God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, President Biden, Biden's Press Conference, Politician Faces, Media Host Faces, President Trump, Democrat Hoax Vulnerability, Vice President Trump, VP Harris, David Axelrod, Brian Stelter, Biden Campaign Polls, Central Park 5 Hoax, Hur Tape SCIF Review, Rep. Luna, Balaji Srinivasan, AI Biden, META AI Bias, COVID Info Government Censorship, Elon Musk, Mike Benz, Stormy Daniels Case Appeal, Project 2025 Hoax, Joel Pollack, JD Vance, AT&T Hacked, Georgia 2020 Election, Save Act Fails, Spotting Paid Trolls, Anti-X Lawfare, 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
Boom boom boom boom boom. All right, come on Come on locals wake up There we are There we are
Good morning everybody and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
Probably the finest time you'll ever spend in your entire life.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, smooth human brains, all you need is a cuppa, a mugger, a glass of tanker gels, a steinikein, a tin jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
You can go.
Oh my goodness, the simultaneity of this was a little extra.
Nicely done.
Compliments to all of you, and may I add that you're looking extra sexy today.
You are!
Speaking of extra sexy...
Let me take you over and show you the, uh, allegedly, this is the Biden-Harris store.
Now, traditionally, um, people would find the most attractive models, but they seem to have gone in a different direction this time.
And here's the funny part.
I can't tell if that's real.
I really don't know.
Is that real?
Is that really a picture from their store?
Like, honest to God, that's real?
I don't know.
I have no idea.
That's what's fun about it is I can't tell.
It would be, I suppose I should, you know, try to figure out.
I should probably try to figure it out.
Anyway, back to me.
Well, there's a new study that says half of your cancers are from your lifestyle.
Obviously, we'll talk about the Biden presser in a moment, just letting everybody flow in here.
So it turns out that 4 in 10 cancer cases, according to this study, are linked to modifiable behaviors, such as you're smoking, you're drinking alcohol, you're poor diet, and what they call not getting vaccinated.
When they say not getting vaccinated is a cause of cancer, they mean specifically the HPV vaccination.
I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea.
I don't give medical advice, but it's funny that the headline is not getting vaccinated when what they meant was this one specific kind of vaccination.
But here's the surprising part.
What do you think is missing?
So these are the lifestyle modifiable things that cause cancer.
So you got your smoking tobacco, you got your drinking alcohol, you got your bad diet, and then the weird one about the vaccination.
What's missing?
Shouldn't exercise be in that list?
I feel like you could have skipped the study.
I would have told you all of these things.
But I would have added, and you also have to exercise.
But is cancer actually unrelated to exercise?
I feel like exercise is related to every disease.
But maybe not.
Maybe I'm wrong about that.
Well, here's the good news.
According to Wall Street Journal, scientists have come up with a kind of a space suit That will recycle your urine so that the astronauts can drink it.
So they can drink their own urine.
There's no word if you would drink other people's urine or just your own, but you should be equal because it's purified.
Although I feel like I feel a little less comfortable drinking somebody else's purified urine than my own.
Is that just me?
Well, we don't want to talk about this because this is icky.
It's disgusting.
It's the last thing you want in your mind.
But speaking of drinking your own urine, let's talk about President Biden and his press conference.
That's called a segue, people.
It's called a segue.
Yeah, I did plan that.
Well, thank goodness we have, I think you know, we used to have this dishonest president called Trump.
Oh my God.
The lies that man told, he would sometimes tell you that the crowd size was not exactly what it was.
And I don't know how the country recovered from that.
Sometimes he would make claims about what he did for the economy that some people thought were exaggerated.
And yet we survived, people.
We survived that terrible deception and lying from the man who wants to be a dictator for a day.
But thank goodness we finally got an honest president.
He promised us he would be a bridge to the next generation.
Okay, he's not going to be a bridge to the next generation.
He's going to selfishly run for re-election.
But, that's just one thing.
I mean, nobody's perfect, right?
They're human beings running for president.
They're not gods.
They're just normal human beings.
They're going to make some mistakes.
Sure, maybe the main campaign promise was a lie, and maybe it will be a lie that will destroy the Democratic Party for a generation, but it's just one.
That's just one thing.
If you compare that to the hundreds and hundreds of things that Trump has said that are slight exaggerations, I think you can see it's not comparable.
It's just that one thing for Biden.
Well, technically, it's two things, because he actually put his campaign in 2020 around the fine people hoax.
But really, that's just two things.
And you can't really compare two things to the blizzard of exaggerations from Trump.
That wouldn't even be—that'd be like an apple to an orange.
Well, OK, OK, Biden did spread the drinking bleach hoax to Central Park.
Five folks, he tried that in a radio station.
He did say that Trump is in it for himself, while Biden is clinging to power for reasons that even his own party says must be only for himself.
And he tells us the polls say that he's winning, but in fact, no poll says that.
He told us he has no cognitive problems while he decomposed right in front of us.
He said that on a radio station that his staff asked him to delete.
He said that more black members in his administration than all others, all other administrations added up, which is not even close to being true.
But that's just a handful.
That's just a handful of lies.
Now, I think you saw on CNN, if you watched it directly after the debate, CNN brought their fact-checker in to fact-check Biden on... What?
What, they didn't?
What do you mean?
Oh, really?
They didn't?
So CNN didn't bring their fact-checker in to fact-check Biden?
Why wouldn't they do that?
That's what he's for.
Shouldn't he be there really featured?
You'd think that that would be like an obvious... Was he on vacation?
Summer vacation?
It's probably summer vacation.
People, do not be suspicious.
Do not start thinking that the news is not completely objective and fair just because the fact checker happened to be on vacation.
It's not like anybody could have replaced him.
I mean, that's a special skill.
Nobody else knows facts.
Just that one guy.
And he's on vacation, I guess.
I guess.
Because I can't think of any other reason he wouldn't be prominently featured after the presser.
Can you?
Can you think of any reason?
No!
There's no reason.
Well, I have a hypothesis.
It goes like this.
Maybe there's a big political difference of opinion in the world.
Maybe.
Maybe that's what's going on.
It would look like that.
I mean, that would fit observation.
But I've got another provocative suggestion about what's going on.
I feel like, is it just me, or does it seem like Democrats are not good at reading people?
Have you noticed that?
So Democrats looked at Biden and they said, He looks fine to me.
Did any of you have that opinion?
They look at Adam Schiff and they say, well, he looks honest, so I think whatever he said he saw in that skiff, that must be true.
Look at him.
Would that face lie to you?
They thought that Brennan and Clapper seemed credible.
Were they listening to him on the radio?
Have you seen their faces?
How could you look at Brennan and Clapper and think they're credible?
Just look at them.
Seriously, you can't pick up anything just by looking at them.
How about Hakeem Jeffries?
Now, I don't know anything about Hakeem Jeffries, except that he looks like the most evil human being I've ever seen in my life.
Now, I could be wrong.
But I feel like I'm pretty good at reading people.
So do you think that that could be part of it?
When I turn on MSNBC and I see Joy Reid and I see Rachel Maddow, I see massive mental illness.
What do you see?
Do Democrats turn that on and say, well, these are some smart and capable people talking to me now?
You don't see it?
You're watching Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid, and Joy Behar, and you're thinking to yourself, oh, they look okay.
Punchy DeNiro comes on TV, talks about Trump.
Do you say to yourself, uh-huh, uh-huh, I'm with that guy, because he's so normal and sane.
Does that really happen?
So, quite seriously, I ask this question.
How much of our problem is from people who can't read other people?
If you look at Trump, and you can't tell that he's got a twinkle in his eye, and that he's just bullshitting you when he's lying, and he's just a salesman, if you can't tell that that's all he's doing, and it looks to you like he's become a dictator, you might not be good at reading people.
You might be really, really bad at reading people.
If you take what Trump says as literal truths, like he wants to be a dictator for a day, You're really bad at rating people.
Really bad.
All right.
I saw a poll from ABC, Washington Post, Ipsos, and it showed that 31% of the Biden supporters aren't so much Biden supporters, they are people who mainly dislike Trump.
So they would support Biden because they mainly dislike Trump.
I have a hypothesis about that group.
If you could isolate just the group who doesn't really love Biden, but they dislike Trump a lot, I think that they would believe every hoax.
Would you take the other side of that bet?
I'll bet that if you said, all right, if your main thing is you hate Trump, can you give me three reasons why?
I'll bet you the three reasons would be three hoaxes.
And you wouldn't want to take that bet.
I almost guarantee that that group is just completely brainwashed.
And what that gives you is the ability to determine how powerful brainwashing is.
It kind of stands out.
And I would say that maybe a third of Democrats can be literally just their brains just erased and replaced with whatever the mainstream media wanted them to think.
Some of them just prefer Democrat policies.
And that's it.
They would be normal people, maybe with a little bias from their media, but they're not completely erased.
There's 31% of Democrats, or at least people who are going to support Biden, their brains have been erased and just replaced with the opinion of the mainstream media.
You can see it in the poll.
Anyway, so Biden did his big boy presser and, um, I was watching it, and of course I was just blown away by how gone he is, and it was obvious that he could not be the president for four years, and to me it just reinforced everything I saw in the debate.
It was about 90 minutes late.
He might have been a little worried, because his friendly press on CNN and MSNBC were saying that if he got one word wrong, it would end his presidency and his legacy, and his family would never make money again.
One word.
Yep.
You get one word wrong, we're gonna take you out.
How would you like to go for a speech when you're not all there, and you know that the media said, if you have one word wrong, Your entire legacy will be erased.
A little bit of pressure.
But he went out there and first thing he did is he called his vice president Trump.
That's right, he confused his own vice president with his opponent, at least the words he confused.
And then he had some mumbling and confusion and he did his anyway thing when he can't answer a question.
Well, well, yeah, well, any, yeah, well, anyway.
And what did the Democrat supporters say when they saw his halting and terrible performance?
Well, over on MSNBC, they concluded that he looks just fine.
Yeah, he's just fine.
But way better than Trump.
He's just fine.
CNN, a little bit more mixed.
But there seemed to be a general opinion That the worst-case scenario had been accomplished.
Do you know what the worst-case scenario is for Democrats?
The worst-case scenario is that he went to the presser and just did, okay.
That's the worst thing that could happen.
If he had completely died on stage, you know, not literally, but figuratively, They would have been able to say, yes, we can replace him.
There's no way he can resist because now he's died twice in two public things.
But what if he didn't?
What if he just did sort of a Biden-ish mumbling, shuffling through, which is what he did.
Then they don't have the strong argument to replace him because too many of their own people are saying, well, I watched it.
He looked fine.
In other words, the people in the Democrat party were bad at judging people.
Watch that and said, you know, I'm looking for problems, but I'm not seeing anything.
I'm not even sure why they, they say he's got some mental problems.
I mean, he's just killing this presser.
I think a third of the people, the third of the Democrats watching it actually have that opinion that, Oh my God, he's looking strong.
And then the, uh, CNN did a, uh, focus group right after.
It was six women who all looked batshit crazy to me, who said, yeah, yeah, you did a good job.
Good job there.
Now, I looked at those women and I said to myself, there's something wrong with that group of people.
You can tell by just looking at them.
There's something wrong with them.
But maybe I'm just bad at reading faces.
So, of course, everybody saw what they wanted to see in that.
That's typical.
The debate was special in that it's one of the rare times that people saw the same thing, but it didn't take long for cognitive dissonance to set in and self-interest until we went back to two different worlds where one of them is obviously accurate, that Biden's gone, and the other one is just cruising along like, I don't see a problem.
We picked him, he's great, better than that monster Trump.
So that was a perfect situation for Trump.
The best thing that could have happened is Biden would just do OK.
And that's what happened.
All right.
Biden was, of course, asked about Vice President Harris and, you know, if she's ready to take over.
And he praised her with a double negative.
Because he's got this balance.
He's got to say that he made a good choice for his vice president, of course, but he can't say he made a great choice.
Because if he says he made a great choice, then people are going to say, OK, but you know, you're failing a little bit.
You said you were just going to be a bridge.
You say she's a great choice.
It's time for the great choice to step in.
So he couldn't really, really say she's the greatest thing.
He had to give her something that sounded like he didn't make a mistake, but it also wasn't quite a compliment.
So he went for the double negative.
See if you can figure out any way to say this in a weaker way than he said it.
He said that he wouldn't have picked her as his running mate if she wasn't qualified to be president.
He wouldn't have picked her if she wasn't qualified.
How about saying this, I picked her because she's the most qualified person I've ever seen.
The reason I picked her is for her qualifications.
The whole reason I picked her is because she's amazing and she could step in right away.
That would be called a real endorsement.
Here's what's not a real endorsement.
Well, I wouldn't have picked her if I didn't think she wasn't, if I thought she wasn't qualified.
Yeah, I think his words reveal where he's going with that.
All right, my favorite part of this whole debacle of watching Biden decompose while the Democrats pretend, at least half of them, pretend it's not happening, is watching the poor bastard Axelrod, David Axelrod.
Now, he, of course, is a storied and successful and very smart strategist for the Democrats.
He's also older and white and male, which means he's been completely shut out from the Biden campaign because he's older and white and male.
And they don't have a lot of that in the campaign.
So they're not taking his advice.
So he finds himself to be the one of the leading strategists for parties that doesn't want him in the party, or at least doesn't want him anywhere near power.
Now, how do you How do you handle the fact that you're a member of a group that doesn't want you in the group, or doesn't want you to have any influence in the group, and your whole job is influencing the group?
Well, Axelrod has apparently decided that he'll go on TV as often as possible and just stick a shiv into the Biden campaign.
Without making a big deal about it being a DEI problem, obviously it's a DEI problem, which is deliciously ironic and awesome because it's happening right in front of us.
And I love the fact that the press won't say it.
The Biden campaign is failing because of DEI.
There's no question about that.
Now, when I say that, if anybody's new to me, has nothing to do with, you know, black or LGBTQ or Uh, Hispanic or, or gender has nothing to do with anybody's genes.
That's never the argument.
The argument is if you limit who you can hire to an artificially constrained group for which there's not too many, you're going to end up with unqualified people mucking up the works.
It's predictable.
It's guaranteed by the design of the system because there's the supply and demand is out of whack.
And so the people who push that, the axle rods, they ended up getting screwed by their own thing.
Now, if you were a older white man and you were pushing DEI, you know, you probably thought you were just saying the right things and keeping your head down.
But I suspect some of them thought there would be no downside.
It would just make the world more diverse, and everybody would get an equal shot, and that sounds pretty good.
But if you lived in the real world, you know exactly what's gonna happen.
The old white guy's gonna be pushed out to pasture.
In favor of the new and exciting young LGBTQs and black people who've, you know, got some skills and women and, you know, it's obvious.
There's no other way that anything like that could go.
The design is destiny.
So here's poor Axelrod trying to navigate the fact that he's a prominent member of a group that would not have Anything to do with him, if they had a choice.
And he just sticks the shiv in every time he gets on CNN.
And I'm here for it.
So Axelrod, I'd like to make a public invitation.
You might want to join the other side.
Because the other side actually likes you.
Might not like your politics, but nothing against you.
Like you're fine.
You're smart.
Seems like a smart guy who cares about the country, in my opinion.
I think he's got the right instincts.
Then there's Brian Stelter.
My God, that man is funny.
So, what he said was, millions of Democratic voters watched Biden's press conference, and now some of them are wondering, why are the chattering classes trying to force this man out of office?
Why?
I mean, he looked fine to me.
Why are you trying to force him out of office?
I thought the Democrats were the party of saving my democracy.
But why are they trying to force this man out of office, who everybody, including Brian Seltzer, can clearly see has no problems whatsoever with his brain?
He's functioning like the best Democrat out of all of them.
Anyway, MSNBC desperately trying to revive Biden because they think maybe it's their only choice, but Nicole Wallace had to finally admit that Biden's approval levels are at a level where nobody has ever been elected.
Apparently, well, no, I may be lying about that.
But I think she said that nobody's been re-elected with that kind of approval.
And she also said that there are no polls that show that Biden is ahead, which is, you know, he claimed those polls exist.
Which suggests, which suggests, This campaign is either lying to him about the polls or, and this would be a big surprise, you'd never see this coming, he might be a big old liar.
Yeah, it's possible.
I know this might be the first time you're hearing it because you've only heard that, you know, Trump's a big old liar.
But, uh, shocker, Biden has a long history of making shit up.
Yeah.
No, it's real.
It's true.
I know you're shocked, but it's true.
So, a lot of MSNBC viewers watched that presser, and like Brian Stelter, they thought to themselves, he looks perfectly functional to me.
I don't even see what the problem is.
This is embarrassing.
CNN has a scoop here, I think it's a scoop, that that radio station that Biden did a friendly interview with, You know, the one where they, I think it's the same one where he gave them the answer or gave them the questions to ask in advance.
Well, apparently even then there were two things that Biden said that were so embarrassing, the campaign called the radio station and asked them to edit those out.
And they did.
Okay.
Two separate stories in one.
Story number one, two of his answers were so embarrassing.
That the campaign asked them to delete them.
That's a big story.
The bigger story is that the radio station just did it.
They deleted them.
The next biggest story, CNN busted them.
So I'm going to say again, I don't think CNN has quite found their footing as some kind of a real news entity, but they are definitely hitting both sides now, right?
You could no longer say, oh, they only say good things about the Democrats.
That's not happened.
Now, some of this might be related to, they know they got to get Biden out of there to have any chance of beating Trump.
So you can't quite know if, if CNN is trying to play it straight, or they're just in a weird situation where the Democrats are running the worst candidate in the world.
But the two things that they deleted were, Biden made the claim that he had more black people in his administration than all other prior administrations put together.
And that would be not close to true.
And he also said something about the Central Park Five and wasn't sure if somebody called for hanging them or not.
No, nobody called for hanging the Central Park Five.
And by the way, that was the first famous Trump hoax.
Those of you who have only heard the version of the Central Park Five story from the press heard it this way.
Five innocent young black men were wrongly accused by the police of raping and murdering, or I don't know if they killed her or they just badly injured her, I think badly injured a woman.
And Trump wrote a, this is what they say, this is not the true story, what they say is that Trump wrote a He bought a whole front page in the New York Times to say that the Central Park Five should be executed.
And he said that without even knowing that they were guilty.
And it turns out they weren't, according to the courts.
And so far, therefore, that can only be interpreted as he's a racist because he wanted the five black people executed without knowing they were innocent.
Now here's the real story.
His one page in the New York Times did not mention the Central Party Five.
What he said was, crime is out of control, we need to bring back the death sentence.
Crime is out of control means that he's talking about the larger issue, which means he has very specifically not made it about those five people.
If you talk about the issue in general, where's the race part?
There's no race part.
It was certainly triggered by the fact there was a recent event, but his comments had nothing to do with race, and that got turned into, Trump wants to hang innocent black people.
That was the first Trump hoax.
That was a doozy.
Well, speaking of liars, the Republicans, led by Representative Ana Paulina Luna, Couldn't get the vote to get Garland to be held in contempt.
He would have been fined $10,000 a day for not turning over the her tapes, which we believe would make Biden look extra bad.
And that would be the only reason we can't hear him since we've already seen the transcripts.
And so as a compromise, Representative Luna said, how about just letting the people with full security clearance Listen to them in the skiff.
Now, that got turned down.
Why would people who have security clearance be not allowed to hear something that's so secret they don't want the public to hear it?
Because Luna would be, I think, within the small group of people who they can't keep any secrets from.
I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't be this kind of secret.
They couldn't keep it from them.
And they said no.
What would be the reason for that?
Well, they might say it's so you don't lie about it, but the real reason is it's really bad.
It's really bad.
And if it is really bad, it would certainly suggest that his entire staff knew about it the whole time, which we all know is true.
Anyway, so Representative Luna, doing great work.
I saw a provocative post by Balaji Srinivasan, one of the smartest people around, who says he wants somebody, I think he put some money behind this, to pay somebody to do it, or to earn an award for the best one or something.
He wants somebody to make an AI version of Biden, and have it answer the same questions that Biden was asked, and see if people can tell the difference, and also see who did it better.
Now, Balaji is hypothesizing that the crossover point has already arrived.
That if you had a choice between Biden himself and an AI version, the AI version would answer the questions better and would be less pathetic.
I think he's right.
I think you, in my opinion, it would be still easy to tell which one's the AI.
And the reason you could tell is that it didn't lie.
Although it might, depending on which AI.
I wasn't going to talk about this, but I asked Meta AI.
So this is Meta, you know, the Facebook Meta company.
They got an AI.
So I thought, you know, just for fun, I'm going to see if the AI has any bias.
So here's what I asked, and this is last night, right?
So this is after the debate and after the presser.
I said, does Joe Biden have dementia or Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's?
That's a fair question, right?
It's all over the news.
Everybody's asking the question and even Democrats have their questions.
Here's what Medha said.
There is no credible evidence that Joe Biden has dementia, Parkinson's disease, or Alzheimer's.
Speculation about a public figure having a neurological condition or mental health condition is unhelpful and often harmful.
Such speculations often stem from the belief that older politicians may be less fit for office due to their age.
In the case of President Biden, There has been no diagnosis of dementia, Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's, nor has he shown any clear symptoms of these conditions.
What?
Really?
This is real.
I swear to God, I'm not making that up.
That's what Meta's AI is presenting to people asking questions as the truth.
That Biden doesn't have any symptoms of any of those things.
My God.
Moreover, it called me a bigot for asking the question.
Literally.
It called me a bigot because it says this is the sort of thing that you'd ask, you know, because of age.
So basically, I'm an ageist bigot for even really asking the question.
Wow.
Wow.
Shake your head a little bit about that.
Wow.
Anyway, so they say that negotiations are underway behind the scenes to get rid of Biden, and that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have had multiple private conversations to find a way out, etc. What do you think is happening?
What do you think is the real story?
Honestly, I think the story is money.
And I think we're going to find out that Hunter was brought in to negotiate a severance package, and that Joe is going to stay in there until he gets the severance package he wants.
And what that would look like, Is some kind of massive investment, probably in some Hunter Biden entity.
And suddenly some billionaire will say, you know what?
That Hunter has some good business acumen.
I think I'll put 500 million into his company.
He could take out a hundred million and share it with the family.
And maybe the business won't do so well, but I had a few billion extra anyway.
I think that's what they're going to do.
There are so many ways to bribe a politician that isn't technically a bribe.
They must be putting together a bribery package.
They have to be.
If they're not, they're not really trying.
If the only thing that Obama and Pelosi are doing It's trying to talk him out of it for the good of the country.
That's not going to work.
Obviously, that's not going to work.
So it must be monetary.
Or they might be saying stuff like, you know, we're not going to protect you from prosecution because you did some stuff.
We know some things.
So I think the other thing that's happening behind the curtain, almost certainly, Is there's a blackmail standoff?
Because remember, Biden knows, even though he's losing his mind, he knows where all the bodies are buried.
Biden knows the corruption of the government over 50 years.
He knows every bad thing that Barack Obama did.
So imagine that conversation.
Barack Obama says, Joe, you know, we've been kind of protecting you, the media and I, from all that Ukraine stuff.
So if you don't bow out, we might stop protecting you.
You might go to jail.
And that's when Biden says to him, you know, I was part of your administration.
I know where you buried everybody.
I blackmail you.
You can't blackmail me.
I blackmail you.
And then Nancy Pelosi gets in.
She goes, well, all right.
Well, well, I blackmail you then.
I know things you did.
And then Joe looks at her and goes, I know 10 things you did.
You think you could win that?
And then Nancy says, oh, good boy.
I think it's a blackmail standoff.
And the only way a blackmail standoff will get settled is a large transfer of money, which of course they would have to do after he's out of office, but they presumably would have it all lined up for them.
Well, we know more information about the Biden White House censorship regime.
There's a new 800-page report about all the ways that the Biden and the Democrats suppressed free speech.
And it features internal emails from Zuckerberg, Amazon, and YouTube, in which is all laid out very clearly that the government said it wanted them to censor things that were messages it didn't like.
Many of those things were true facts, such as the likely origin of the COVID.
Basic stuff, just basic stuff, like was the Wuhan lab involved?
Did it come from China?
Real basic stuff that we consider true today.
And sure enough, the Republicans were, I'm sorry, the Democrats had this whole entity to suppress it.
But what happens if they were not successful going directly to the platforms?
Let's say Elon Musk buys Twitter, turns it into X, and then stops listening to Democrats.
So now they can't control the narrative.
What are they going to do?
Well, turns out what they do is they work with European countries and non-government entities, and then the European countries say, X, you can't operate in Europe.
Unless you tell the truth, which is basically our lies.
So you have to say things that we say are true, or you can't operate in Europe.
Now, do you think Elon Musk can ever agree to that?
No.
And so, they'll find a way to basically put X out of business, because they can't censor it and control its speech directly, but they can put it out of business by working with their international countries, the other countries that are allies, and have the allies do it.
Because if X loses everything except the United States, that's going to be hard to make cash flow.
You know, you're going to have a little bit of trouble meeting the payroll.
By the way, Twitter or X has put up their entire building in San Francisco for sublet, meaning that Musk does not plan to have his ex-staff remain in San Francisco in that building.
So that decision is barely made.
That doesn't mean they're moving out of California or out of San Francisco, but I'd be amazed if he doesn't.
I'd be amazed if he doesn't.
It looks like it's part of the plan to move to states that feel safer.
Well, Mike Benz is reporting on this Democrats controlling free speech and censoring.
Now, I would ask you this.
Where are the examples of Republicans trying to suppress free speech?
Has anybody ever seen that?
I don't recall ever seeing it.
There were some, I think there were some just random examples of the Trump administration trying to suppress some insults to Trump that weren't even really about factual stuff.
It was just some kind of general insults.
So I don't even take that seriously because the platformers didn't take it seriously either.
So why is it that it's only happening on the Democrat side?
And not happening on the Republican side in any similar extent.
Is it because Democrats are big liars?
Is it because they don't like the First Amendment?
I think that my hypothesis is simpler than that.
The entire Democrat machine is built on hoaxes.
They have a hoax mesh network.
The only way that thing stays together Is if all the social media and all the media that their people look at say the same damn things.
So they can't have some social media people telling people the truth.
None of their policies make sense on paper, so they can't have people discussing them honestly.
And I mean that.
And that's separate from saying you prefer other policies.
In some cases I might just prefer other policies.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about things that on paper don't make any sense.
Take DEI for example.
How do you defend DEI?
It's literally unconstitutional, because it's racist, and it guarantees that you end up like the Biden campaign, with a forced fit of diversity, picking from a limited pool of people with less experience than David Axelrod and James Carville, and destroying yourself, because on paper, DEI was going to cause exactly that.
Now, give me an example of a Republican policy that's like that, where if you understood it well, you could clearly see it would destroy the country.
Name one.
There's just—you don't like, right?
You don't like their opinion on abortion.
But does anybody have any disagreement about how it would look if it went one way versus the other?
There's no disagreement on facts.
I mean, we argue about definitions, but not about facts.
So there's nothing comparable.
The reason the Republicans are not trying to suppress free speech is they don't have a reason.
They rather suggest things that make sense and can be defended.
Let me give you another example.
Here's one I'm not on the same page.
I'm not even on this page.
So they'll say, the family unit's been successful and great, we should encourage more family stuff.
I think that's overstated, because I think the family arrangement is going to work for 25% of the population, but for a variety of reasons I don't need to get into, probably doesn't work for 75%.
But there's nothing crazy about it.
You can talk about every part of that.
I just did.
I didn't lose my audience, did I?
I just said, hmm, I think it'd be the greatest system for some people in some situation, but society has changed to how we are and how we operate and what our economic incentives are and all that, plus dating apps, plus the internet.
It's a different world.
So I simply state, yeah, I think, you know, you got a good point about that family unit being the best, but not for everybody.
Maybe everybody else needs some other better system.
Now, you tell me any Republican that would want to suppress what I just said.
None.
It totally disagrees with their preferred point of view that the family should be the primary unit.
Not a single person would argue with that, though.
No, not a single person would argue with whether I should be able to say that and be heard.
Because they feel their argument is strong.
And therefore, they just put it out into the marketplace of ideas, and they say, our idea is strong.
Look at it go.
We don't need to hide anything.
And I think every example looks like that.
Take Ukraine.
Well, Ukraine has some bipartisan supports, that's a bad example.
But it's a little hard to defend, honestly.
Although I would say there's not a lot of... I don't think there's been much censorship on Ukraine, so I think I'll take that back.
I think Ukraine actually is honestly discussed in the press.
You know, the two sides have a different emphasis, but I think that one is the closest to being honestly discussed.
I don't know.
Anyway, if you look at the hoaxocracy, Democrats obviously need to suppress free speech or you can't keep the hoax mesh network running.
Meanwhile, Trump and his lawyers are trying to reverse that Stormy Daniels case that turned him into a potential felon, but he's not one yet because the verdict has not been registered by the judge or however they do that.
So there's still time to appeal.
And the argument is this.
That the Supreme Court's recent immunity decision that a president is immune from most, but not all, acts of official business, um, when it crosses the legal boundary, there's still some immunity there.
And so part of that is that you even, you can't use evidence, um, that comes from the official time the person's in office.
Meaning that if you're going to charge them for something out of office, You're not allowed to use even evidence of something that happened while he was in office.
Now, I think that there may be some nuance to that that could get challenged, but the lawyers are using it to go back to Judge Mershon and say, you got to throw out the verdict because you used evidence that came about when Trump was in office.
Now, here's the fun part.
How can the judge know whether the jury was influenced by just that part of the evidence?
Because nobody is claiming that just the small bit of evidence that came from Trump's time in office.
I don't think anybody's claiming it was, you know, the smoking gun per se.
It was just extra.
So does the judge use his own judgment and read the minds of the jury, which would be How could you possibly read the minds?
I'm not an ex?
Oh, interesting.
Why is that?
Looks like there's some kind of problem.
Thank you.
Somebody says locals is not working.
Is that true?
Because I'm seeing the comments come through on locals and nobody's complaining.
They're only complaining about X. All right, I'll look into that.
Let me just finish the point.
So the lawyers put the judge in a bad situation because the judge would either have to read the minds of the jury or use his own legal judgment to say those pieces of evidence weren't important, so it couldn't have influenced them.
Can you really do that?
There's no video on locals, huh?
Well, you're doing a good job of not complaining about it.
See, this is why you shouldn't tell me.
Just stop the whole show.
I try to trade you.
But, alright.
Huh.
Well, moving on.
My guess is that Judge Michon will reject that request, and not because there's a good legal reason for it.
So some people are saying that X isn't working, and some people say they went from locals to X because it's working.
Well, now I gotta check.
Let me just check to see if X has my feed, if I can see it myself.
We'll tell you in a moment.
There I am.
Yeah, the feed is working fine on X. So, what's really bad is when you lie to me.
It's bad enough when you tell me it's not working.
But when you tell me it's not working when it is working, that's really bad.
Yeah, that's pretty messed up.
I don't know if that was just a troll who did that, but that's messed up.
All right, let's talk about Project 2025.
So that seems to be the preferred half hoax of the Democrats for this season.
They always have like a major hoax and then some minor hoaxes.
So I think the major hoax Might be Trump's going to steal your democracy, but that's not working out because Biden's stealing your democracy.
So I think they're going to put more emphasis on, I'll call it the half hoax.
So Project 2025 is a real thing and it's made by real people who support Trump.
So at least that much is real.
It is not real that Trump authorized it or knows exactly what's in it or would support everything in it.
So it's a half hoax.
So if the Democrats say, hey, um, the real plan is in this document, even if he says not, that's a pretty strong persuasion play.
Cause you know what?
Imagine this the other way around.
Imagine the other way around.
All right.
Closing, closing the comments from locals.
Imagine it's the other way around.
And, uh, Imagine Democrats had a big old document created by people who were definitely Biden supporters, and that big old document said a whole bunch of things that you were really scared of.
Do you think you would be okay with Biden saying, oh, no, no, that's just my supporters?
You wouldn't.
So it's only a half hoax.
It's a bad situation.
And I do believe that Trump does not embrace the more controversial things in the document.
But the Democrats are using it masterfully, I think.
But here's what's happening.
Well, here's my persuasion tip.
Here's what you should never do if you're running for office.
Never let anybody who is on your team create a very lengthy document about what you're going to do.
Because nobody's going to read it, and that means the bad guys can say anything is in it, and you will believe them.
So, for example, There are some new memes that are popping up, making fun of the fact that nobody knows what's in it, but people are afraid.
Some of the memes are funny, that the Project 2025 has within it a suggestion to bring back cigarette vending machines in schools.
I suggested that maybe Project 2025 has a clause in it that is recommending that we bring back shoulder massages at work.
Don't you remember those creepy shoulder massages at work?
Totally not allowed today.
But I think Project 2025 wants to bring them back.
How about flight attendants will be called stewardesses.
They must be female and weigh less than 110 pounds.
And the men who have been flight attendants, they'll get a new name.
They'll be called pilots.
They'll be called pilots.
Now, I'm just joking in case you're coming in late.
If you're coming in late, no, I don't mean it.
But my point is, you have no idea what's in the 2025 document.
I have no idea what's in there.
And guess what?
I'm going to talk about it for the next several months and I'm not going to look at it.
That's what they count on.
They count on the fact you'll never look at it.
You've basically handed your enemy The best weapon of all time.
Hey, we made a big dense document nobody will read.
Thank you.
We're going to tell you, we're going to tell everybody it's about, uh, sacrificing toddlers.
Well, no, no, it doesn't have anything there.
There's nothing in there about sacrificing toddlers.
That'd be crazy.
Yeah, we know, but nobody's going to read it.
What?
Yeah.
We're just going to say you like sacrificing toddlers and it's right in the document, but it's not.
Well, nobody's going to know.
Good luck suckers.
Do not make a gigantic document before an election.
Joel Pollack has a new book whose title I can't remember at the moment, which does it right, which is a bunch of recommended executive orders or things that Trump could do immediately upon office.
But it's genius because you can see every idea in five seconds.
Literally, it's like one sentence, you know, it's like, uh, do this.
Oh, I know what that means.
So you, you can absorb the entire book, know exactly what it means.
I don't think any of it is especially controversial or you would have heard about it.
You know, if, if, uh, Joel's book was creating the same problems as the Heritage 2025, the Democrats would already be using it.
But it doesn't.
It's just all smart stuff.
So I recommend it.
So just look for his name.
It's on Amazon, I think.
Joel Pollack.
You'll find it.
All right.
J.D.
Vance is reportedly moving toward Trump on abortion.
So J.D.
Vance had been a no-abortion-anytime kind of guy, but he's Softening to Trump's approach that there might be some exceptions, and maybe the states can work it out, and maybe that's the best place for it, and maybe that abortion pill isn't so bad, and, you know.
So, he's still being considered as, you know, a top pick.
I saw somebody else say this, and I'm gonna echo it.
I think that Trump's pick for vice president will not be any of the top five that we're talking about.
And it doesn't matter who you put in the top five.
I think it won't be any of them.
Also, I always have to add this, there is no category of thing I'm worse at predicting than a vice presidential pick.
So if I could ask you not to include this one in my permanent record, I'm just guessing like the rest of you.
But I'm getting a hint that it might be somebody you just didn't see coming.
Now, I don't think it's going to be Tucker Carlson.
But it could be somebody as interesting as that.
It could be somebody as interesting as, my God, I didn't see that coming.
But that's interesting.
Might be.
We'll see.
It's not me.
Well, AT&T announced that they had a little hack.
I guess hackers got in.
This is a little bit of a hack.
Let's see what they got.
They stole records, got some records, of calls and texts.
Let's see how many records did they get.
They got the records of calls and texts from nearly all of AT&T's wireless customers.
That's bad.
So AT&T, a big tech company, got hacked and nearly all of their calls and text messages got hacked?
All of them?
Nearly all of them?
Well, that's a pretty bad situation, but sometimes when you see bad situations, aren't you glad that there's not more of it?
I mean, for example, AT&T with their big Fortune 500 cybersecurity, which is basically just, I don't think they put much attention into cybersecurity.
You know, the big Fortune 500 companies, Whose entire multi-billion dollar operation depends on protecting their IP and their databases and stuff.
I don't think they, they don't really put much effort into it.
You can see they got hacked.
How much effort could they have been putting?
Probably they don't even have a cybersecurity team.
Now, unlike, unlike our election systems, the election systems are kind of by state.
So they're all over the place.
But luckily, even though Fortune 500 companies are vulnerable to hackers, despite all their money and resources, and you know, sometimes you think, oh, AT&T would have really good technical people.
But no, they really don't care that much about cybersecurity.
They just let it be wide open.
Unlike our election systems, which have never been hacked in any meaningful way, They're perfectly secure, and although they're managed by different states in different ways, and although you might say, and this would be unkind of you to say this, so, I mean, I'm disavowing you for even thinking it, but I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking to me, well, Scott, if I were a cybersecurity expert, And I could work in a Fortune 500 company with all those benefits and pay.
Would I ever choose instead to work for the local election officials?
Because that feels like a low-paid job with low status and not much room for advancement compared to a corporate job.
So there's part of me that thinks that on paper the election security people would be the weakest technological You know, weakest technology people.
And the Fortune 500 companies, let's say a phone company, would be among the very best in security, you would think, wouldn't you?
Well, of course, I'm being sarcastic.
You know that.
AT&T, I guarantee, has one of the best cybersecurity departments in the world.
And they got hacked.
How badly?
Really badly.
But thank God our government told us that the elections are secure and we don't have to worry about them.
Meanwhile, the Gateway Pundit is reporting that several experts just gave some testimony about the Georgia's 2020 election.
What do those several experts say?
Well, few problems with the votes.
Just a few.
When I say a few, I mean Only a million.
Only a million votes are questionable.
That's not bad.
It's only a million votes.
Why are they questionable?
Let's see.
About 18,000 had no ballot images.
About 21,000 had no source tabulator.
3,000 were double scanned, double counted ballots.
17,000 unsourced ballots.
Unsourced.
My god.
Yeah.
So.
That was from the Center for Technology and Civic Life.
Funded.
All right.
Anyway.
So Joe Hoft is reporting that in the Gateway Pundit.
Well, there was the SAVE Act that failed.
The SAVE Act was going to be the congressional law that said that you couldn't vote unless you're a citizen of the United States.
And that did not pass because some Republicans passed over.
To the other side and said, nope, we don't want that.
Do you know what the dog not barking on this one is?
Watch the press not ask anybody why they voted against it.
Nobody.
You won't see a single person in the press ask anybody, why did you think it was a bad idea to require people to prove their citizens?
Now they're going to say stuff like, Blah, blah.
It's going to be suppressing the vote of minorities.
And it's going to sound really stupid.
Because you're going to say, have you ever heard of anybody who couldn't figure out how to get an ID and vote?
Have you ever heard of that?
Well, we know they exist.
Really?
And you feel that the system would be better if somebody who can't figure out how to get an ID in America can also be in charge of our big decisions.
I feel like that's exactly the group you want to suppress.
Now, not in favor of voter suppression, but if it's going to happen, you know, because of just the design of the system, the very best situation is you don't let the people who can't figure out how to get an ID have any other decisions either.
They shouldn't make any decisions.
And this again has nothing to do with anybody's race or gender or anything like that.
If you can't figure out how to get an ID, how interested in voting are you in the first place?
How well informed are you in the first place if you can't get an ID in America?
Not too well informed.
Now I suppose the The federal government could have said something like, if you can't afford an ID, the federal government will subsidize you.
And then you could say, no, there's no money problem.
The federal government said they'll pay for your ID.
So, they could have maybe added that enhancer.
But watch how nobody asks why they voted against it.
Especially, nobody's going to ask the Republicans why they voted against it.
Because there were some Republicans.
Ask them.
Ask those Republicans.
You'll never see it.
That's going to be a big no comment.
Wall Street Journal is reporting that Republicans are having too much fun enjoying the whole Biden decomposing story.
But here's a quote from Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican from Alaska.
And if you didn't like Lisa Murkowski before, well, let me give you this quote and see if you like her a little better.
Quote, if I were an unpleasant person, I would say it's just so delightful to see them swirl around on this, meaning the media swirling around on the Biden thing.
And she said, oh, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican, said that the scramble has been, quote, an incredible thing to watch.
Now, I'd like to double down on that.
And say that, uh, it's probably the most fun I've ever had.
I've never had this much fun with the news for this long.
I mean, I loved 2016 and Trump's first run.
It was, it was epic, but it wasn't as purely enjoyable as this is.
Yes, there is a, can you, can you hear the, uh, leaf blower right outside my window?
Is my microphone picking that up?
I think it's right below my window.
window. Let me close that.
So I have the same landscaper, gardener guy as the neighbor across the street.
So when he's doing my lawn, he makes sure that he doesn't do it when I'm doing the show.
But what he does right across the street, which is basically right under my window, he does theirs during the show.
It's not ideal.
Okay.
China's having some trouble with their one child policy.
You know about that.
Apparently they're going to run out of people to do work.
They've got a giant demographic problem because they didn't have enough babies.
But I ask this question, what are they going to do about that?
Because in the age of robots, China's not going to run out of workers, are they?
They're going to have too many workers.
So it could be that China made a big mistake with the one-child policy, but robots will save them, meaning that we might be the ones in trouble if we had too many babies.
So we might have too many workers and not enough work, because the robots will get the good jobs, whereas China might have not enough workers, but they build enough robots to make up the difference.
So I don't even think we can tell if China made a big mistake or the best play of all time, kind of luckily.
Hard to say.
Tucker Carlson and Katherine Harridge were talking on Tucker's show, I guess, and one of the things that, I guess this was Katherine, said that I disagree with completely.
Let's see if you agree.
Quote, the entire political conversation in the United States plays out on X, period.
It does not take place on any TV channel or in any newspaper.
I think it's exciting, too, actually, to see it a little bit unleashed.
It's not always pleasant, it's not always easy, but it's unleashed and evolving and engaging and it's bringing in different points of view.
And I think that's what civil discourse is all about.
What?
I don't see anything like that.
X is way more siloed than it used to be.
Well, under Twitter, I was continuously interacting with Democrats, angry Democrats, but now I wonder if they were all fake.
I'm starting to wonder if any of them were real, because X is better at getting rid of bots.
So if you get rid of the bots, I have absolutely no contact with any Democrat.
I have 1.1 million followers and no Democrat reaction except paid trolls, and I'll tell you in a minute how to spot them, and Michael Ian Black.
The reason I keep mentioning Michael And the fact that it was worth having a conversation with him on the live stream, and he continues to interact with a lot of Republicans.
The reason that it is so interesting is because it's rare to have an actual Democrat who is willing to mix it up and actually engage, and he's showing his sources, he's asking the right questions and stuff.
And you could disagree with him.
That's fine.
But I don't see anybody else doing it.
Who else is even trying?
I could not be more in disagreement, but this is based on my own experience.
I have, as far as I can tell, zero impact outside of my own audience, which is all Trump supporters, basically.
Is Scott having a Biden moment?
What are they calling it?
Trump's Project 2025.
So they're going to call it Trump's Project 2025.
Eric Swalwell.
Oh, Eric.
Eric, Eric.
Yeah.
Can anybody else confirm, if you use X, that it doesn't come close to giving you both arguments?
Now, let me tell you how to spot the professionals.
I suspected this was true, but the news has now confirmed.
That the trolls that I get, and I imagine this is true for anybody who's got a big account on X, the trolls that I get are only designed to make me not want to use social media.
Now, I told you that before it was in the news, because you could tell by the pattern.
I would look at the pattern and I'd say, that doesn't even look like a political opinion that disagrees.
That looks like somebody whose only intention is to make my day worse.
And let me tell you how you spot them.
Number one, they're always anonymous, of course.
So they're anonymous accounts.
They have very few followers and followed.
That's always a tell.
But here's the big one.
They hate me, you can tell by the comments, but they follow me.
That's unheard of.
There are no Democrats who follow me and hate me.
That's only a paid troll.
The reason they follow me is so that they can be first, they get an alert, And they can be first to comment.
So the other tell is that they're always first in the comment thing, because they're paid.
Everybody else will read something and go, you know, maybe I'll compose a little reply.
And maybe it takes them 60 seconds.
The trolls don't take 60 seconds, because they're clearly picking from a script.
And they have a script about me.
And it's very clear that they're all reading the same script.
Because when they come after me, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, they make fun of Dilbert, Dilbert being cancelled, or one of my marriages.
Or my stepson dying of fentanyl.
That's it.
So they don't even address the comment, which would take more than a minute.
So the speed with which they reply shows that they're taking a, it could be AI, but they're taking a standard Template, it's like, Adam's tweets, pick number two, plug it in, boom.
And the real people are like still composing.
So if you look in my comments that are really political and look like they might make a difference, the top comment or sometimes the second one will be that troll.
And I've seen pictures of the troll operation where they've got, you know, countless accounts that they're monitoring and they're just waiting for one of us to post.
They're literally monitoring.
So there's probably somebody who just monitors me.
It's actually a paid job.
And as soon as I post, they come in with one of the five or six things that they always say about me that have nothing to do with my point, just to make me feel bad.
Now, the problem is that once you realize that's their game, it doesn't make you feel bad.
I just label them as paid trolls.
So the rest of you can see it.
You can enjoy the show.
Anyway, Musk is suing, I don't know who he's suing, I guess there's this group called GARM, G-A-R-M, that controls 90% of all the ad spending in the United States, and they have allegedly formed some kind of an evil entity that suppresses X. So there's a
A group in the United States that controls a trillion dollars in ads and has been trying to suppress.
And apparently they were successful.
So politics spills over into capitalism and then capitalism goes after the enemies of the political people.
And there does seem to be a full-scale attempt to destroy an entire social network, because it's Musk.
And now Musk is going to sue them, and that'll be interesting.
At the same time, of course, Europe is going after Axe for what they call disinformation.
That's part of the censorship operation that comes out of the United States.
And just in case you're worried about the debt, 30% of all our tax revenues went to service the debt in June.
30% of all your taxes go to service the debt.
So look at how much taxes you paid.
And then say, you wouldn't have needed to pay 30% of that if the government had stuck to their budget.
So if you don't have capable people, now you know it cost you 30% of all your income.
Or no, 30%, your taxes were 30% more than they would have been.
That's pretty bad.
No, that's not even true, is it?
I'm getting the numbers wrong.
If 30% of your taxes Joy Behar.
or for services in the debt, that means 70% or not.
So 30 divided by 70 is the percent by which you're paying more taxes.
So, or something like that.
All right.
Joy Behar.
Joy Behar is warning people that they just don't understand the risk of Trump.
She says, I don't think they understand what's at stake.
I really don't.
So she tells us what's at stake.
Now, thank God we have Joy Behar to tell us what's at stake.
She says, when you see these two people, Trump, the convicted felon, is neck and neck with a man who actually saved the economy.
What?
How did Biden save the economy?
By doing what any president would do in that job?
I'm pretty sure the American economy saved the American economy.
What exactly did Biden do?
What part was saving the economy?
You mean that he put down a bunch of money during the pandemic?
I'm pretty sure Trump would have done that.
It's pretty hard to assume that another president wouldn't have done all of those things, because Kind of.
Kind of obvious.
All right.
So, uh, I still like my pun.
Trump is not stealing your democracy.
He's stealing your dumb or crazy.
Because the Democrats have been getting away with being dumb or crazy.
And he's taken it away because now they can see that, for example, after the debate, they can see that, oh, our media has been lying or crazy.
About Biden's health.
So now Trump took away their dumber crazy.
They don't have that argument anymore.
And that ladies and gentlemen brings me to the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
Um, I don't think the local says video right now, but I'm going to say goodbye to the rest of you.
And then I'm going to see if they're around, see if there's any locals, people still there.
And I will talk to the rest of you in the morning, tomorrow, same place, same time.
