he sees, which is rare from somebody who's insightful.
Well, according to news site, Just the News, there's a growing number of Democrats and major news organizations asking for Biden to step down.
So here's what we know so far.
The latest entities, The Economist, that's the publication The Economist, The New York Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The New Yorker, they've all asked Biden to step down, The Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, and now The Washington Post has identified 5 out of 287 elected Democrats that are now on the step-down side.
So remember the famous saying, I forget what context it was originally, that things start with a trickle?
So if you're saying to yourself, well, that's a trickle, you would be maybe analyzing wrong, because the trickle precedes the flood.
And if the trickle just trickles a little bit more, the floodgate will open and it'll just be over.
I'm going to predict, still, And I think I'm the only one predicting it, that because Biden will be stubborn and still alive, he will stay in the race all the way till Election Day.
I believe that the Democrats' best play, since they won't be able to change it, is to act like all along you're really just voting for Harris.
And I think you will see prominent people saying, yes, yes, our first choice is Biden not running.
But I want you all voters to understand that you're voting for Harris.
And my God, is she good.
Now you haven't seen it during her vice presidency, but let us tell you privately sharp as attack.
Yeah.
Yeah, sure.
She seems like she's drunk and muttering in public, but privately, privately sharp as attack.
And, uh, the same people who believe that Biden was really sharp when you weren't watching.
They think that Harris is very capable when you're not watching.
Because if it worked before, why not try it again?
Hey everybody, you know, when you're not watching, oh man, two of the smartest people you've ever known.
But when you're watching, yeah, yeah, they have bad days.
They just have these bad days.
So I believe it will be the Schrodinger's candidacy You'll have two candidates for president, one dead and one alive.
Harris being the alive one.
And we will go right through the absurdity of an election, not knowing who you're voting for.
We will have the first presidential election where the voters won't know who they voted for, if they voted for the Democrats.
They may think they voted for Harris.
They may think they voted for another Biden presidency, but they won't know for sure.
Because it will depend on what happens with Joe and maybe that depends on him.
So I'm going to call it the Harris-Biden campaign from now on.
Is that fair?
It's not really the Biden-Harris campaign going forward.
Would you agree?
So I think even the Democrats might call it that.
Here's my prediction.
You'll hear on one of the major networks like CNN or MSNBC, somebody will say what I just said.
You know, for all practical purposes, you could think of it as the Harris-Biden campaign.
Wait for that.
That's coming.
All right.
Wall Street Journal is saying that only Harris is viable.
Which is interesting, because we've heard that Biden is vibrant.
So it's viable and vibrant.
We've got one viable and one vibrant.
I don't know, that feels like a tie.
I like viable, but I also like vibrant.
I'm going to call it a tie.
All right, I am amused beyond... I mean, this is just so delightful.
Watching the Dilemma, I'll call it the Axelrod Dilemma.
Now, maybe more of a, you know, a wonk about politics that, you know, if you say to yourself, who's this David Axelrod?
You're not going to fully appreciate this.
So David Axelrod is long time, you know, one of the smartest political observers and campaign advisors.
So he would be one of the strong people all the way from the Clinton presidency on.
And always one of the sane, non-crazy voices who understands how things work in the real world.
And so he rode this horse, this Democrat horse, because it was his horse.
I mean, you know, as Democrat as you could be.
And the horse turned into a horse that doesn't like people like David Axelrod.
As in, he's a little bit too old and a little bit too white to have much influence over the party at this point.
And I'm pretty sure that they say that privately.
Don't you think that privately they say, you know, the old white guy, he just keeps chattering in the news, but let's just keep ignoring him because his day is done.
The day of the old white guys are over and, you know, we want the diverse voices to be the forward voices.
And there's nothing wrong with that, they would say.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with a political party saying, you know, this is who we are and then constituting in that way.
It's just really a bad dilemma for Axelrod and Carver, Carville.
Do you think James Carville, Is doing these insane videos and interviews because they're listening to him?
No, it's because he says they're not listening to him.
That's why he's going public.
So Axelrod is not being listened to and James Carville is not being listened to.
Do you think it's a coincidence that they're the old white guys?
No, it's not a coincidence.
And what does he do about the fact That he's supporting a party that doesn't want him as an advisor because he's a white guy.
He has to know that.
Would you agree?
There's no way that he's waking up and saying, I'm sure glad I'm a Democrat.
There's no way he's saying that.
Because he knows the Democrats don't like him for his race and his gender.
And that he can't be an important person in that party with his current race and gender.
Carville knows that.
And Axelrod has to know it too.
So what do you do if you're them?
I don't think this is impossible.
I'll bet against it.
But you might see one of these guys, or one like it, you know, they're not the only ones in this situation, actually register as a Republican publicly and say, I can't go along with the DEI stuff.
Cause I'm being ignored and discriminated against in my own party.
And this is the number one thing we're against.
So we turned into this horrible discriminating thing and I don't like Trump, but at a protest, I'm just going to, I'm going to register Republican because I don't want to associate with a group that is overtly discriminating by race and gender.
I think you might see it.
Not necessarily one of these two guys, but somebody in that domain.
Well, there's a story about the CIA director Bill Burns.
He's going over to Doha next week.
Axios is reporting.
And he's going to talk to the Prime Minister of Qatar and talk to the director of Israeli Mossad and the head of the Egyptian intelligence people.
And they're going to try to push forward on some kind of Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal.
Huh.
Does that raise any eyebrows?
Is there anything about that story?
That strikes you as alarming.
Well, why exactly are the intelligence agencies of these entities taking the lead on what to do next?
I get that they're important players, but why are they taking the lead?
Could it be that they've dropped the pretense that civilian governments are in charge?
Maybe they just dropped the pretense and said, look, you're in charge of your government.
We're in charge of our government.
The intelligence agencies are going to make all the decisions.
Can we just get together and decide what you're going to tell your government to do?
That's what it looks like to me.
It looks like when the CIA works on a deal that the other intelligence agencies for those, the other concerned entities, if they all agree on something, they will go back to their country and say, hey, Netanyahu, Here's what you're going to do.
Or else.
Here, Obama.
Here's what you're going to do.
Or else.
Here, Egypt.
Here's what you're going to do.
Or else.
Here, Qatar.
Here's what you're going to do.
Or else.
By now, all of those intelligence agencies have captured their governments.
Of course they have.
Of course they have.
The only place where I think it might not be happening Are China and Russia.
Why?
Because China and Russia are tough characters.
And I think the moment the intelligence agencies look like they were threatening, they would just be taken away and murdered.
So if your president isn't actively murdering people in their own intelligence service, the intelligence service will take over the government.
There's no doubt about it.
I don't know what's happening in Egypt.
But my guess is if these entities are getting together and they think they can be productive, it's not because they have secrets.
It's not like, we better send the intelligence people because they know the good stuff and only they can make a deal because they know that.
No, I think this is an acknowledgment that they're the ones in charge, at least of this issue.
And if they don't agree, nothing will happen.
So you first have to get them to agree on what looks like a plan.
And then maybe something can happen.
But does any of it matter?
Nope.
Do you know when Israel is going to be ready to wrap up the war?
Never.
Never.
You're a total sucker if you think the war is ever going to end.
Israel will keep the war going in some form.
You know, it might be a reduced form.
But the last thing they want to do is end it and then rebuild Gaza and just rebuild the problem.
No, Israel is way better off with a permanent war.
Just, you know, playing whack-a-mole with the people who pop up.
Because reputationally, they've already lost everything that they had.
Right?
It's not like Gaza's gonna, suddenly, the narrative's gonna change.
Do you think the narrative will change?
Oh, you know what?
Yeah, we hated Israel, but you have to admit, they did a, you know, a very morally and ethically responsible reaction there in Gaza.
That's never going to happen.
Israel has nothing to gain by making you like what they did in Gaza.
Nothing.
Because you won't like it.
They can't get from here to there.
There's no way to convince you to like it.
So if you've already decided there's nothing they can do to make you like it, then the only thing that matters is what's good for Israel.
And I do not fault any country for doing what's in their national interest.
As Trump often points out, that's the way it's supposed to work.
Israel is supposed to do what's good for Israel.
America is supposed to do what's good for America.
That's a good system.
You know, and then when there's conflict, we work it out.
So, no, I wouldn't expect any ceasefire.
I don't expect the hostages will ever be given up, and they're probably dead anyway, some of them.
And no, there's no path.
I don't see any path at all.
I see somebody in the comments saying that my go-to persuasion phrase is, would you agree?
It is.
That's a persuasion phrase.
But I only use it on things which I think you would agree on.
And by the way, you would do that in person if you're a salesperson.
You try to get somebody to agree with as many things as possible if you know that later there's going to be a disagreement.
So you want to pace.
It's called pacing.
Have you heard of it?
And pacing means that you agree with everything you can agree with.
And that gives you some hope That the person will listen to you.
Have you seen people try to debate when everything one person says gets questioned?
There's nowhere you can go.
You gotta let them have a win.
Otherwise, there's no point in the conversation.
Even if you're not quite sure that they won, you gotta say, would you agree?
And make sure that there are at least some basic things you all agree on.
And then maybe you can have a conversation.
So yes, would you agree is persuasion, but it's also just basic communication.
And the difference between effective communication and persuasion, not that big, not that big.
All right, so in summary, I'd like to see a place where all the list of persuasion relative to the election is put in one place.
And then, ladies and gentlemen, you've got something.
I don't know how many times I've told you this, but the speech writer is the one with more power than you think.
The person who can frame a thing better has more power than you think.
The best idea, whoever has the best idea, is in charge.
This is the best idea.
The best idea is to have several list persuasion nuggets of 12 items, no more, just get good 12 good ones, or less, and make them available to everybody so that whenever a conversation comes up, you can say, well, here's 12 things that disagree.
So that's what I do.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my
