God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Fentanyl Crisis, Intentionally Open Border, David Axelrod, Kristi Noem, Non-Citizen Voter Registration, Susan Rice, Non-Citizen Voter Deportations, Michael Ian Black, Anti-Trump Lawfare, President Trump, Intel Adjacent People, Rob Reiner, President Biden, Peter Zeihan, Karine Jean-Pierre, Elon Musk, Electronic Voting Machines, Media Assigned Opinions, Mail-In Ballots, Safe Act, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, Anti-Le Pen Lawfare, AI Development Speed, NATO Summit, James Carville, John Kirby, Big Boy Press Conference, 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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time in your whole life.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels in which nobody with their tiny human smooth brains can even understand, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker gels, a stein, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Sublime.
Well, if you're not subscribing to the Dilbert comic, which you can only see on X by subscription or on scottadams.locals.com, where you can see that plus lots more, um, you would know if you're watching it, you would know That I'm playing around with some of the cartoon reality.
So Dilbert got LASIK.
You're gonna have to figure out how that goes.
But I'm doing a lot of things where I'm sort of bending that fourth wall, they say.
You know, merging reality with comics.
It's a good time.
Doing crossovers.
All the stuff I wanted to do all my career that I thought was funny, but my editor would say, you know, you don't want to cross that fourth wall.
You know, don't make it look like it's a comic.
Make it look like it's reality.
But sometimes I like both.
Well, did you know that the benefits of coffee just keep coming?
There's another study, peer-reviewed.
It's peer-reviewed, people.
Peer-reviewed.
That drinking coffee makes you live longer, helps with your diabetes, it helps with your heart disease, your liver, your cancer.
It helps with your colon and your breasts.
It helps with your thyroid.
Well, I'm sure it helps with your genitalia.
They just don't put that in the article because they don't care.
But apparently drinking coffee, because it's a plant-based diet, is as good as a Mediterranean diet.
Now, I don't think that's necessarily true, but since I like coffee, I would like to give you the, let's say, the understanding of how data works.
Now, I used to do a lot of work with data.
In my corporate days, that was my job.
I would collect a bunch of data and put it in reports.
Usually financial, but it could be other stuff too.
I was always collecting data and making reports.
And one of the things I learned is, The only use for data is when it agrees with your boss.
All other data will be ignored or reformulated until it does agree.
And that's it.
There's no such thing as accurate data.
There's only data that agrees with your boss or doesn't agree with your boss.
And that's it.
That's the whole world.
If you don't understand that, You'll be continually confused why data doesn't seem to make sense and, you know, it doesn't agree with what you observe.
And, you know, you'll be all confused all the time.
It's really easy.
People use data that agrees with them and they ignore data that doesn't.
There's no such thing as good data.
Not in this world.
All right.
I've got a hypothesis that since our government is completely useless, most of our problems can only be solved by technology.
In other words, you're on your own, folks.
Remember I used to talk a lot about Fentanyl?
Because I had a tragedy in my family.
And I thought, you know, attack the cartels and close the border and do this and that.
And now I'm completely off of it, because to me it's obvious that the problem is coming from inside the house, meaning that there's somebody in the US government who wants the borders open.
Is probably taking money or get some other benefit from the cartels.
I don't know what the arrangement is, but it's pretty obvious that we have an arrangement with the cartels or whoever has control over the border has arrangement with the cartels.
It's open for a reason, right?
It's not accidentally open.
So the government isn't going to help you with fentanyl.
Would you agree?
We can say at this time with confidence, Trump isn't going to help you.
Trump is going to do zero on fentanyl.
He might make some noise about, oh, let's send the military in, but then there'll be a reason we don't.
Or if we do, it'll be some limited strike and they'll just reconstitute.
So Trump isn't going to do anything about fentanyl.
I think he wants to.
I think if he could, he would.
But there's nothing to do.
Because he doesn't control the border.
CIA does.
And he doesn't control anything about the cartel.
So nothing's going to happen.
But here's what might happen.
There's a new study, UCLA Health Study, shows that an insomnia drug helps to prevent opioid addiction in mice.
So if you were worried about the mice being addicted, Worry no more!
There's a drug that can save your mice.
We don't know if this will work with people but it's a drug for treating insomnia and they think it changes your receptors so that your opioid addiction could be lessened if it works with people.
So this is the sort of thing that will save us if there's anything that's going to save us from fentanyl.
Somebody's going to invent something that either gets you as happy as fentanyl Without the downside.
Or it'll make the fentanyl less of a problem.
There's another thing too called compound 368.
So two things in the news at the same time.
They're in the same area.
So it could help reverse opioid overdoses.
But you know they've got this drug that you take if you're having an overdose.
But apparently this new compound can make that drug Uh, last a long time instead of only working when you administer it.
So if you make it work a long time, it can neutralize the fentanyl even before you take it.
And I guess it can last a little while.
Now, I don't think either of these is going to be the answer, but it's the point is if you have lots of people trying different scientific things to work on fentanyl, there's a pretty good chance somebody is going to get it.
Now I'm seeing the comments also.
There's a lot of reason to think that addiction can be treated with psychedelics so the government Probably won't go destroy the fentanyl trade because they either don't want to or can't But I do think there's a really good chance that somebody's gonna say hey I can get rid of your addiction with this drug or this process or Something like that.
So let me say as clearly as I can when it comes to fentanyl Citizens are completely on your own.
If you're waiting for the government, which I mistakenly did for a while, because I thought they could do something, they're not.
The government will never do anything about fentanyl.
You are on your own.
Which might be okay, because citizens might be able to come up with something that the government can't.
So, sometimes I think the government, the only point of politics in the government is to stall until technology fixes something.
Here's another example.
If you think climate change is a problem, and by the way, I'd invite the NPCs.
This is an NPC topic.
If you are an NPC and you're not sure, one of the ways you can find out is by the comment that you're about to leave.
So the NPCs will reliably leave a comment, very specific comment.
I'll tell you what it is when I see it, when I tell you this story.
There's a brand new development in carbon storage for sucking CO2 out of the air and storing it.
And it's a non-chemical process, which makes a real big difference.
So it doesn't use the harmful chemical accelerants.
So University of Texas at Austin has this faster method for capturing it and putting it in the ocean somehow.
Now, um, let's see.
There we go.
Dean Anderson, LOL, CO2 is plant food.
CO2 is plant food.
CO2 is plant food.
That is the NPC comment.
Not that you're NPCs, because I think you just knew what I was looking for.
Yeah.
If your comment is, but CO2 is plant food, you might be an NPC.
It is plant food.
I'm not saying it's not true, but it's in the category.
If I were to say, for example, There are many good forms of exercise.
What would the NPC say?
Swimming is the best form of exercise.
Right, that's what the NPCs say.
If I say there's a new food source that gives you all the nutrition but it's, you know, some kind of a pill or a goop, what would you say if you're an NPC?
Soil and green!
That's what you'd say.
So that's how to know.
If you say any of those three things, non-ironically, if you're joking, it's fine.
But if you thought, you know what would really help this conversation?
I don't think everybody knows that swimming is a good form of exercise.
I better put that in there.
Oh, they're talking about taking CO2 out of the air.
I don't think that people know that plants need CO2.
I'd better put that in there.
Good.
Did my job.
Well, this is hilarious.
According to The Guardian, Meta, you know, the Facebook parent company, Meta, it claims that the news is not an antidote to misinformation.
So they got a problem with misinformation, but Meta is also not renewing some of its licenses for news entities.
So they're not going to pay for news, you know, the official kind of news.
But anybody can post anything they want, you know, within reason.
So they get some pushback and Mehta says that, uh, no, the news is not what's going to fix misinformation.
Now, when you read that, you slap your head and you go, my goodness, how could they think that the news doesn't correct all those conspiracy theories and misinformation?
To which I say, it looks like Mehta is actually living in 2024.
Hey, good job, Zuck!
Zuckerberg actually knows what year he's living in, which doesn't seem like a high bar.
I mean, he's a brilliant guy, but he understands that the news is fake.
Now, he didn't say that, but if you say that news doesn't correct misinformation, you're kind of saying that.
You're kind of saying that the news is no longer a credible source of knowledge.
Do you know why he would say such a thing?
Or why Mehta would say such a thing?
Without saying it, they didn't say that directly.
But do you know why they would indicate such a thing?
Because it's 100% obviously true.
If you want to be misinformed, isn't there a famous saying like that?
If you want to be uninformed, don't read the news.
If you want to be misinformed, read the news.
You can only be uninformed or misinformed, your two options.
That is literally true, by the way.
That's not like a joke.
The news is a misinformation vehicle.
Well, a survey, Rasmussen did a survey on Who's trusted more to handle inflation?
And it's Republicans by a big margin.
53% trust Republicans compared to 37% who trust Democrats on that key issue.
Now, isn't it weird to you that Trump is leading by law on every issue that's a key issue?
and that we're still talking about we don't know who's going to win the election.
I'm seeing some funny comments on on the locals platform.
All right.
So, does it surprise you that Republicans seem like they'd be better on inflation, better on Ukraine, better on immigration, better on the economy?
What else is there?
What else is there?
Do you know what we don't need a survey on?
We don't need a poll to find out who the public thinks would be better on fentanyl.
We don't need that, because they're both useless.
There's nothing they can do.
You're on your own.
All right.
I continue to be amused by David Axelrod's weird situation, which is that he's one of the smartest, let's say, political minds in all of the country, but certainly in the Democrat Party.
And he's also an older white guy, which means he can't get anybody to listen to him in the Democrat Party.
And so he's using the X platform to kind of gently release some of his frustrations, you know, without actually just registering as a Trump supporter, which I suppose would be hard.
But here's what he said today.
He goes, ask every one of the Democrats who publicly dismissed polls as unreliable today, Yes.
Of course, everybody believes polls when the polls go their way, and everybody says they're unreliable when they don't.
What does that sound like?
That sounds like just what I told you.
David Axelrod's telling you the same thing I'm telling you.
There's no such thing as good polls and bad polls.
There's only ones you agree with, and then ones you don't agree with.
Now, there's no such thing as good data.
There really isn't.
It's just stuff you like and stuff you don't.
Once you learn that, everything starts making sense.
When you think that there's something like accurate data, and that one group is ignoring it, and the other group is paying attention, you get so frustrated.
Because you think, why?
Look at the data!
Look at the science!
Look at the data!
And then your blood pressure goes up.
And you get diabetes and you die.
Unless you're drinking coffee and then you'll be fine.
Probably superhuman.
But how frustrating it is to imagine that there's such a thing as accurate data and that some people are ignoring it.
If you're living in the there is accurate data world, you're in a low level of awareness in which everything is maddening.
Once you free yourself from the idea that there's any such thing as good data, there's only motivated data.
Whoever gave you the data had an opinion.
Whoever provided the data had an opinion.
You know what else they had?
A need to eat.
They had a need to eat.
And if they said, you know what?
It's my job to get you data, but it's not really possible for one reason or another to give you accurate data.
Then your boss says, oh, I guess we don't need you then.
So what do you do?
You give them data and you tell them it's accurate because you're paid to do that.
Yeah, there's no such thing as real data, not accurate data.
All right, Kristi Noem, unless there's an update on this yesterday, Kristi Noem suspiciously deleted all of her official accounts on X, but kept her personal ones, personal one account.
What do you think that's about?
Is it because some people say she's preparing to run for, or that she's preparing to be named vice president?
How many people think that's what's happening?
I'm going to say no.
The reason I don't think that she'll be named vice president by Trump is that it doesn't look like a good pick.
I don't think it'd be a strong pick.
I don't know why anybody would think it'd be a good idea.
So I don't think she's vice president.
But what is it?
Well, it could be just fed up with social media.
It could be as simple as that.
Maybe spending too much time looking at it and it's bad for your mental health.
So it could be just good mental hygiene.
Possibly.
But...
I just think it's a coincidence that if she were named vice president, you'd have a dog shooter in the contest, you'd have Kennedy, who is accused of being a dog eater, and you'd have Joe Biden.
Joe Biden?
Is there anything funny I could show you that would make it look like it would fit into this story?
Oh yeah, it's a meme.
It's an old yeller meme in which Biden is old yeller the dog.
And if you don't see it, it's a picture of Joe Biden superimposed over Old Yeller, the dog's face, and the child who ends up having to kill his own dog, or somebody kills it.
And then meme is, you know how it ends.
You know how the movie ends.
His own team is going to shoot him, and they're in the process of trying to take him out of the race right now.
All right.
Well, that was worth a laugh.
So I don't know what's happening with Kristi Noem.
I would say it looks like she's struggling.
You know, I would think she's just having a tough time.
And maybe she just needed to do that for, you know, to catch her breath, so to speak.
So she's had, you know, a lot of issues with rumors about everything from her marriage to her dog that she shot.
I think she's just going through a tough time.
If I had to guess, I would say it'd be related to just taking the temperature down in her life.
That's my guess.
Well, as you know, the Democrats are busily trying to import or have imported 22 million people and counting.
People will dispute that number, but it's a number I see, 22 million.
It's a bunch.
That would be more than the margin of the largest margin of any presidential election.
So the most any president has beaten another presidential candidate, candidate versus candidate, is by about 17 million votes.
But 22 million people are brought in who potentially could be registered to vote, which is a whole separate question.
So here's a question I'd ask.
If it looks like, and Elon Musk says this and basically everybody on the right says this, that the entire plan was to bring in a bunch of non-citizens that would either vote or their ballots would be available for somebody to harvest.
Or at least they would create new citizens in places that would give you more electoral votes.
So that it's really all about a giant play for Democrats to keep power forever by creating a supermajority that will vote for Democrats.
Now, is that true?
Well, the rumor is that Susan Rice is actually assigned to make that happen.
I don't know if that's true, but today that's what I heard, that Susan Rice is in charge of the effort, and it literally is what you think.
It's exactly what you think.
It's election interference, essentially.
Legally, I guess.
No, not legally.
Very illegally.
But it's just, it's exactly what it looks like.
Now, I have to admit, I resisted the notion that it was that, but now I think it's obvious.
It may be that plus something else, but it's definitely that.
It's definitely about changing the election contours of the United States.
And the question that is raised by this is, if Trump were to get elected despite all the election interference, which is massive at this point, if he were to still get elected, What would be the order of deportations?
Because he's promised he would deport.
I think he will.
Well, first you're going to deport anybody who has any criminal record that looks problematic, right?
So you do the criminals first, but then who do you do second?
I don't know how many criminals there are, but it's not 22 million.
So I'm guessing you get, I don't know, tens of thousands.
Maybe there are tens of thousands, I don't know, 22 million.
You deport them first.
Who do you deport second?
What would be the method by which you determine who to go next?
Well, if it were me, I would make sure that the people who are signing up to vote know that they would be first in line to be deported.
Why?
Because if you came into this country and you signed up to vote illegally, you're first to go.
Because you're interfering with the system that you are not a citizen of.
Now, should it be their fault?
I don't care.
You might say, but Scott, they just got automatically signed up by the system.
To which I say, yeah, so what?
They would still go next.
Because you don't want a bunch of people signed up by the system that might have ballot harvesting issues, might change the vote, or at least make the vote less credible, which is bad too.
You don't want the system to look less credible.
So if I were Republicans, I would say, look, you can sign up all the non-citizens you want, but they're at the top of the list to be sent back.
Anybody who signs up to vote, even if it's automatic, Top of the list.
And I'd make sure they knew.
See, one of the advantages that the Democrats have, apparently, is that they have better communication with the immigrant-migrant community.
So if the only people that the migrants hear from are Democrats, they might not know they're in peril if they're registered to vote.
I think they need to know that.
If there's any way to tell them, look, you're at the top of the list now, if you're registered to vote.
And I do think they have to be.
They have to be at the top of the list.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Is there even one person who would disagree with the statement that after you do the, you know, the bad criminals, you know, maybe not speeding 80 miles an hour in the 65, But you know, the real criminals, they go first, and then you gotta get the people who are non-citizens registered to vote.
They just gotta be next.
Now, if you were coming into this country illegally, and somebody said, alright, give me your name and your address, would you do anything to intentionally put yourself on a list of people doing illegal stuff?
As in, registering to vote?
I don't think you'd do it if you knew it.
If you knew what you were doing, I don't think you'd do it.
Why would you put your name on the database of illegal people?
That seems like a bad idea.
Be a better criminal than that.
We want the smart criminals, not the dumb ones.
Just kidding.
So let's call the, when the non-citizens get registered to vote, I would call that the deport me first list.
Deport me first.
All right, here's a gaslighting update.
Things that your Democrat government wants you to believe.
Now, I say all the time that it's so hard to have any kind of a legitimate conversation with someone who thinks the news is real, or that it's trying to be real.
I find that it's a complete waste of time, because they'll always refer to something in the news that you know isn't real, but they think is.
So you just can't have that conversation.
It's like talking to a wall.
So here are some of the things that the people who believe the news have been convinced of.
That Trump is a convicted felon.
Democrats don't know that's not true.
What's true is, until the judge records it, he's not a convicted felon.
What's true is that he got there by lawfare, not by any kind of legitimate system.
And that there's a real good chance that Trump's lawyers law-fared back sufficiently that he'll never be a registered felon.
How many Democrats know that?
None?
Maybe none.
I'll bet you could interview them all day long and none of them would know that he's not a convicted felon and there's a real good chance he won't be.
And if he were, you know, if he gets somehow, you know, technically becomes a felon, it's still not going to be legitimate because it happened through a completely illegitimate process.
So if you actually believe that the justice system is working in the context of Trump, I mean, you have to be really gaslighted to believe that.
How could you not know that the entire architecture of the legal processes against Trump are illegitimate?
How could you not know that?
Well, it's because you think the news is real.
If you thought the news was real, you'd think nobody's above the law.
It's a good thing the law came after all these illegal acts.
That's some serious gaslighting.
Let's see what else.
Some portion of the public is still telling you, or the government, that Biden is fit to be not only president now, but another term as well.
Now, that's nothing but gaslighting, right?
Because we can all see it.
There's nobody who doesn't see it.
And they can look you right in the eye and say, no, he's fine.
Yeah, he's got good advisors.
He'll be fine.
We're also told that elections are secure in the context of massive mail-in ballots, electronic voting machines, And non-citizens being registered to vote by the millions.
And we're told that the elections are secure.
It's not even close!
Not only is it not secure, it's violently and hilariously unsecure.
It's unsecure at a level that is literally laughable.
How many Democrats are aware of that?
None.
Probably none.
Do you know what would make them aware of it?
If Trump won, they'll all say the thing is rigged.
Right?
All it's going to take to change their minds is for them not to get the answer that they wanted.
Do you know what an election is?
An election is a way to create data.
Do you know what data is accurate?
None.
Ever.
No, there's never any accurate data.
Accurate data is literally one of the illusions of life.
There is only data you agree with.
If you can't see it in the election situation, you can't see it anywhere, right?
What happened when Trump won in 2016?
Hillary Clinton and all of the Democrats said the data is wrong.
That there's something wrong with the vote.
They said the data is wrong.
What happened when Biden won?
Everybody who didn't like it said the data is wrong.
What do Democrats say?
Well, the data is right this time.
There's no such thing as accurate data.
There's only data you agree with.
That's it.
In the real world, there's only data you agree with.
All right, let's see what else we got.
We got the Trump is an adjudicated sex offender.
Now that's what people back up to.
Michael Ian Black was having this conversation on X with a bunch of people.
I think he started out by saying Trump's a rapist.
And then somebody said, no, no, you must be believing the news.
He wasn't even convicted of anything like that.
It was some kind of sex offense.
Okay.
Okay.
He's not, he wasn't an accused rapist.
He was, well, not accused, but he wasn't a convicted rapist.
He was a convicted sex offender.
And then somebody said, well, it's not a criminal trial.
He was found liable.
In other words, it was a civil trial.
Okay.
Okay.
Right.
So he wasn't a convicted rapist.
He's not a, I wouldn't call it a convicted sex offender.
It's more like killed liable.
By not a unanimous jury.
So if he'd been a criminal, it would have to be unanimous, but I think two people voted no.
So then it turned into, okay, okay, but he's a proven sex offender, to which I argue, no.
No.
Only the court has ruled that, or the jury ruled that.
That's not any kind of proof.
If it were science, they wouldn't call it proof, would they?
If you talk to a science and say, okay, we've proved this to be true because the jury said it's true.
That's not a proof.
That's a system doing what the system did.
That's not proof.
Nobody else was there.
It's her, he said, she said situation, basically.
So then it turned into all the way back from, you know, rapist to sex offender to, okay, the jury did find him that.
So he's an adjudicated sex offender.
So that's where Michael's at now.
He's an adjudicated sex offender.
Now that's accurate.
There was something adjudicated.
And their conclusion was sex offender.
But you need to go to another level, which is he is not credibly accused.
Now, credibility is a different story from what is true.
We, the public, don't have access to what is true.
And never will.
We never will.
We will never know what did or did not happen.
And by the way, this applies to Biden as well.
Remember, Biden has also been accused of some sex offense kind of stuff.
But he's not, you know, adjudicated in court or anything.
But you'll never know the truth.
You'll only know that a court adjudicated one way or another.
And the answer is, in his case, it was never taken up.
And in Trump's lawfare case, in the context of nothing but lawfare, it was just one of the things they made up to go after him.
But is it credible?
I would say no.
But let me be really clear.
I do not know that the accuser is lying.
That would be an affirmative statement of something I could never know.
So I don't know that she's lying.
But I also don't know that she's telling the truth.
And there's no evidence one way or the other.
No evidence that I would consider credible.
And at least two people who sat in the jury Also said that's not credible to us because they voted against the majority.
So I would say that is a non-credible process with a non-credible witness.
Doesn't mean she's wrong because if I said that I'd be creating some liability for myself.
I only know as a observer that nothing about that looks credible to me.
Now, I would say, and then the question I was asked, or others were asked, is how can you support somebody who's been adjudicated to be a sex offender?
To which I say, I think it's a tie.
Do you think if RFK Jr.
were not doing better in the polls, you don't think there'd be some kind of made-up sex offense against him?
If he were leading in the polls?
Of course there would.
RFK Jr.
would guarantee Somebody would be coming out of the woodwork from his vast, let's say, an interesting life, which he confesses to totally.
His life was wild.
And, you know, he's never proved, he's never claimed that he was, you know, loyal to his past relationships or anything.
You don't think, out of all that fodder, that the bad guys could have reached in there and pulled out somebody who wanted a payday?
Just to say he did more than he did?
Of course.
Of course.
Yeah.
Everybody at this level who is male is going to have a credible sounding sex offense charge.
Biden has one.
Trump has one.
If RFK Jr.
were doing better, they would make up one about him.
Am I right?
Right now it's just baseline stuff.
If you're male and you're in the race, there's going to be a non-credible sexual accusation.
Non-credible meaning, well, maybe on the surface it sounds like something that could happen, but it kind of falls apart when you look into it.
So, I would say that that seems more like a gaslighting thing, in the sense that if you think that one of them has some sketchy accusations and the other doesn't, what news have you been watching?
You never heard about Ashley Biden's diary?
You never heard about Tara Reade's claims about Biden?
If you never heard of those, Well, META's right.
The news isn't going to be the thing that corrects your misinformation.
META is so right.
The new gaslighting is Project 25, so I guess the Heritage Group or something, put together a whole bunch of things that they'd like to see a Republican do in office, but it wasn't backed by Trump.
Um, it didn't come from his campaign.
Trump has disavowed it while saying he doesn't know what's in it.
People say that's a complication.
Yeah.
People say it's a complication.
Um, anyway, so Trump has disavowed it.
Um, and he released his top 25 or so, 25 things he does plan to do.
So now Trump is released from the campaign.
The things he's going to do.
I have to say, I looked over the list this morning and there's, you know, a bunch of stuff you'd expect from a Trump list.
You know, he's going to deport people and blah, blah.
But I didn't think it was a good list.
I don't, I don't think it necessarily accomplished what it tried to do because it was too long to really stick in your head.
You know, you can't really hold 25 things in your head.
So it didn't work as a summary.
You know, summaries work well when you're trying to get elected.
You need some little, tight little summary.
A list of 25 things?
It's good background information, and I'm totally in favor of it.
But I didn't find it compelling.
It is a good counter.
It is a good counter to the Project 25, because you can say, no, this is what I want to do.
You know, it'd be one thing to say, I disavowed the list.
It's much stronger to say, here's my list.
This is one you should look at.
But once you browse it, you don't really remember it.
And there were some things I thought notably missing.
I didn't say anything about nuclear energy.
And I don't think I saw anything about the Ukraine war.
Nothing about Israel.
So it seemed to me there were some things conspicuously missing that would be important to me.
Um, but I guess I'll, I guess I'll rank it as a solid play.
And I would say that we should have more lists, because the list persuasion is really important.
There should be a list of climate change predictions that didn't happen.
There should be a list of hoaxes that the media has played on Democrats.
I think I had one other list.
So lists are good, and they should be created in a way that all of the voters have access to them immediately, so you can send them to your friends and stuff.
They're quite persuasive.
Um, there's the gaslighting that the TV hosts from MSNBC will be rounded up and put in prison camps.
Okay.
That's just so weird.
You can hardly even talk about it.
Who would be in favor of that?
Like who would be in favor of that?
To me, this is pure gas.
It's pure projection because the, the claims that, uh, That non-lawbreakers would be rounded up and put in prison?
They're basically saying that if Trump is elected, they might be hunted.
What would make them say that?
It could be because Republicans are actively being hunted.
It's just projection.
You can figure out everything they're doing and everything they plan to do by what they accuse the Republicans of, where you say, what?
That doesn't even make sense.
There's nothing like that happening, right?
So when they say, for example, that, you know, there's a bunch of military people up in the hills that are MAGA and they're getting ready to be part of some insurrection, that's telling you that they plan an insurrection if they need it, or they did one.
All right, so what you're all wondering is, if the CIA and the intelligence people in the country are really the power behind the throne, if they're the ones really running things, how would you know what they want?
What would be a sign of what the CIA wants?
Well, there are people that we suspect are CIA adjacent.
Meaning that their opinions would be suspiciously exactly what you'd expect the CIA to want them to say.
It doesn't mean that they're working with the CIA.
That would be harder to prove.
But there's some people who are so consistent with the CIA that it's hard to ignore.
For example, celebrities Rob Reiner and Stephen King.
The way they post and talk about politics is like it's their job.
They don't just act like interested parties.
They look like they're working for somebody, or they've got somebody who really wants them to do what they're doing.
Now, I don't know that that's true.
It just looks exactly like it.
Now, both of them bowed out from supporting Biden at the same time.
Now, would you say, therefore, that's a strong signal that maybe the CIA just is losing their support for Biden?
Maybe.
Maybe.
But I think both of them would agree they'd rather have Biden than Trump.
So I think the Democrats are all in what David Sachs called wish-casting.
They're still in that pretend world where Biden will be replaced with that high-quality Democrat that everybody likes and votes for.
I think that's just wishful thinking.
Right?
I think Biden, as every indication, he's going to hang on for dear life, at least through the election, and that it is what it is, and we're done.
It's just going to be this.
But everybody wants to live in the imaginary world where they fixed it.
So that's like me thinking of all the imaginary things our military will do to stop fentanyl.
That's just fantasy.
They're not going to do anything to stop fentanyl.
Never.
It's just pure fantasy.
And I don't think there's any way that Biden will be replaced.
Obviously, I could be wrong, because we're in a very frothy situation.
If you said, what is the confidence in your opinion?
I'd say you can't be confident in this situation.
There's just too much froth.
But so far, the most predictive part is that Biden's ego and brain have him locked into running and maybe he's got some Protect the family legal implications and maybe he's got Jill pushing him.
Maybe all that's true But every indication is he's staying in if he can so unless he has a sudden health event Which would look suspicious at this point?
I think he's in So I saw Peter Zan who some people say is Is associated with the CIA, but I have no evidence of that.
But I was watching him yesterday and, uh, he said directly that, you know, Biden has dementia and he should not be president and he should not be running.
Now he's no pro Trump person.
He's, he's very much anti-Trump.
So he, he's, he cast it as a decision between the, uh, the dementia person and the Demented person or something like that.
I don't know.
He had some clever framing.
But basically, he says that even though Biden is dementia addled, he would still prefer him.
And here's why.
Because if Trump is elected, it might be the last election the United States ever has.
And he just sort of drops that in there like that's obvious to us all.
I would say that would be the most unlikely thing that could ever happen in the history of unlikely things.
Who in the world thinks that Trump wants to end elections?
Who in the world thinks that Republicans would back that plan?
None.
There isn't a single Republican ever born who wants to stop elections.
How in the world do you say that with a straight face?
Unless you're part of a misinformation campaign.
Do you think that Peter Zahn, as plugged in as he is, and obviously as smart as he is, do you think that he really thinks that Trump would be the end of elections?
Like, how would he even connect those dots?
Like, what kind of imaginary situation would get you from, he's elected on election day, and then four years later there are no elections in the United States?
What kind of fantasy gets you from one thing to the other there?
There's no way he believes that.
Is there?
Do you think he's brainwashed?
I don't think so.
I don't think he's brainwashed.
He doesn't give off any, he gives off no signs That he's just under some kind of zombie-like brainwashing, where a lot of people do, by the way.
A lot of people give off all the signs of actually being brainwashed.
He doesn't.
But he doesn't like Trump.
Speaking of gaslighting, Corinne Jean-Pierre, she's the ultimate gaslighter.
Here, let me give you a skit of Corinne Jean-Pierre answering questions.
Corinne, there's been reports that a Parkinson expert has visited the White House eight times.
Is he meeting with the President?
The President's cognitive condition is tested every time he works.
Yeah, I know.
That's not exactly the answer to the question.
We're wondering about this specific thing.
The expert has gone to the White House eight times.
We don't know any reason he would do that unless he's going there to see the president for Parkinson's reasons.
Is that what's happening?
I don't know if I could be more clear.
I keep answering this question over and over again, but let me do it again.
Let me do it again.
The president Shows his mental acuity every day by doing the job.
Yeah, we hear that loud and clear.
Got it.
But what we're asking is something specific.
Is there a reason that you can't give me an answer to this very specific question?
Is that expert there to see the president?
I've been very clear.
I've been very clear.
People.
And then she does the body language like the problems on your end.
I love that part where she makes it look like the problems on your end.
Really, people.
How many more times can I answer the same question?
He shows his mental acuity every day.
I don't think I could be more clear about this.
And everybody's watching it and saying, I don't even know what I'm watching here.
Does she think she's nailing it?
Like when she's saying that stuff in her mind, is she thinking, yeah, I nailed that one.
Why are they still talking?
I so nailed that.
People, I could not be clearer.
And Democrats watch that and they think, I don't see a problem there.
Well, my favorite new character in the ridiculousness we call our government is Opposite Man.
Opposite Man.
You know Opposite Man?
His name, he goes by the name Jamie Raskin.
And he comes out whenever you need somebody to shamelessly say the opposite of what we all observe.
So let's see, the Mays account, Mays, it's on X. He says, in 2017, Jamie Raskin claimed that Trump was mentally unfit for office.
He proposed setting up a permanent office to evaluate the mental and physical health of the president.
That was in 2017.
Have we seen any mental health problems with the president, President Trump?
No, no.
So this was Jamie Raskin.
Saying the opposite of what you observed, because you could observe that Trump was fine.
And then he went and told you, no, he's obviously crazy.
I don't know what you're looking at.
So then in 2024, after it's very obvious that Biden is, has major dementia, does Jamie Raskin say, you know, that idea I had with Trump, it's even better now we should set up a permanent Kind of a department just for ongoing mental evaluation of Biden.
Does opposite man do that?
No!
Opposite man opposites again.
So now, and now he says basically that Biden's advanced age is one of the ways he brings solidarity to the world.
He's bringing solidarity to the world with his advanced age.
Why would he need to check on his mental acuity?
I don't even understand the question.
Opposite man.
Not as good as, worse than Watergate man.
Worse than Watergate man.
They bring him out when something's just gotta be worse than Watergate.
Just gotta be.
Well, how do Democrats process this?
So you got this character called Elon Musk.
You've probably heard of him.
He's in the news a lot.
And he invented this car company, electric car company, that nobody thought could succeed.
And then he's sending rockets into space, and he's gonna go to Mars, and it looks like that's gonna work, and he's covered the world with satellites, and he's putting a chip in people's brains, and he bought X, and somehow, by miracle, by miracle, he made the least profitable thing, looks like it'll be cash positive by the end of the year.
So those would seem like Only the kind of things that the smartest person you've ever met could think.
So I assume Democrats have noticed he's done a few things, accomplished a few things.
So when he talks about something that seems like he should know about it, you know, it's, it's well easier than any of those other things, you know, uh, engineering a rocket that can land on its, you know, to be reused.
Very hard.
But here's what he says today.
Electronic voting machines and anything mailed in for voting is too risky.
We should mandate paper ballots and in-person voting only.
Now, if you're a Democrat, how do you hear that?
Here's how I think they hear it.
I think they hear it this way.
Well, he's a genius in this area, Okay, and he's a genius in that other area.
Okay, he's a genius in three areas.
I'll give you that.
Four areas.
He's a genius in four—five areas.
Maximum five areas.
That's it.
Five areas of genius is what Musk has.
We're not going to give him—okay, six or seven.
I mean, if you're really going to count all the areas in which he's clearly exemplified pure genius, maybe six or seven.
But when he's talking about this topic, which all of us could look at and understand, suddenly something else is going on here.
He must have maybe some kind of cognitive impairment.
Maybe Elon Musk is having a problem with his mental acuity.
I don't know.
Suddenly, suddenly he went from the smartest person we know into instantly the dumbest person when he talked about something we know about, like elections.
Well, like elections.
Well, isn't that funny?
He went from the smartest person you know to the dumbest person you know.
As soon as he disagreed with the Democrat.
Oh!
So, you might ask the question, I would ask this question, why do electronic voting machines exist?
I keep asking this question because I think it'll become a news story that nobody can answer this question.
Okay, it doesn't save you money.
It doesn't give you a more credible result.
It's not easier.
You gotta hire specialists, you know, and everything.
It's not safer.
So it's not safer, cheaper, easier, more credible.
Why do they have them?
I can only think of one reason.
It's to rig elections.
If you can think of another reason, you let me know.
I'd love to hear the other reasons.
I can't think of any other reason.
I think it's right there in front of you.
It couldn't be more obvious.
Now, I often say that a degree in economics and some business experience gives you a filter to see things clearly.
This is one of those cases.
Let me ask, for those of you who have worked around technology, you know, and you have a, let's say you have a good understanding of, you know, building and implementing Technology, systems, and big companies.
Can you think of any reason for voting machines?
All the people who have experience in that domain, the domain of technology used in the real world.
Does anybody?
Even one of you.
Is there even one person who has experience with technology who says, yeah, voting machines have a reason, and here's that good reason.
You've never heard it.
There's not even an argument for it.
It would be one thing if you said, well, they have an argument for it, but I disagree and here's my reasons.
That's not happening.
There is no argument for having them.
Except fraud.
To create fraud.
There is no other argument.
How do we get to this point where I can say that out loud in public and everybody agrees with it?
And still nothing happens.
Remember I told you that your opinions are assigned to you?
And the opinions in the media are assigned to them.
So the New York Times and the Washington Post assign the rest of the media their opinions, except for Fox News and Breitbart, I guess.
And then, but who assigns the opinion to the media?
They don't assign it to themselves.
That comes from their masters.
CIA, FBI, Democrats, whoever.
But that's how you know anything.
So why is it that the fact that there's no argument For voting machines and a gigantic controversy about them.
Why is that not a national story?
Why have you never seen on Meet the Press or CNN having an expert on to say, you know, people keep asking, why do we even have voting machines?
But you're the expert.
Can you clear this up for us?
And then the expert says, oh yeah, if you didn't have voting machines, you would have this problem and that problem.
And then Jake Tapper would say, But there are 700 countries.
I'm just making up a number.
There are a bunch of countries that don't use them and nobody's complaining.
And you have results the same day and it's cheaper.
So what were those reasons again?
Well, okay.
Okay.
It's not, not cheaper, but that's what would happen.
So why is that not in the news?
The single most important thing you would need to know as a citizen, Why do they have electronic voting machines?
It's not in the news, because the people who assign the news to the New York Times and the Washington Post have not assigned it, and therefore they have not assigned it to the news in general, and therefore they have not assigned it to you.
So it's just not a thing.
They can disappear, the most important question.
You think there's a more important question than why do we have voting machines?
I can't think of one.
Everything will depend on it.
Everything.
And we don't even know why we have them.
And nobody's asking.
Besides me.
If that doesn't prove everything I've said about the system, this should prove, beyond a doubt, that the news isn't real.
And that opinions are assigned to us.
You can see it, right?
It's not always this clear in every topic, but this one's really clear.
You can see it from beginning to end.
You can see all the parts, all the moving parts.
You can see them.
All right.
And then, of course, mail-in ballots, same thing.
You know, the reason for mail-in ballots is that people will feel disenfranchised if they can't mail in their ballot.
And then people always do the stupid thing where, but, but, oh, is there any NPC?
I'll give the NPCs another chance.
I'm going to make a statement and I'd like the NPCs to weigh in.
Um, we shouldn't have mail-in ballots, uh, except in special cases.
Go.
What do the NPCs say?
But, but, what about my grandmother who can't make it to the, to the election because she's, has low mobility?
She's fine!
Yes, grandma with low mobility can vote by mail.
But, but, but, What about all the veterans, the people in the military?
Yes, they can vote.
They can vote by mail.
That's fine.
That's fine.
But what about the diplomats?
They can vote by mail.
They can.
No, it's just everybody else, right?
Special cases, sure.
But it's impossible to get any answer for why we even have it.
To imagine that anybody's disenfranchised for that is ridiculous.
Anyway, so here's the Democrat plan as we now understand it.
Their plan was to register millions of migrants to vote, use electronic voting machines for no reason that seems valid, use tons of mail-in ballots, which would allow the 22 million migrants either to use their mail-in ballots illegally and vote, and or to make the ballots themselves available for somebody else to harvest.
We know that at least in one state they voted to leave ballot boxes uncontrolled to make it easier to cheat.
So in every instance in which the Democrats are involved, they're moving in the direction of making it easier to cheat in every case.
Every single element makes it easier to cheat.
They call it not disenfranchising voters, for which I've never met a disenfranchised voter.
Have you?
Have you ever met one?
Have you ever met one fucking disenfranchised voter?
Just one.
The one person who really wanted to vote and just couldn't figure it out.
Have you ever met that person?
Have you ever seen that black person who couldn't get an ID according to the racist Democrats who think that suddenly the single easiest thing that a human being can do in the United States is only available to certain races?
Fucking racists?
Well, it's exactly what it looks like.
Bye.
Now there's a report that the DMV is automatically registering non-citizens to vote.
And there are reports of people saying the DMV told me green card holders could vote and they don't have to approve a residency requirement.
So Washington State is removing the residence requirement.
So the states are different and, you know, I saw Elon Musk say that the DMV is a state issue that's not being driven by the Department of Transportation.
But still, every time the Democrats do something that regards voting, it's all in the same direction.
How do you not, you're not catching on?
I know you all know, but Democrats aren't catching on.
Do you know why the Democrats haven't caught on that everything they're doing is to cheat?
Because they don't care.
They only care their team wins.
It's not really an issue.
So Republicans caring doesn't seem to make any difference.
Because wherever they can do it, they do it.
They might know it's illegal.
Nobody cares.
They're just getting what they want.
All right, and now we have this situation where the Congress sent a bill to Biden, or I don't know the timing of it, if he's already said now or will soon, but Biden's not going to sign the bill that says only citizens can vote.
What will he claim?
What will be his reason for claiming that he didn't need to sign that?
I feel like he's going to say it's already the law.
Even though they're working as hard as they can to make sure that non-citizens do vote.
They're going to say, but it's the law that they don't.
So we don't need a new law.
And then we would argue, but you're registering, you're massively registering people to vote who are illegal in a hundred different ways.
What would Biden say to that?
You already know.
You already know.
No, they're not.
And then the debate goes to the next question.
He will just gaslight you.
And then when Corinne Jean-Pierre is asked about it, why would you say no to that?
She'll say, well, it's already a law.
We don't need that law.
And then the next question will be, but, but, but there are widespread reports that are very credible that non-citizens are being massively signed up to vote.
And she will say, no, they're not.
And then the press will say, but they are.
And she will say, I've been very clear about this.
I don't know how many more times I can answer the question.
They are not.
But here's a report.
The law is actually allowed.
You can see every bit of information says they are.
We're seeing it from every state, everywhere.
We're seeing millions of people.
There are threads on Reddit of people who are non-citizens telling us, the non-citizens themselves are telling us, that they're being told to vote.
No, they're not.
No, they're not.
I've been very clear about this.
It's already law.
No, they're not.
And that'll be it.
Now, I've argued that it should be the only question that's asked.
Because everything else depends on this.
I would just ask one question.
Why are you letting non-citizens vote?
And then making really clear that you've got the evidence that they are.
And if they can't answer that one question, I think every Democrat has to be asked this question every time that they're in public.
Why are you letting non-citizens vote?
Until the question has been asked so many times that when they say, we're not doing that, Even the people watching will say, well that's a lot of questions for something that's not happening.
Maybe it is happening.
So you might be able to break through just by forcing them to deal with the question over and over again.
I don't know any other way.
All right, well that gives away the whole game when you're allowing the non-citizens to vote and you're unwilling to say they shouldn't.
Jason Miller is talking about from the Trump campaign.
It was on Newsmax talking about Biden's doctor.
He says that in 1988, Joe Biden had two brain aneurysms and he had to have brain surgery.
And in 2008, he was criticized for hiding his health issues.
In 2020, more questions about his health.
And he says yet every year Biden's doctor, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, has signed off saying Joe is in perfect health.
What might be the reason that O'Connor has not been forthcoming?
And Jason Miller says, if you Google Jim Biden and Kevin O'Connor, you'll see that the doctor is doing business with the Bidens.
So the Biden crime family got itself a doctor.
It's kind of fascinating to watch how the top operators consolidate power.
It seems like they know You're going to need some prosecutors in your pocket.
You're going to need at least your own doctor.
Like, there's a certain set of professionals that they know they have to co-opt in order to maintain power.
So, I guess you have to have a doctor.
At minimum, you have to have a doctor who's got a gigantic financial interest in saying whatever you want him to say.
So, I would assume that the doctor is lying.
And it's monetary, that's what it looks like.
Can't know, can't read his mind, but every indication is the doctor's a liar and probably should lose his medical license.
Anyway, so Le Pen, who did not win, the conservative candidate who did not win in France, what do you think happens after you launch a surprisingly good campaign?
You get more votes than the other parties, but the other parties combine to keep you out of power.
What do you think would happen next in our world?
Well, if you guessed that the bad guys were going to lawfare her so she can't make another run, you guessed right.
So now prosecutors are claiming that her party stole taxpayer-generated funds from the European Parliament to help finance her campaign.
The source is the Evening Standard, and I ask you this.
What are the odds that that's a genuine complaint versus lawfare?
I would say that France has watched the United States, they watched the Democrats successfully tie Trump up with lawfare, and said to themselves, why wouldn't that work here?
So it looks like they're just going to give Le Pen the Trump treatment, So if she ever thinks of running again, which of course she would, because she got the most votes, why wouldn't you?
Does she maybe be crippled by the lawfare?
It's exactly what it looks like.
We don't really need to...
Publish that same semi-porn picture every time.
Yeah.
It's not a real picture.
It's AI.
Don't really need that every time.
All right.
Bindu Reddy says that Trump will repeal Biden's executive order on AI.
And I guess that's something Trump said he would do.
So I didn't realize this, but Biden had some kind of executive order Uh, to put a little, uh, let's say control on the AI development.
And the claim is that that set of controls makes, uh, the AI people have to jump through hoops, which is putting a, uh, uh, let's say a big constraint on America's development of AI while other countries can develop it without constraints.
So we would be competing against people building a super, super weapon.
AI, but not building one ourselves, because we put constraints on ourselves.
Now, of course, there are two camps, the go slow and the go fast.
I think the go slow people are, I don't want to say stupid, because that's not true.
But the go slow on AI people, I don't think they're seeing the whole field.
Or something.
Because if you just assume that our enemies will go fast, there really is no argument for the go slow, even though it's terribly dangerous.
If you say go slow because it's unsafe, you haven't compared it to the alternative.
Going slow and letting your adversaries get AI before you have some kind of AI that can fight off their AI is an existential threat.
I mean, that's death.
So, I think it's just bad risk management to think that we should go slower than our adversaries building the ultimate weapon.
You know, I think you've got to go first, even at existential risk.
So even if the risk is destroying the United States, you've got to get there fast.
Because if the other countries are doing it, they're also going to destroy their countries and the first AI will destroy everybody if it's that dangerous.
So if AI is going to be that dangerous, we're all dead anyway.
This is a better way to say it.
If AI is really as dangerous as some people worry, It doesn't matter what we do.
We're all dead.
If it's not that dangerous, but it's super dangerous, you know, as in you don't want your enemy to have it if you don't have it.
If it's that kind of danger, you got to go first.
So there are two situations.
One where it's not that dangerous, where going fast makes sense.
And one where it's super dangerous, but it doesn't matter what you're going to do.
You're going to get the whole world is going to be destroyed.
So there is no argument for slow.
Does that make sense?
There's no argument for slow, because slow gets you dead for sure if AI is deadly.
And if it's not deadly, you want to get there first.
So to me, the risk management case is really clear.
You go fast.
And could it have devastating impacts?
Yes.
But those are your two choices.
If you only have two choices, you can't say, I can't do either one because they don't look good.
You just got to pick one.
And to me, it looks obvious.
But I'm no AI expert, so maybe somebody has a better argument.
But if you were only going to be a one, let's say a one issue voter, what do you think is a bigger issue than AI?
If you didn't know anything about Trump and Biden, nothing, except this one issue, it's big enough that you should pick Trump over it.
It's that big.
And Trump is really good at risk assessment, by the way.
Trump is really good at risk assessment, I think.
All right.
Well, there's a NATO summit.
I don't know when that's happening, Thursday or something.
And Wall Street Journal says that they're hoping that the NATO summit would be a showcase where Biden could show how capable he is and all that.
I think it's going to turn into Weekend at Bernie's.
I hate to use that overused analogy, but it's really going to look like a dead guy with a bunch of living people.
I don't think there's really a chance it's going to go well, do you?
How many of you think that's going to go well?
This is bad risk management.
That's what it looks like.
All right, well, James Carville, he's still in his fantasy phase where he thinks they can build a quick mini primary and quickly replace Biden with a process that would be credible.
He says the process should be this.
That Bill Clinton, well he said Clinton, maybe he meant Hillary, I don't know, but I think he meant Bill, and Obama are the two most obviously qualified people in the world to basically help quickly move into a new rapid primary.
And he thinks that Kamala Harris should be on the list, you know, but it should be maybe five people and then just quickly get a new candidate.
So, if it turns out that Biden, who, if you look at Ukraine, seems to be a bit of a war hawk, would you say?
Would it be fair to say that Biden has been a hawk?
At least on Ukraine, yeah.
So, if the hawk is replaced by Harris, you'd have the hawk replaced by the hawk too.
Yeah, that was a long way to get there.
But I think it was worth it.
And now I'm done with it.
Okay.
Well, John, was it John Kirby?
He was at the, he had a press conference and he was talking about Biden planning to do a press conference.
And he talked about Biden's press conference.
And he said, he looks in the back and he goes, I think we're calling it the, a big boy press conference.
A big boy press conference.
Now what he meant was it wouldn't be two set questions and then he disappears, but rather he would really answer questions like a big boy.
Now, let me give you a hypothetical.
You work for the president of the United States.
You're on camera talking to the world.
The president is, um, Bill Clinton.
And you say on his behalf, he's decided to have a quote, big boy press conference.
Is Bill Clinton happy about that?
No.
No.
He fires you immediately.
Because what the fuck are you doing?
You're making me sound like a child.
You're out of here.
Okay.
Now let's say that that spokesperson said the same thing about President Obama.
Oh, he's finally going to have a big boy press conference.
Fired.
Fired.
How about somebody said that about Trump?
Fired.
Is Kirby worried that Biden will fire him?
Nope.
Because you don't say that in public.
If you think there's any chance you're going to get fired.
That is a man who knew with certainty that he had no risk.
He basically insulted the president in public about as deeply as you can insult anybody in that position.
That he's finally going to have a big boy press conference?
Seriously?
Seriously?
That really happened in the real world?
And he didn't get fired?
Do you know why?
Because Biden doesn't fire anybody.
Trump told us.
Trump told us during the debate, you haven't fired anybody.
Just think about that.
That one of his, you know, uh, top person in the government just stood in front of the world and basically called him a child.
It was no problem.
No problem at all.
Because first of all, Biden's so anti, he probably doesn't have any control of anything.
And secondly, he doesn't fire people.
So you don't even have to worry about doing what the president wants.
You still won't get fired.
My God.
Anyway, I talked about Trump 2025 and how he's got his own list.
So that's probably a good idea.
That's all I got for right now.
Thanks for joining everybody on X and Rumble and YouTube.
I'm going to go talk to my beloved members of Locals, where they get lots more of the good stuff.
