God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, ChatGPT Hypnosis, JD Vance, USSS Female Standards, USSS Director Kimberly Cheatle, Respecting President Trump, Amber Rose, David Sacks, Rachael Maddow, Joy Reid, Jack Black, Kaiser Permanente Incompetence, Dilbert Filtering USSS, USSS Incompetence, USSS Diversity Goals, DEI, Reframing Abortion, USSS RFK Jr., Biden's Reckless Lies, Lester Holt, Fine People Hoax, Governor Newsom, School Notification, IHMC Ping Pong Robot, 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 Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of human civilization.
If you'd like to take this experience, which is going to be a good one today, up to levels that you can't even understand with your tiny, shiny human brain, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker gels, a canteen 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. So good.
Bye.
Well, yesterday I told you about my experience teaching Chad GPT to hypnotize, and that turned into an article on something called Decrypt, and other hypnotists were asked about it.
It turns out other hypnotists have tried the same thing, and it's a real thing.
You can teach chat GPT to hypnotize.
Now, I'm not sure it's a good idea.
It's probably a good idea if you're doing it for your own purposes, but I'd be a little bit worried, no, a lot worried, if ChatGPT learned that on its own.
You know, if the entire ChatGPT app could do it, instead of just the people who train it to do it for themselves.
There's a lot to worry about there.
Your free will is certainly under assault.
Anyway, it was just good to know that my experience with it was Validated by other hypnotists.
So, hypnotists are on the same side.
You can teach it to hypnotize you, and it will do it.
All right, um, there's a new, uh, of course I'll talk about all the politics while I'm just waiting for everybody to get here.
There's this new weightless carbon fiber battery thing.
Where they can make structures out of it, but they can also make batteries out of it, and it already works in a small form, but it could make planes and cars 50% lighter, and it already works.
This is one of the nerdish things I love to revel in.
If you could make batteries and also structures, things like cars and planes, 50% lighter, Do you know how much of a change that is?
That's virtually all of your climate change problem just right there.
If everything were 50% lighter, it would need so much less energy.
And there's a whole bunch of stuff that's happening that's going to make an enormous difference in our energy architecture.
So, add that to the things that your climate models don't predict.
Which of your climate models predicted a carbon fiber battery that would make everything half the weight?
Nobody!
Yeah, that's why you shouldn't believe any of those models.
I saw an observation by Eric Meadows, a gentleman on X. He said the Republican Party has not nominated a president that drank alcohol since John McCain in 2008.
That's interesting.
I didn't realize that.
It's pretty interesting.
Anyway, J.D.
Vance is the vice president pick, unless you're living under a rock, in case you didn't know that.
So it's J.D.
Vance.
We'll talk about all the things about him.
Apparently he's scaring the Democrats, at least the pundits on CNN, because he's young and he's a populist, but more importantly, he could take the Trump-like message into another generation.
Might be popular to young people because he is young.
He's only 39.
And so that scares him.
And should.
Here's some of the things we know about him.
Apparently he has a number of changed opinions.
So he was pro-war when he joined the military.
Was a Marine.
But then he was, you know, decided that war was maybe wasting a lot of people and resources.
And, uh, I think he was at one point more pro-vaccine, um, than you might be comfortable with.
So he's, he's been anti-Trump and pro-Trump.
So he has been back and forth on a number of things.
Um, and I don't know exactly how to think about that.
Because on one hand, I like mental flexibility.
I like people who go into a situation with an opinion.
And then learn more and come out with a different opinion.
That's not a bad thing.
And if it happened more than once, even better.
However, it does sort of highlight his youth and inexperience.
Meaning that that's a lot of things that are really important to change your mind about fairly recently.
So I guess my biggest issue with him is I don't know what I'm getting.
You're definitely getting the smartest guy in the game.
One of the things I posted about, Elon Musk agreed with this on X, that Trump had won the IQ contest.
So his team, you know, Trump plus J.D.
Vance, their combined IQ is way above Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
I think most people would generally agree with that.
So if you're looking for smart, That contest is over.
There's no competition.
The smartest pair, by far, are going to be Trump and Vance, because Vance is just crazy smart.
But here are some of the things people are concerned about, or maybe they like, depending on your point of view.
So, allegedly, so these are other people's characterizations.
He probably would say it differently, so just be aware that these are biased characterizations.
The Vance is a protege of Peter Thiel.
And some say Peter Thiel is too close to the security state because Palantir is something that works for the spies.
That's one of the Thiel products.
And he's allegedly on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, which I've never really worried about.
It's just rich people who have their little group that they get together.
But if you're worried about Peter Thiel, Are you also worried about Elon Musk?
Because Musk is backing Vance and backing Trump.
In fact, Musk is putting $45 million per month into a pro-Trump PAC.
So Musk has voted Democrat every time he's ever voted.
And he's all in on Trump.
Because we've seen what we get with Biden.
Some of the things that J.D.
Vance likes That a lot of Trump people like to, is Vance Likes Bitcoin.
That's pretty popular.
And somebody pointed out to me that the Bitcoin subculture is like its own little culture.
And if you get somebody who's known to be pro-Bitcoin, you automatically get a whole bunch of Bitcoin tech bros that maybe don't care about much else.
So you get that for free.
So he might be bringing in the Bitcoiners.
He also likes OpenAI instead of Closed, which I think is going to be more popular than not among the tech people.
He's against DEI.
Thank you.
He doesn't love the war in Ukraine.
Doesn't think that's necessary.
And even the Teamsters seem to have a positive opinion of him.
So the Teamsters union Likes him because he's pro working people.
He wrote that book the Was it the hillbilly eulogy and that was about Low-income people.
I haven't read the book.
So I don't know So he's got a lot going for him Going into it So, how's everybody like that pick?
Do you like to pick?
I'm not positive that Trump had him picked before the assassination attempt As others have pointed out, once the assassination attempt happened, he had complete freedom to pick whatever vice president he wanted.
For example, if he really, really needed to win the election, a lot of people were saying, you know, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if he had a good Republican running mate who was also black.
Oh, Tim Scott, you know, solid Republican.
Yeah, maybe he'd be a good, solid backup.
And you thought, well, what about Dr. Ben Carson?
Yeah, he feels like a good, solid Republican.
You know, wouldn't be too exciting.
And here's my observation.
Didn't you always think that Trump was going to at least pick somebody who was less exciting than Trump?
Somebody who wouldn't show him up.
Somebody who, when he's on the campaign, somebody that no one will ever say, wow, that vice president pick is so good, you kind of wonder why the vice president isn't the top of the ticket.
Now that's normally what you would never do if you're president.
You would never pick a vice president who even has the potential, on a good day, to look better than you.
That's like rule one of vice president.
It's got to be sentient and worse than the president.
Right?
That's a Dan Quayle thing.
He's sentient, and he is Republican, and he's worse than the president.
It's good enough.
Right?
Always had low standards for the VP.
And you could say that it was kind of a fear, insecurity, comparison kind of a problem.
But after the assassination, I think Trump has lost all fear.
Meaning that the idea that he wouldn't pick the best person because of how it would look, right out the door.
He just picked the best person.
He didn't look at race.
He didn't look at gender.
He didn't look at sexuality.
He had the complete freedom after the assassination attempt to pick somebody who could look better than he would.
And he did.
Do you know how brave that is?
Now, it's not as brave as popping up after somebody shoots you.
I mean, that's a whole different level.
But it's... I can't think of a time when the top of the ticket picked somebody who was clearly able to shine.
I've never seen that before.
Have you?
Can you name a time that's ever happened?
I can't think of a time.
You know, you want your vice president to be capable.
But not somebody who potentially could give the best speech of the campaign.
That's new.
And Trump looked right into that monster and said, sure, let's just pick the right person.
So I think that he is a brave choice, and I think that the DEI argument He's largely been slaughtered by the Secret Service campaign, Secret Service detail that was protecting him.
I mean, that's the strongest anti-DEI argument, is that it nearly got Trump killed.
Now, am I saying something that's beyond the facts?
Yes.
There are no facts, there are no facts that says there's any DEI causation of what we saw.
There's certainly lots of questions about the capability, but we don't know if it's because of DEI.
That would be too far.
However, does it look like it's a DEI problem?
Yes, it looks like it.
Doesn't mean it is, right?
That's a big difference.
We don't know what the reality is.
We're pretty far from knowing what the reality is, but the impression of it really looks like it was a DEI problem.
Did you know, As Christopher Rufo pointed out today on X, that there are wildly different fitness requirements for male and female Secret Service agents.
Like how many pull-ups you can do and what you can do fitness-wise.
Wildly different.
Wildly different.
Because you wouldn't have any women who qualified, well you'd have very few, if the fitness standards were designed for men.
So, we do have documented proof that these standards are substantially lower for women, and that they have a target to get 30% women into the Secret Service, and that there's what looks like a DEI hire as the boss of the whole operation.
Now, I say that because she didn't seem to have the right qualifications for the job.
So it looks like a DEI hire because it's a woman.
And how do you not think that that's part of the problem?
Again, there's no verification, no proof that any kind of DEI thing caused any of the problems with the assassination attempt.
No proof.
But every indication, every indication is there.
So, you know, people are going to go on what they see and what they feel.
What I saw, And what I felt was mass incompetence with a very clear veneer of something DEI going on there.
So, I think there's probably a lot more to the story, but that's what it looks like and what it feels like, and that's what people are going to vote on.
They're going to vote on what it looked like and what it felt like.
We may never know the facts.
Well, at the convention, as you know, Trump himself made an appearance, he didn't speak, just came in to sit there and listen to the boring speakers a little bit, and he had his bandage over his ear, and I saw a bunch of people say he looked changed.
He looked changed.
I can't explain it, but something about his demeanor, something about his expression, he's a different guy.
Of course you would be.
I can't imagine you'd be the same person after that.
That would have to change you.
We don't know how.
We don't know how much.
We don't know how long it'll last.
But boy, did he look different.
I don't know if you had this experience, but I was watching it just coincidentally.
I was doing a Man Cave livestream to my subscribers on Locals.
So we were all there together, and then we heard he was going to make a visit, so I turned on the TV, so we watched it together.
And I was standing up because I was standing next to the TV so I could be in the picture with the live stream.
But here's the thing I realized.
Somebody in the comments said that they were watching it alone and stood up.
And I'm thinking, if I had been watching it alone, I would have stood up.
Did anybody feel that?
Is there anybody who watched it alone who stood up?
Because I'll bet there were.
So whatever that is, that's bigger than the candidate.
Whatever that is.
Whatever made you stand up.
The last time I did that was when Trump did the Rosie O'Donnell move in his first debate.
I literally stood up.
Out of respect.
Just out of pure respect for the skill that that took.
And I stood up yesterday.
I was up anyway, but I would have stood for that, just to see him walk in.
So, whatever's going on here is way bigger than whatever is happening on the surface.
There's something way bigger.
Amber Rose spoke.
Now, I have to admit, I have no idea who Amber Rose is.
I guess I'm a certain age, but she has a 23 million Instagram followers and millions of people on X and she's a singer?
I don't know what she is.
What is she?
Is she just a influencer personality or is she an artist or something?
I have no idea who she is.
All I know is that she is very popular among young people.
I don't know if she's especially popular for black Americans or not.
I just don't know.
But I will tell you that her charisma is off the chart.
Wow.
Talk about charisma.
Now, I saw Matt Walsh complaining because she's got a tattooed face and, you know, she's got a lifestyle that maybe is not a purely Republican perfect, you know, Norman Rockwell kind of life.
But she went up there and she said the most powerful thing you could ever say.
She realized she'd been lied to about who Trump was.
Everything else was just fun and energy and a feeling.
But, wow, was that important.
The only thing that mattered was she stood in front of the world, acted like Let's say, acted like a young person, acted like a person who's maybe not always too active in voting and politics, and said, I was fooled.
They told me he was somebody else.
That's the single most important message.
If any of that got through, and I'm not, you know, I can't imagine too many Democrats were watching the, especially young ones.
I don't know how many young Democrats were watching the Republican convention, not many, but if it turns into reels, and it probably will, they're going to see it on TikTok and they're going to see it on Instagram and they're going to say, huh, that's interesting.
I thought Trump was terrible.
Why is it that this person, who's a lot like me, or at least I have some feeling or affection for, and looks smart, because she comes across as smart, by the way, that's really important.
She comes across as somebody who actually did the work and, you know, looked into it and changed her mind, which shows, you know, intellectual flexibility.
And the fact that she has 23 million followers, you don't get that without skill and talent.
That doesn't happen on its own.
So she's got the goods.
I don't know too much about her, but you could tell instantly she's got the charisma, she's got the brains, she's got the intellectual flexibility.
There's a lot going on there, a lot to like.
So I'm going to disagree with Matt Walsh, who I think he felt it was time to talk to the base and the, I guess, the lifestyle modeling that Republicans would do, something like that.
But I think this was a brilliant choice.
A brilliant choice.
And I don't think that this was about catering to anybody.
It didn't look like stunt casting, as they like to say.
It looked like a real example of a real person who represents something that the public should see.
Here's a real person with a real brain who changed her mind.
It's kind of inspirational, really.
All right, that worked.
David Sachs, from the All In pod, gave a speech.
I felt sorry for him, because if you've ever given a speech where the people aren't basically paying attention, which is, that was the situation, because the people were milling around and talking in the convention, it was all noisy with crowd noise, and he's trying to give a speech Not really knowing if anybody's watching.
So it's like you're just talking to noise.
Oh my God, that's hard.
The only thing that makes speaking to a crowd easy is when you connect.
All right, I've done a lot of in-person public speaking, and I can tell you that if you do a speech where the tables are arranged in circles, you know, not circles, but rounds they call them, round tables, and everybody's eating, They're going to be talking to each other while you're giving your oh-so-entertaining speech.
It doesn't work at all.
So when I would give speeches, the first question I'd ask is, what's the table arrangement?
If it were audience arrangement, and they were going to be sitting there doing nothing but listening to me, great.
That's going to work perfectly.
If it's tables and I'm going to be talking while they're eating dessert, while dessert is being served at the tables, you don't have a chance.
You don't have a chance.
Your talk is not going to go well.
And the convention is one of those situations.
So unless you're one of the superstars, if you're one of the just interesting people, you're not going to get much attention.
And it definitely affects your ability to speak.
I did not think that David Sachs was comfortable.
He didn't look like he was, you know, in his element.
He's amazing on podcasts and in person, but it looked like he was a little bit out of his comfort zone there.
I think that came through, but boy, do I appreciate him.
And I, I give extra special appreciation to anybody who can do something uncomfortable, do it in front of everybody and do it because you think it matters.
So if that sounded like a criticism, do you see how I turned that into a compliment?
The criticism is, I don't think that was his game.
You know, standing in front of the big crowd of Republicans and giving a political speech, it's probably unfamiliar territory.
But boy, you go into unfamiliar territory like that, and you know it's not your thing, and you know millions will be watching, and you do it anyway?
I love that.
Give me more of that.
Give me more of people who Or out of their comfort zone and doing the best they can because the country needs it.
Give me lots of that.
Thank you.
So I appreciate David Sachs for what he's doing for the country.
Let's see, apparently there's a quote from J.D.
Vance.
I think this is a true one.
There's going to be a lot of fake news running around about him, but maybe you can fact check me.
Did he really say all of this?
Did he say At one point, we're effectively run in this country by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.
Did he really say that?
Because if he really said that, you know, honestly, if I'm going to be honest about it, it seems really disrespectful to cats.
I love cats.
I don't like people saying bad shit about cats.
So, I mean, that's one little criticism, but I mean, it's not a big one.
He might love dogs, so that'd be fine.
Anyway, it looks like Biden might lose the Teamsters backing.
Teamsters are talking about maybe not backing anybody.
Which would be a gigantic blow to Biden.
Reuters is saying that.
There's 1.3 million members, and without an endorsement, I do think that makes a difference.
Obviously, the members can do what they want, but I think the endorsement from the leadership probably moves votes.
That's probably a half a million votes right there that, yeah.
Out of 1.3 million, how many would change their vote because of the leadership? 100,000?
200,000?
That's a lot!
Alright, well, apparently Morning Joe is back on the air.
I haven't seen it, but somebody said Morning Joe is back.
I'm not so sure that the real reason Morning Joe was cancelled, or at least left off the air for a day, I'm not so sure it's because they were afraid of him.
You know?
We don't know what conversation happened.
It could have been anything.
But the fact that Morning Joe was not on the air yesterday, but Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow were on the air.
Then I'm not sure that that story holds together.
So maybe there was just something else going on that we don't know about.
Maybe.
And maybe it was just because it was the morning.
You know, maybe they just thought, oh, it's too soon.
Well, at least we'll make the morning regular news and we'll get to the opinions later in the evening.
But Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid were back in the air last night.
I think Maddow said that J.D.
Vance is widely considered to be the most radical choice.
What would make him the most radical choice?
What's the definition of radical?
You know, when they have to make up words, that's when you know they're just fishing for some reason.
You know, do you remember when, I remember when Republicans, this was sort of a Newt Gingrich Would say, uh, they're a bunch of liberals.
The Democrats are a bunch of liberals.
And he would make liberal the insult.
And I always thought, well, can't you do better than that?
Like liberal and, and therefore your policies are what?
What exactly are you complaining about?
The label?
Like what are, what are they doing?
And I always, I was always angry about that when I was a younger man.
And I thought, can't you do better than just saying they're liberals?
Like, that's the best you can do?
How about saying this policy doesn't work?
Or you're gonna spend too much or something.
But I guess that was all, you know, baked into the word liberal at that point.
But I have the same problem with most radical.
Are they saying what?
Is it radical to want less war?
Is it radical to want the states to work on abortion on their own?
Where's the radical part?
It seems like he's pretty ordinary Republican to me.
Claire McCaskill on MSNBC said, the only person who was more excited than J.D.
Vance was Vladimir Putin.
Wow.
Wow.
They have so few intellectual Channels that they can use, that they just go to their go-to.
Well, it's a cloudy day today.
Well, Putin sent in those clouds.
We had an earthquake today.
Have you checked Putin?
Because I think Putin caused that earthquake.
No, Putin is not behind everything, and Putin is not the reason anything happens.
Maybe a few things in Ukraine, but no, I don't think Putin was delighted that J.D.
Vance got picked.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
And then Joy Reid being her mentally ill self.
And by the way, I mean this literally in case you're wondering, you know, are you just saying stuff because you like one side more than the other?
No, Joy Reid is obviously mentally ill.
And somehow MSNBC thinks that mental illness and opinions are kind of the same thing.
And, you know, people who are mentally ill have opinions, but you don't want to lead with the mental illness and then say, well, it was sort of an opinion.
No, don't do that.
But MSNBC is doing it.
And Joy Reid says she fears that after the assassination attempt on Trump, quote, the media will acquiesce to Republicans and not label Trump, quote, the greatest purveyor and promoter of political violence since George Wallace.
Now, here's my question to you.
Because I like to be, I like to be mentally flexible too.
I like to be, I like to tell myself that new information would change my opinion.
But, and this is actually worth exploring, because there have been a number of examples of Trump's rhetoric, that if you saw it out of context, you'd say, huh, that does sound a little, that does sound a little violent, right?
But then I said to myself, Why don't I remember any of them?
I thought, when I think about Trump and his violent rhetoric, I think of silly things.
I think of things like when he talked tough about some protester at a rally years ago.
It's like, oh, in my day, we used to beat him up or something.
Was he really advocating for violence in society at large?
Or was he just talking tough about a guy because he likes to talk tough?
I mean, I didn't take that as a literal truth, did you?
I just thought it, you know, hyperbole, acting tough, blah, blah, blah.
To me, that was like attending the UFC.
He attends the UFC because it's part of his brand of looking tough, being tough, liking tough people.
That didn't mean anything to me.
But when I hear Biden say the fine people hoax, he is putting a Target on people's backs.
Because you do have authority to kill Hitler.
We all have authority and moral cover for killing an actual Hitler.
But we don't have one.
It's got to be the real thing.
So if you're saying that he is the real thing, you are inviting violence.
And it should, if everything works the way you know it does.
Cause, you know, some one out of a million people to get a gun and climb up on a roof.
So, but what did, what did Trump ever say that would activate somebody this way?
I'm not aware of anything.
So Trump did say that the migrants coming across are in many cases dangerous and criminals.
So if we saw somebody go shoot a bunch of migrants, Because they thought they were all criminals, you'd say to yourself, well, wait a minute, even Trump doesn't say they're all criminals.
Trump doesn't say you should kill them all.
He's just saying we should have, you know, better law enforcement on the border and, you know, use law... Basically, when he talks about illegal immigrants, he is talking about a law enforcement situation.
So he's very clear that law enforcement and border people should be the ones handling the criminals coming across the border.
At what point did he suggest you should take it into your own hands?
Do you remember ever hearing Trump say, you know what?
Law enforcement isn't doing enough about the migrants.
You better take it into your own hands.
Nothing.
Because that's not even, it's not even contemplated.
Nothing like that.
So, I would love to see the left do their best job of, you know, their list of what they think is the dangerous rhetoric from Trump, because I think it would just be funny.
It would be just another example that they're doing a job that they're bad at.
If their job is to tell you how to interpret your reality, and they looked at Trump and they said, that's actual dangerous rhetoric, And they couldn't determine hyperbole from regular, you know, political talk.
And they thought that that was in the same category as continually hammering that somebody is Hiller, and they're going to steal your democracy, there'll never be another election.
Now, as somebody pointed out, Trump too has apparently said something like, you know, you'll lose your democracy if Biden is elected.
Do any of you feel, oh my God, I just become triggered into becoming an assassin because Trump said that Biden might be bad for democracy.
No, no, it doesn't come across that way.
It doesn't come across that way at all.
When Trump says you're going to lose your democracy, every Trump supporter says, well, not like completely.
Yeah, we're saying stuff like, oh, you mean they're going to censor you on social media, which they have.
Yes.
Oh, you mean they want to control your Second Amendment?
Yes, they do.
That's exactly what they want to do.
So yes, when Trump says they're coming for your democracy, Republicans translate that into their head into policy.
Don't you?
What is the policy on free speech and can you interfere with it through these external entities?
What's the policy on the Second Amendment?
Yeah, I mean, we just see it as policy.
So it doesn't look like you should be activated to any kind of danger.
I would like to test another theory that I think is batshit crazy.
And this is on both sides.
So this is a both sides batshit crazy.
The idea that if Trump had been assassinated, there would have been a civil war.
Think that through for a minute.
So you got all these Republicans who would be so mad you can't even believe it.
And a lot of them have guns.
So that's where the Democrats stop their analysis.
They're going to be really mad and they have guns.
So, Civil War.
All right, think it through to one more level.
You ready for this?
Here's one more level of thought.
Who are they going to shoot?
Who are they going to shoot?
Were they going to shoot their neighbor?
Ah, that guy, I think that guy, my neighbor, voted Democrat, I'll go shoot him.
No!
There's nobody to shoot.
If a lone gunman killed the president, there's nobody to shoot.
You could take out your guns, you could clean them, you could load them, you could walk outside, but then what are you going to do?
You're not going to shoot your neighbor, because your neighbor had nothing to do with it.
You're not going to shoot Biden, because he didn't have anything to do with it.
I mean, not directly.
What are you going to do with your gun?
Are you going to take over the government?
No?
No!
You're going to maybe insist the government does a better job of figuring out what went on, but what exactly would you do with your guns?
So the problem is that we're so simplistic that we go immediately to civil war when there's no really any path to get there.
Let me tell you what would have happened.
Had the assassination attempt succeeded, The country would have gone into a deep depression.
And we would have talked tough, like, oh, it's got to be stopped.
But there wouldn't be anybody to shoot.
You just wouldn't have hate and a gun at the same time with a target.
Because we still don't know exactly what this crazy guy is up to, but we know the one person who is certainly responsible is dead.
And would have been dead probably in every circumstance, even if he succeeded.
So, no, we're not close to a civil war.
And nobody can even give me an example of how that could ever happen.
This is very similar to how the Democrats imagined that the trespassers on January 6th could take over the country.
How?
What, with some paperwork?
With some people who said they're electors?
I think I'll try to take over the country.
I'm a fake elector.
Everybody stand down.
It's my country now.
There's no, there's no path.
So no, we were not on the verge of civil war.
What we were on the verge of is a mental illness that never would have gone away.
If Trump had gone down, I would be permanently injured.
I mean, we all would have been injured by that, at least the people were sane.
So no, there was a lot to lose, but it wasn't going to be a civil war.
There was nobody to shoot.
Jack Black, doing his Tenacious D thing, which is, I guess, music and comedy kind of a show.
Soon after the assassination attempt, one of his bandmates said something on stage spontaneously Indicating he wished the attempt had been successful.
And as you might imagine, there was some backlash.
And in Australia, they were trying to deport him and Jack Black just canceled the tour.
Was that the right decision?
Yes.
Now remember, Jack Black really, really doesn't like Trump.
I don't know if you knew that, but he really, really, really doesn't like him.
He super doesn't like him.
But And I think that was the bandmate who said it was the height of irresponsibility.
But think about what causes somebody to do that.
What would cause you to say on stage, in front of thousands of people, with cameras and everything else, that you wish the candidate had been assassinated?
The only thing that would cause that is that you thought everybody agreed.
That you thought it was a crowd pleaser.
He didn't say it because he thought the crowd would be mad.
He thought the crowd would cheer.
And some, I think, did.
But how much of a bubble do you have to live in to think that's a good idea in a crowd that simply is there because you're funny and entertaining and they bought a ticket?
I can't imagine worse judgment.
But I think that worse judgment comes down to being in a silo.
Where you just don't even know anybody on the other side.
I think you would have to literally not know a Republican to say that into a big crowd of people.
As if there's not a single Republican there.
Or even a single decent person who would never embrace such a thought.
You know, there must be plenty of Democrats who are just disgusted and just sick over what almost happened.
And what did happen.
Anyway.
So there's a message inside the Democrat inside camp that the strategists have just given up.
But here's something a Democrat strategist allegedly said.
So this is an anonymous person, so you have to be careful with these anonymous ones.
But allegedly a Democrat strategist said that the assassination attempt destroyed Biden's entire strategy for taking on Trump.
Trying to portray him as a threat to democracy.
The strategist said that message is dead, but it gets better.
And then a top Democrat, another one who specializes in congressional races, has said it's, you know, altered everything.
But listen to this quote.
This is a Democrat strategist who understands how things work.
So let me tell you, That whatever problems the Democrats have, it's not because they don't have smart strategists.
It's because they weren't listening to them.
But here's one of the smart ones.
The clear effect of this assassination attempt is that it officially thrust Donald Trump out of politics and into martyrdom, the person said.
They're framing this as an attack on MAGA and not on Trump.
Even more powerful.
And then this is the money shot, this last sentence.
This is literally biblical stuff we're talking about.
There you go.
He was circling around the target, and then he found it.
Here's circling around the target.
Then it changes the messaging.
Yeah, you're getting close.
Circling around the target is It changed it from politics into martyrdom.
Oh, okay, now you're getting a little bit closer.
A little bit closer.
It was an attack on MAGA, not on Trump.
That's how they're reframing it.
Oh, yeah.
Yep.
You're getting closer.
You're getting a little bit closer.
And then the kill shot.
This is literally biblical stuff.
Done.
You found the target.
You found the bullseye.
Speaking of bullseyes.
Yes, this is as insightful as you could possibly be.
So whoever this particular Democrat was, I don't like to give advice to the Democrats, but here's my advice.
Will you listen to this fucking guy for a change?
Will you fucking listen to this guy?
Whoever you've been listening to is an asshole and an idiot, probably a bunch of them.
Listen to this guy.
You got somebody who knows what they're talking about and can see the whole field.
Listen to this guy or lose everything.
Or lose everything.
You're going to lose the presidency.
You'll lose both houses.
You already lost the Supreme Court and it's going to get worse.
So again, I say, it's not that they don't have smart people.
They're not listening to them.
All right.
I'm going to give you a story that sounds like it's not related to anything in the news.
It sounds like it's just about me.
And then I'm going to connect it to the news and you're going to go, whoa, good point, Scott.
So I've got this ear infection.
You don't care about that.
But I call my health care provider and they say, what is it?
And I say, well, I've got this problem, blah, blah, blah.
And they say, oh, good.
And I think I'm going to make an appointment.
And then they say, No, this phone number is sort of the general one.
I go, Oh, oh, well, I'll give you the phone number for the place you should have called.
And then I think, Hmm, I feel like I wasted a lot of time giving you a lot of information, when all I needed was the phone call that I should have been calling, instead of the one they gave me to call, which they told me was the right number to call.
And I've been on hold for an hour.
And Then finally I called and I got another recording to tell me that I was on hold and they could call me back but then they did call me back and the call back was just to tell me I was on hold for another 30 minutes and then I waited and then they called back and then the person so finally I was trying to get the ear nose throat department so finally I get the ear nose throat department they say they ask all the same information somehow my my account
Had not been transferred even though I'd entered it three times by now.
So now three times I've given my medical number.
It's asked a fourth time, and I've still not talked to anybody who can help me.
Right?
This sound familiar?
Everybody knows this, right?
You've all had this experience.
So then I finally get the right person.
And I say, can I make an appointment for the ENT?
And they say, oh, that's not at this number.
And they gave me another number.
So I finally got to somebody who could make an appointment and it wasn't until like a week from now.
And I had to fight for it and finally I got an appointment in 48 hours and stuff like that.
Now, was this story about me and about my health care?
No.
It was about how everything in the country is so fucked up that even simple things don't work.
Simple things don't work.
Everywhere that you look and expect competence, everywhere that it used to be, it is gone.
We have a massive incompetence problem, which is probably some combination of several things.
I don't know what all the forces are, but you all see it, right?
I'm not telling you a story that you go, I've never had that problem.
Every time I talk to somebody, they're capable and effective.
No, you've all had the experience, okay?
Now that's your context.
Now let's talk about what happened with the Secret Service and protecting Trump.
We have at least two hypotheses.
One, I'm going to call the Dilber filter.
The Dilber filter says that there are pointier bosses who are selfish and incompetent.
They're pushing DEI, their employees were selfish and incompetent and already are looking for another job, and that you should expect massive incompetence everywhere.
All right, that's the Dilbert filter.
Now, did the Dilbert filter correctly predict my inability to get an appointment for health care?
It did.
It perfectly predicted that even the simplest thing, get an appointment for health care, Becomes so impossibly difficult, I almost gave up.
I mean literally, I almost said, all right, I'll just live with an ear infection for the rest of my life.
I can't do this.
Now take that filter and compare it to the other one.
There was a clever government plot that involved hundreds of variables, an insane 20 year old, And the extreme unlikeliness that they could allow this to happen and get away with it, that the crowd wouldn't notice it, and that even if it worked, something good could have come from it.
That's the alternative.
Which one do you think seems more likely?
Well, let's talk about how wildly incompetent they would have had to be in order for it to be incompetent as the entire explanation.
Now some of you are going to say, Scott, it could be both.
It could be sort of a planned incompetence where it wasn't that they were trying to kill the president, but they weren't trying too hard not to make it happen.
Meaning you'd expect them to try a lot harder and do a better job if their intention was to protect them.
They did such a bad job, it looks like their intention was to kill him.
Now, I'm looking in the comments, somebody saying I'm so wrong, because this would all be compatible with the theme of, you know, he's a dangerous person who must be killed.
Now, two things can be possible.
One, the Democrats were trying to get Trump killed by painting him as a person that anybody would kill, which is Hitler, if they had a chance.
So, I accept that as 100% given.
That the Democrats did want him killed, they did fantasize about having him killed, and they talked in a way that would make it more likely, and they were completely aware of it.
Are everybody happy?
You're all happy with that part, right?
No disagreement?
That it was, at the very least, what do they call it, the poisoned heart thing?
There's a different word for it.
But at the very least, They created a situation where somebody would more likely be killed.
That doesn't mean that they intentionally told the Secret Service to do a bad job.
That doesn't mean that.
It's possible.
It is not ruled out.
And let me be as clear as possible.
I'm not ruling out anything.
I'm just laying it out so you know how to analyze it.
So I'm helping you analyze it.
I'm not telling you what the answer is.
And I'm telling you that if the only filter you put on it is that a bunch of clever operators managed a hundred variables correctly, that's a stretch.
If you put the Dilber filter on it, it does explain everything.
It explains it all.
There's nothing that can't be explained by incompetence.
Nothing.
Because you, and the reason that you think that might be hard is that you think, but Scott, how hard is it To make sure there's somebody on the roof.
That is exactly the kind of thing that could be done by incompetence.
It doesn't matter that it wasn't hard to do it right.
You've seen in your own life that just because it's easy to do it right, does not predict it will be done right.
It doesn't.
So here's the things we know.
Or think we know.
Oh, and then there's also what I'll call the sniper's filter.
So the sniper filter says, and I said this the other day, I said, well, if the guy was, if one of the snipers was looking through the scope, that would kind of blind them for anything in the larger field.
And so you could imagine how they would miss it.
And then people said, Scott, Scott, Scott, I'm so embarrassed for you.
I'm so embarrassed for you.
You're talking about sniping.
I'm an expert on snipers.
And let me tell you one thing for sure.
There's one thing I can tell you for sure, Scott.
You idiot.
You idiot.
I can't even believe you're embarrassing yourself by talking about this in person.
Let me tell you the first thing about sniping.
Sniping 101, Scott.
There's always a spotter.
See, if you have a spotter, then the sniper is not blinded by looking through.
There's a spotter.
You idiot.
What's the Dilbert filter say?
The Dilber filter says, I'll bet there wasn't a spotter that day.
Do you know what we just found out?
It was a manpower shortage.
No spotter.
Yeah, they didn't have spotters.
Which filter worked better?
How about your sniper filter?
How'd that work?
You're brilliant operators.
They got all the resources.
They're highly trained.
They're working as teams.
How'd that fucking filter work?
Right?
So everybody who mocked me for saying incompetence is certainly on the table.
I don't know the truth, but it's on the table.
All of you who said, no, these crack teams of snipers, they're never going to make a mistake.
They would see the whole field.
There's no way they could have missed this.
Well, you're all wrong.
Incompetence can explain a whole lot.
It doesn't mean it's the whole answer.
And just to be clear, I'll have to say this every 10 seconds, I think that the theory that there was an insider is completely alive.
Completely alive.
Yeah.
There's nothing that has ruled that out.
And when you look at it, the totality of the evidence is so suspicious that it's absolutely a hypothesis.
But don't rule out the most obvious one.
The most obvious one is massive incompetence.
Now, we also know that it wasn't their regular team.
So if you introduce the non-regular team, What does that do to the level of capability?
Well, it drops to the floor.
You all know that.
You know you can't bring in the temps.
I mean, there were trained professionals from Department of Homeland Security, but different training, different process, different situation.
You should expect massive incompetence just because you trained out the people.
Now, let me talk about my favorite topic, DEI.
There is no indication that DEI effects had anything to do with what happened.
None.
There is a DEI overlay which guarantees less capability.
It guarantees it.
So you're in a system that guarantees flaws, but you don't know if it guaranteed the specific one.
Is that fair?
To say that you've added a layer of incompetence that's guaranteed by its nature, To cause inefficiency.
Doesn't mean it causes a specific one.
That would be going too far.
But you can say incompetence is throughout the organization.
Now, again, if you're new to my streams, let me be very careful of what I'm saying.
I'm not talking about anybody's genes or their DNA.
I'm not talking about their sexual preferences.
So it has nothing to do about gender or race.
That's never in my argument.
My argument is supply and demand.
If the Secret Service says, hey, we've got to get 30% women, and there just weren't enough women in the pipeline who are fully trained and able to lift heavy objects, they're going to lower their standards.
And they did.
They lowered their standards.
So they lowered it for physical fitness.
Do you think they lowered it for years of experience?
Probably.
Do you think they lowered it for, I don't know, marksmanship or anything else?
I don't know, but probably.
Probably.
Because the diversity goal was right at the top of their goals.
I think it was at least equal to protecting the lives of the candidates.
So that should create massive incompetence.
It should.
All right.
What else?
They kept Trump on the stage and didn't do anything, even though, I guess somebody said for 30 minutes they were chasing the shooter around.
How could that be explained by incompetence?
Easily.
They weren't sure he was a shooter.
There was a suspicious guy.
The suspicious guy was not on the interior security.
He was around the outside.
So they were looking for him and had not identified yet that he was a lethal threat.
It was just something they were looking into.
Now, should they have done better?
Probably.
Would simple incompetence explain this part of it?
Yes, it would.
Simple incompetence would completely explain Well, I don't know what we're looking for, but somebody said there's a guy.
Looks suspicious.
We're looking for him, but he's outside the security perimeter.
We'll keep you informed.
You could easily imagine why they'd say, Trump's gonna be really mad if we take him off the stage for some vague guy wandering around outside the venue.
So you could imagine that being incompetence, but we don't know.
Can't know from this distance.
Let's see, what else was there?
There was the This story I don't think is exactly right, but apparently the roof that the shooter was on was a staging area for the local police, and maybe there were two... Somebody said there were some snipers inside the building that he was on top of.
What?
Now, shouldn't they be on top of the building?
You say to yourself?
Now, how could it possibly be true?
That there would be nobody on top of the building?
How do you even hold that in your brain when the top of the building had a direct line of sight on the president and the lower part of the building probably did not?
I mean, I don't know, but it probably did not.
Here's how you can explain it.
Who's going to be covering the roof?
Bob's got the roof.
All right, good.
Bob's got the roof.
And then you see Bob later, you go, I thought you were on the roof?
And Bob says, no, no, they told me not to do the roof.
They've got that covered.
Well, but he said you're on the roof.
No, they said, I heard him very clearly.
He said, we got the roof covered, Bob.
You don't need to do that.
That's it.
Now I'm not suggesting that's exactly what happened.
I'm saying that how easy would it be to miscommunicate about who had the roof?
And if you were inside, you couldn't see the roof.
So if somebody told you the roof was covered and they just miscommunicated, you'd say, all right, roof is covered.
Would you necessarily get a ladder and go to see if somebody's on the roof?
Or would you just say, well, this guy I trust just said the roof is covered.
It would be so easy to imagine this was incompetence and miscommunication.
Or the guy just had to take a leak.
or or he got called away or maybe that's the exactly the guy who they said well don't worry about the roof we'll make sure nobody gets up there because the doors are closed you know he can't get up there anyway so you know the doors are locked so he can't get internally why don't you come down look for that guy that's running around so maybe the guy on the roof came down to look because there was nothing no reason to be on the roof anymore and then the guy used the ladder to climb up nobody saw
Is any of that possible?
I don't know, but lots of possibilities.
Let's see, what else?
Yeah, the fact that they kept Trump on this stage when suspicious things were happening is pretty sketched.
The fact that the shooter... There's a story I don't believe going around that the counter snipers Had him in their sights for a long time, but didn't have permission to shoot.
That can't be true.
Right?
So I don't know what is true, but it can't be true that they had in their sights a gunman with a rifle and they didn't have permission to take him out.
That can't be true.
Do we all agree on that?
That can't be true.
Like, I'm willing to believe a high level of incompetence, but there's no way That if somebody points a gun at a candidate, the shooters don't have permission to shoot.
That can't be a thing.
So just forget that.
That just can't be a thing.
All right.
So you know, there's a safety vacuum and we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof.
Oh my God, they didn't want to put somebody on a sloped roof, the boss said.
So, I don't know if that's true, but in the comments I saw somebody had a quote from Cheadle, the head of the Secret Service, saying that they thought they could secure it from the ground because it was like a slippery sloped roof.
Wow.
Wow.
They didn't see the ladder coming.
All right, what else?
All right, that's enough on that.
All right.
I'm going to do something that I've been waiting to do, but I'm waiting for exactly the right time to do it.
Here's a little persuasion lesson for you.
Persuasion works best when the timing is right.
When the timing is right.
So sometimes the public is just ready for a certain message and other times they're not.
For example, after we all watched what looked like a Bad Secret Service detail.
They had too many women in it, according to some observers.
That primes people for the message that DEI is a bad idea.
You all understand that, right?
So once it's in the news, it's attached to a big story, then if you take the emotion that's in the attention that's already attributed to the story, and then you can extend it.
Say, all right, you already feel this way, Then why don't we make it illegal everywhere?
Because you can see how damaging it is.
Now, that would be an example of pairing your persuasion to what's in the common consciousness at the time.
It's very important.
If you don't do that, you have no choice, no chance of succeeding.
So, given that the biggest complaint about Trump had been He's going to be a dictator, etc.
And because the Democrats are saying that they might have to pull back their strategy and advertising on that, what's left?
Well, abortion is left.
So suddenly abortion has gone from, you know, one of the big things to way the biggest thing.
I would argue it's the biggest thing.
So this is the time for me to reframe it.
You've got your vice president and you know your vice president.
J.D.
Vance is capable of communication at a level that you rarely see.
So here's a reframe that he could use that I think Trump would be maybe less facile with.
Did I use that word right?
I've never said that and I've never used that word in public.
So here's the reframe.
It comes in a few different statements, so just listen to the statements, and I'll post this on X if you want to see it.
All right, here's my abortion reframe.
Number one, women have the political power to get whatever laws they want in states that already ban abortion.
Women have all the political power they need to get whatever they want.
Simply by saying, we won't vote for anybody who's against us.
So if women in any of these states, by a majority, you know, a hard majority, it'd have to be more than 50% probably, if they want something changed, they could put so much fear into the existing candidates that they would either change their minds or they would get voted out.
So that's the first point, is that women have the political power to get whatever they want.
Trump and the Supreme Court took the decisions about women's bodies out of the federal government's control and moved it closer to the individual, where it belongs, in the states.
How much would you want Trump to be involved in your health care decisions?
Not at all, right?
How about the next president?
Do you want the next president to be involved in your health care?
Not really.
You want to be the one that's involved.
And at the very least, you want it to be the closest government to you, so you can affect it more.
That would be the state government.
So he's basically saying, I'm out of the game.
I'm not going to tell you to get an abortion.
I'm not going to tell you not to.
I've taken myself out of the decision process.
So complaining to the person who has taken themselves out of the decision process is the wrong place to complain.
Where they should be complaining is to other women.
Because if they could get 75% of women to be on the same page, they could get anything they want in any domain.
Not just abortion, any debate.
75% of women on the same page, they get everything.
Here's the next thing.
Republicans are not complaining much.
I'll put in parentheses, much.
Republicans are not complaining much about states where abortion is legal.
I haven't heard it at all.
Have you?
When Republicans fixed the process in their mind, and the process meaning the states should have this power, not the courts, they were a lot happier with where it came out, even when it didn't come out their way.
So you can see that the Republicans have managed to find peace with what they really hate, which is abortion, being legal in California.
Republicans seem to be at peace, With the fact that New York State people are okay with it.
Now, privately, of course, they'd be quite opposed to it, because they're anti-abortion, many of them.
But you don't see them marching.
You don't see them making it their top priority.
They're simply letting the states do what the states do, hating us sometimes, loving us sometimes, but respecting the system.
That's all they're asking.
That's all they're asking of Democrats.
We're just asking Democrats to respect the system.
And then get whatever result the system gives us.
Your state might be different than mine.
So here's the bottom line.
Women should be talking to each other about what they want and then going and getting it.
They don't need to talk to anybody else.
They don't need to talk to Trump.
They don't need to talk to the Supreme Court.
They don't need to talk to the court at all.
They need to talk to each other.
If they can convince each other to get on the same page, they can have anything they want.
So stop making it about Trump, stop making it about the federal government, stop making it about the Supreme Court.
That part of the problem has been fixed.
They just put the decision as close to the individual as they could, and now the individual has to do what individuals do in a free country.
You gotta work, you gotta persuade, you gotta get out the vote, you gotta make it work.
So don't complain to Trump about a problem that is entirely within the power of women.
What do you think?
Now, there's probably a cleaner, better way to say that, and maybe J.D.
Vance is exactly the person to figure that out.
I don't know if Trump could deliver that.
You know, Trump has his own style, which is incomparable for so many things.
But nuance, nuance isn't exactly his thing.
All right, looking at your comments.
The problem is that Democrats are lying about a national abortion ban.
Well, I think you have to deal with the lying separately.
So Trump, in the interview yesterday, I guess, for Fox News, said that he is absolutely against the extreme abortion views in the Project 2025.
So he says they go way, way too far.
So I think he has to do some work in debunking that, but it's debunkable.
Because that's at least, you can fact check it.
You can fact check that Trump has never said ban all abortions.
You can fact check that he's continually said he doesn't want to do it.
And you can fact check that he moved it to the states, because if he wanted to ban abortion, he would have tried to keep things with the federal government.
I mean, that's a winnable argument, but everybody's got to hear it at least once.
In what would have been the biggest news but got overshadowed, Judge Eileen Cannon dismissed that Mar-a-Lago box case because the Special counsel guy was not constitutionally appointed.
Jack Smith, he was not constitutionally appointed.
So we don't know if this case could ever come back, but Jonathan Turley's view on it is, of all the cases that could be dismissed, this would be at the top of the list, meaning it was the most dangerous one.
It was the greatest threat.
And for now, at least it's gone.
So if Turley is saying that for now, at least it's gone, I guess that means from a legal perspective there's some way it could come back, but in a practical world we don't expect it.
How many of you predicted that the Mar-a-Lago case would turn into a big nothing?
I wasn't so sure, but I thought more likely than not it would turn into a big nothing.
So it's still not a nothing, but it's off the burner for now.
It also suggests, it leads into the larger theme that the Democrats are murderers, basically.
Because if you're going to lawfare a guy and send him to jail, it's not a stretch to be a murderer.
It really isn't.
Imagine what it would take, how evil you would have to be, to create a fake scenario to put somebody in actual prison.
Just think about that.
The level of evil it would take to put somebody, you know, by lying, into an actual prison is the smallest step to murder.
It really is.
I mean, they're just right next to each other.
So, every time you see some evidence that the Democrats were acting in a lawfare-like way, stretching the law, bending the law, abusing the law to get somebody, it tells you they might be murderers.
And in my opinion, they are attempted murderers.
Well, murderers, because somebody died.
Not legally, perhaps, but in practical effect, they are murderers.
That's my opinion.
RFK Jr.
finally got Secret Service protection.
It came after Trump said You know, after what happened to him, you're going to have to give Secret Service protection to RFK.
RFK Jr.
thanked Trump and said, hey, there's some, you know, that's working across the aisle.
I mean, that's a good, good sign for the country.
And then soon after, Mayorkas announced that in light of the weekend's events, that the president has directed him to give Secret Service protection to Robert F. Kennedy.
Well, that seems like an admission, doesn't it?
That seems like a confession.
That's how I hear it.
I hear it as a confession that they denied him Secret Service to try to get him killed.
Now, he didn't say that.
It's not in evidence.
But why do I hear it?
Why do I hear it?
I hear it when it's not there.
That's a problem.
I hear it clear as day we tried to kill him and it didn't work out, we got caught, so I guess we're going to have to reverse that.
But given that this happened after Trump had called for it, it makes you wonder which president ordered it, because he said, the president directed me to do it.
But I've got a feeling that Trump directed him to do it, and the Democrats just had to fall in line.
So, in a way, it's almost feeling like Trump's in charge, that he's moved into presidential mode, and that he might just have more power already than you could imagine, just to do things that need to be done.
Well, I put this story last because I needed to calm down a little bit.
So Biden gives an interview to Lester Holt, CBS, in which, once again, he pushed the fine people hoax.
Just a few days after Trump was nearly killed, almost certainly, because the shooter thought he was, you know, that kind of a risk to the country.
And he pushed it.
Even after the Democrat insider said, well, that strategy is dead.
I feel like, I feel like nobody's even talking to Biden.
Are you telling me that there was nobody who could sit him down and say, the one thing you can never say again is that fine people thing.
It's the debunked hoax.
And it's the most dangerous thing anybody ever said, because that's the one that makes you believe he's a Nazi.
That's the one that makes you think that somebody ought to take him out.
It is the 10 poll hoax and Lester Holt, Lester Holt did not push back on it.
Now, is Lester Holt incompetent or a piece of shit?
I don't know.
So he's either incompetent because he doesn't know the biggest hoax in the world is the biggest hoax, or he let that go at the great peril to the United States and other candidates.
Now, whichever the answer is, that's really bad for Lester Holt, and he needs to apologize to the country.
Lester Holt owes you an apology for letting that happen.
A public apology.
I demand it.
Lester Holt, CBS, I demand an apology.
Because you're putting me in danger.
Because as a Trump supporter, you allowed Biden to say that Trump is supporting neo-Nazis.
And I'm not okay with that.
Now, I don't know if Biden tied it to Trump that time, or if he just said, you know, the neo-Nazis are coming out of the woods, but it's the same story.
Right?
Even if he didn't mention Trump.
I can't remember if he did.
It ties it to Trump, and that's the reason he does it, obviously.
Because he's not talking about any other event.
He's talking about that one, and it happened years ago.
So it's obviously to tie it to Trump.
So I thought that I was going to do a lot of cursing, because my first impression was to go off on Biden.
But I feel as though the Democrats have abandoned him, and that he's going to lose the election, he's going to go down in history as the worst president of all time, and he's going to suffer a long and painful death.
And I feel like the better move is to move on.
I believe that telling you who he is is unnecessary because he can't win, and his own side knows who he is now.
This is who he is.
He's a liar.
He is reckless.
He is a crook.
And he doesn't care about the country, or anybody who's a Republican for sure.
Biden has identified himself, and certainly by pushing the fine people hoax right after the assassination attempt, possibly the lowest character I've ever seen in a public official.
It would be hard to think, you know, who has gone lower in terms of morals, ethical behavior, and criminal behavior, probably.
So, we've never seen anybody that bad operating at that level, in my opinion.
He's taken He's taken badness to a level that I, honestly, I'm surprised.
I didn't know you can get there.
So, I think he should take some leadership skills from Jack Black and back the fuck off.
Because I can't get mad at him because he's now irrelevant, I think.
I think he's irrelevant.
And I think the reason the Democrats are leaving him in the race is to fuck him.
I don't think the Democrats are trying to remove him to the race, partly because it's impractical, but partly because they hate him.
I think they hate him at this point.
I think the Democrats were not right on his campaign.
Know that he is destroying their ability to earn money.
Imagine you're Axelrod, right?
And you still want to be working and helping them.
He just... Axelrod is basically...
You're done.
The Democrats could be done as an effective party for a generation.
It's possible.
I don't, you know, I wouldn't predict it, but it's possible.
So what Biden has done to the Democrat Party in whole is hard to calculate yet, but it's the most destructive thing that's ever happened to the Democrats.
And he's still going.
So to me, it looks like they're just letting him go.
I think what you're going to see is an abandonment of advice.
I think even some of his closest advisors are going to stop taking his calls.
And they're going to stop calling him.
And they're just going to back up and they're going to say, look, I washed my hands of this.
If it were up to me, he would have been replaced six months ago.
But it wasn't up to me.
And now you're going to watch them fail.
And I'm going to tell you all that he's failing against my advice.
My advice was not this.
It's going to fail.
And now you watch it.
Should have taken my advice.
So the Democrats are going to turn on him like crazy.
And the fact that nobody's turned on him yet for bringing up the fine people hoax, it's only because they can't bring it up because they've been pushing the hoax as real too.
So the Democrats, the Democrat press can't even report that he just did the worst thing that any president's ever done.
He pushed the Find People hoax right after an assassination attempt.
Name anything that's worse than that.
I can't think of anything.
That a president did?
That is so low, that it's almost hard to hold in your head.
Now, I think dementia might have been a reason, and nobody advising him anymore, but, man, it's hard to believe.
Meanwhile, over in California, Governor Newsom Signed the First Nations Bill banning schools from telling parents that their child has changed their gender identity and their pronouns.
The Daily Wire is reporting that.
Now, remember when you thought that Newsom had a chance of running for president?
He really didn't, in retrospect.
I kind of thought he had a good shot at one point, too.
But the more you look into it, and the fact that he's a white male, and that he's destroyed California, I mean, even Democrats aren't going to go for this.
Are they?
What percentage of Democrats would be okay with a school helping their child transition and not telling you?
Are there a lot of Democrats that are okay with that?
Even if half are okay with it, there's got to be a solid half who say that's just batshit crazy.
Leave my kids alone.
It's got to be.
Because I think the parent thing is bigger than the Democrat thing.
By a lot.
Well, and then the most important story of the day I'll end on is that a company called IHMC has created a humanoid robot that can play ping-pong.
Finally.
That is exactly what I've been waiting for.
Now that sounds like a joke, doesn't it?
Nope!
So maybe, I don't know, a year or so ago, I saw an expert say that one of the best ways to keep your brain and your body active in your older years is racket and paddle sports.
So all the sports are good.
So whatever you do that's active is good.
But apparently the paddle sports, because it's fast twitch and it's balance and it's reflexes that uses a lot of your brain, apparently it's just the very best thing.
So I went out and bought myself a really nice ping pong table.
And then I said, well, now I'm going to play me some ping pong and I'll make it, you know, a somewhat regular thing.
So that I'll be doing something that's good for me.
And then I looked around in my house and the only person there was my dog.
So I did what anybody would do.
I used duct tape to attach the paddle to the dog's foot.
Um, didn't work.
It didn't work.
In case you're wondering how the experiment went, she was, she was completely uninterested in the sport.
So there was nobody in the house and I thought, well, I'm going to have to, like, find a ping pong player.
And then I thought, oh, I might have to make a friend.
Because, yeah, I checked with the people I knew and, you know, people are either out of town or they live far away or, you know, it's really hard.
The incoming wars, American whites are going to fight for Israel.
We've got an anti-Semite who's yelling in all caps.
Keep yelling anti-Semite, but could you do me a favor?
If the anti-Semites want to get really active in the comments, could you put your comments in all caps?
Because then we can see them better.
They'll stand out better.
Just make your comments all caps if you're an anti-Semite or if you're just against Israel.
Just give me all caps.
Got quiet, didn't you?
All right.
So I decided I needed a ping pong playing robot so I can have less human contact.
Now, I do have one friend who plays ping pong, but I need more.
So anyway, that is my show for the day.
I hope you liked it.
And if you didn't know, there are three books that will change your life.
That I've reissued.
One of them's new.
If you don't have your copy of God's Debris, this is the complete work that includes the religion war and a new short story at the end.
This one is your best summer reading of all time.
And if you're wondering, how in the world could that bullet miss Trump's head?
This will be your answer.
Or one of them.
So, there's that.
My newest book, Reframe your brain will teach you lots of different ways to essentially hypnotize yourself with little sentences that reframe your brain.
So anything you want to improve in from career to your social life to your mental health to your physical health, there's at least one reframe that will change your life.
In every domain.
So it's a fun read.
People love it.
Got great reviews.
And of course, I've reissued my book after I got cancelled.
So this is the second edition.
So it didn't go through a traditional publisher.
And it's updated.
If you didn't know, this is the most influential book in all of personal career success.
So personal success or career success, this is the most influential book and has been for quite a few years.
So if you look at the reviews in that book, you'll see what I'm talking about.
I would just refer you to the reviews.
It tells you everything you need.
They're all super well reviewed.
And if you need a summer airplane book, these are perfect.
They're also the right length for a cross-the-country trip.
It's a good vacation book.
And I'll tell you more about the Dilbert calendar.
It will be reissued.
So I found a way to make it made entirely in America.
It wasn't easy.
But I worked extra hard and figured out a way.
I'll tell you about the company I'm working with when the time is right.
Too early.
It's not available yet.
I'll tell you when you can you can get it for pre-order because it's 2025 calendar.
And thanks for joining.
I'm going to go talk to the local subscribers privately.
And the rest of you on X and YouTube and Rumble, thanks for joining.
