God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Uncontacted Amazon Tribe, President Trump, Ukraine War, President Putin, Evan Gershkovich, J6 Obstruction Charges, Anti-DEI JD Vance, DEI Democrats, DEI Secret Service, DEI CrowdStrike, Butler Multiple Shooter Analysis, Thomas Crooks Drone, Hanlon's Razor, Dilbert Filter, Butler Assassination Questions, Butler Conspiracy Theories, CrowdStrike Ukrainian Oligarch, Daniel Dale's Errors, Rep. Mike Waltz, Carl Bernstein, Biden's Election Options, DNC Virtual Roll Call, Bill Maher, Larry Wilmore, Rep. Byron Donalds, Cult Characteristics, AOC, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you'll never have a better time.
And today is going to be extra special good because I got up early and I'm feeling great.
And the news was funny.
So stay with me.
Today is going to be fun.
Best thing you'll see on a Saturday morning when everybody else is taking the day off.
Lazy!
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or Chalice of Stein, 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. Transcendence. Ah.
Well, I'd like to make an announcement to begin with.
Just a clarification.
The MSNBC host Katie Turr is not related to Cat Turd.
Cat Turd is an entirely different person than Katie Turr.
I just needed to clarify that before we go on.
ABC is Reporting that they've discovered the largest uncontacted tribe deep in the Peruvian Amazon.
So there's a group of 750 people who have had no contact with modern civilization in the Peruvian Amazon.
And somebody got a picture of them.
And here's the thing.
They look really healthy and happy.
Maybe being uncontacted is a pretty good deal because they look way too healthy and happy.
Like, you know, they're just hanging out on the beach.
I'm thinking, huh, I wouldn't mind being uncontacted.
That's looking pretty good.
Depression levels?
Probably none.
Probably none.
But it makes me wonder.
Okay, the reason that we we know they exist, but we don't contact them is that we fear that contact with them would destroy them.
So the only reason they don't know about us Is that we've decided it's for their own good.
Which opens up the possibility, I think you know where this is going, that there's somebody who is more advanced than we are, who for exactly the same reason, leaves us uncontacted.
But we keep seeing these UFOs and stuff, we're like, huh?
What's that?
And then I was looking at the photograph, the photograph of the uncontacted tribe, And it was obviously taken from either some kind of aircraft or drone, which means that the people on the beach were looking up at what they thought was a UFO and saying, huh, what the hell is that?
So I just like to put out the possibility that there's an advanced civilization of humans who live below the ocean.
That's where I'd put them.
They live below the ocean and they just come out once in a while to check us out.
And when we see their UFOs, we go, ah, I wonder what that is.
Just putting it out there.
Just a possibility.
Well, Boris Johnson says he's, uh, he's optimistic that if Trump wins the election, he can negotiate an end to the Ukraine war.
Boris Johnson said that.
Where'd that come from?
And Zelensky has reached out to Trump.
To make friends with him, probably think something good can happen.
Putin seems to be optimistic.
Now, do you still doubt that Trump can negotiate the end of the Ukraine war on his first day in office?
He can literally.
Now, it won't happen on the first day, but it's within the bounds of possibility that he could end the war on the first day.
It's not impossible because there's nobody who doesn't want to end the war.
Basically, everybody wanted to end the war, but not the way they were doing it.
So as long as they were going the way they were going, nothing was going to change.
What they needed was something big that was coming from the outside that would just change the equation.
And it's Trump.
Trump is the ultimate reality changer.
It just changes all the variables.
And then suddenly people say, oh, it's all new variables.
I guess we can end this war now.
So I think Trump's odds of ending the war are very high.
But related to that, Russia convicted that Wall Street Journal reporter, Evan Gershkovich, and he's been sentenced to this sprawling penal colony, which is known to be awful.
And we assume that Putin is playing the prisoner swap game.
I assume that there's somebody that Putin wants released, or he wants leverage, or maybe has to do with the Ukraine war, but he wants something.
So we assume that he's not a real prisoner.
He's sort of a leveraged prisoner that Putin's using.
And do you think that Putin is waiting for Trump to get in office before he releases him?
So he can credit Trump with the release?
Because I think he is.
I think Putin is smart enough to know that if he can leave this little benefit for Trump, it's like, oh, look, Trump got this guy free in this first day of office.
And now we have good relationship with America, because we got this one thing, you know, this tiny little thing that was moving in the same direction, and then you have momentum.
Because momentum is everything.
The world is not about what is, it's about what direction you're moving.
And if the direction is moving toward each other, as in, you know what, President Trump, We are going to release this prisoner and it's only because you asked.
And we'd like things to be better with the United States.
Now that would be just a good zero expense thing for Putin to do.
So Putin could get some momentum toward some kind of resolution that he would prefer just by giving something that cost him nothing.
Because it didn't cost him anything to give up the hostage.
I'll call him a hostage because he basically is.
So I got a feeling this is going to be echoes of Reagan and the Iran hostages.
That model is too strong in our minds to be ignored.
Anyway, here's more on Trump.
Trump's having a good week, to say the least.
Looks like he's now up, according to an Emerson College polling executive, Trump is up in Virginia.
That's a state that Biden won by 10.
He won by 10, and now he's down by 2.
You know, if you didn't know anything else about any of the polling anywhere, and if it turned out this was true, you can't believe every poll, but it would tell you everything you needed.
Yeah.
By the way, when we see these nationwide polls where it says Trump's up by 5 or up by 2 in the nation, don't you have to Kind of adjust that for the fact that normally the Republicans are behind on the popular vote.
And even if they win, it's because they got the right combination of states and stuff.
So if Trump is actually ahead in the overall common vote, doesn't that say landslide?
Even if he's just slightly ahead in the popular vote overall, that means landslide, right?
Because the only way you could get there is if you're way ahead.
The other states that count.
Well, it's not the only way, but it is highly suggestive of a landslide.
Don't get yourself too happy because anything could happen.
So, according to Zero Hedge, federal prosecutors are starting to drop some of the obstruction charges from the January 6th prisoners.
Uh, because of the, uh, recent Supreme Court ruling.
So I guess the obstruction charge, uh, is not relevant to this situation.
That's basically the obstruction charge was really stretched by the prosecutors from some Enron situation, um, where obstruction made more sense.
It was more about destroying evidence and it got really stretched too far.
And then the Supreme Court, I think said, Nope.
That's not an applicable application.
So that doesn't mean that they'll be free.
It means that they'll just pursue other charges.
Now, what does it mean to you if the entire case, the January 6th case against Trump, is that he was trying to obstruct the government from doing his thing?
And then the Supreme Court said, no, that's not obstruction.
Doesn't that kind of make the whole thing go away?
At least the coup part of it?
If it was not illegal to obstruct, then what was it?
It was legal.
I mean, not illegal in that specific way.
So there was plenty of illegality, too.
But it wasn't illegal in that specific way, and that was the only part that really, really mattered.
Obviously, the violence mattered to the people who got injured.
But in terms of the big picture of whether it was an insurrection or a reasonable protest, if you take the obstruction out of it, it kind of gets a lot closer to a reasonable protest, which is how most of us saw it from the start.
All right.
Here's something we learned about JD Vance that we didn't know.
There's some leaked memos.
Showing that JD Vance was the guy who kept holding up a bunch of ambassador nominations because he would grill them about their DEI beliefs.
And if they were too woke in DEI, he would just, you know, not be okay with it.
And apparently the leak was to make, to show what a bad person he was, but it doesn't look that way to me.
It looks like he was one of the smart ones if he was trying to prevent the spread of this, you know, uh, this virus of DEI.
Speaking of DEI, let's give you an update of how DEI is doing this week.
Number one, Democrats don't have a viable candidate, because they can't win with Harris, and they can't skip over her.
So DEI has destroyed the Democrat Party from being a viable entity, maybe forever.
So that's one thing DEI did, destroyed the Democrat Party.
Allegedly, the Secret Service may have been affected by a little extra DEI emphasis than you wish.
Now, there's no direct connection between DEI and the shooting of Trump, but we do know that the director had a big push toward DEI, and we do know that that is a push that is often at odds with the best result.
So if somebody is bragging about Putting emphasis in something that isn't for effectiveness, but rather for diversity.
Can we be blamed for thinking it's one of the least top three possibilities for why things went wrong?
No, we can't.
That would be a reasonable assumption that it's at least in the top three.
How about the CrowdStrike crippling the planet?
Well, one of the things I love is that when any company has any problem, be it Boeing or somebody else, in this case CrowdStrike, You can count on Christopher Rufo within a day finding out how committed they were to DEI.
Turns out that CrowdStrike was really committed to DEI.
As Rufo says, they went all in on DEI.
And he's got the receipts to show it.
So they had a big push to make diversity a top priority.
And then what happened?
Well, it brought down the IT network of a big part of the globe.
Now, just to be clear, the Democrat Party destroying itself is a clear case of DEI.
They just can't skip over the black female candidate, and she's not capable of winning, so they don't have anything to run on.
And the other two are just suspicious.
Meaning that you'd have to put DEI in the top three possibilities.
I was watching the All In pod yesterday.
I was watching Chamath say that all of our institutions are incompetent.
It seems like everything we counted on to sort of get the work done, it just stopped working.
And is that because of DEI?
Now, he didn't say that.
Chamath didn't say it was DEI.
But you have to ask yourself, is it in the top three reasons?
Probably.
I mean, on paper it should create massive incompetence.
If the only thing you knew is that we're going to move our focus to diversity and maybe we'll give up a little bit of experience, you would assume that you would get massive incompetence.
What else would it be?
Yeah, the only way it could go the other way is if you learned that the diverse candidates were, in fact, always superior in intellect and capability.
Now, if that were the case, and I'm not saying it isn't, by the way, but if that were the case, then you would see an increase in quality.
Because we'd be like, oh, these were people who were left out before for, you know, racial discrimination or what else.
But now they're in.
And now they're high quality people and they make everything work better.
On paper, unless the diverse candidates were noticeably smarter and more capable or harder working than the people that would have been in those jobs.
Otherwise, it should lead to a decrease in quality.
You know, all other things being equal.
If you assume all people are equal and have the same capabilities, You should see a decrease in capability by forcing yourself to pick from a small group of people when there's a great demand for the diverse people.
So it's just systemic.
All right, so that's not ideal.
A lot of people ask me, Scott, what do you think of the analysis that's all over the internet of the gunshots?
And how it shows that there are at least, uh, I think three different guns according to one analysis.
And that would, that would make it look like there were some secret shooters, not just the bad guy and not just the sniper who killed the bad guy, but rather some mysterious third shooter that, uh, the conspiracy theorists would say.
So let me, I don't know what the answer is, but let me tell you how to look at this.
All right.
So this would just be, How do we analyze it?
It's not the answer.
I can't tell you if there was a third shooter, so don't ask me that.
I'll just tell you how to look at it.
The most predictable thing you could have known is that somebody would make an analysis showing there was a third shooter.
You all know that, right?
You could predict with certainty whether or not there was a third shooter.
You could predict with certainty that there would be an analysis of the angle of the shots That would look like, hmm, third shooter.
And you could predict with certainty that somebody would do an audio analysis that would show there's a third shooter.
Now, if you can know in advance that those will exist, are they credible?
Let me say it again.
If you can know in advance that whether it's true or it's not true, that those analyses will still exist, for sure, guaranteed.
Can you trust them?
No.
No.
If you can predict that they will occur, whether or not there was a third shooter, and I could do that.
If you had asked me, I'd say, I'll bet you $1,000,000.
I'll bet you $1,000,000 there will be an analysis of a third shooter that you can't tell if it's accurate or not.
I would have bet $1,000,000.
And that has nothing to do with my belief that there's a third shooter.
It's just it's guaranteed, in the age of the internet, There would be something that looks convincing that would look like a third shooter.
So, question number one.
Was it convincing?
Yes.
Yes, it was convincing.
Was it true?
Here's the documentary problem.
The documentary fact, which I talk about all the time, because it's probably the single most important thing you need to understand to understand the news.
If you only see one side of an argument, You will be persuaded it's true.
When you look at these audio analyses, you're seeing one side of the argument.
You're typically not seeing them paired with somebody saying, but I would have seen this differently, or your audio is off, or there's another way to look at it.
If you had seen them side by side, you probably would have a different opinion.
So if you saw one person's analysis that you knew was going to exist, whether or not it was true, And you didn't see it next to a counterpoint.
What have you seen?
Nothing.
Nothing.
You should grade that as you didn't see anything.
Now, until you learn that trick, how you should value that knowledge is as zero.
It's very similar to, there was one anonymous source that says President Trump took a dump on the Oval Office desk.
It's like that.
It might be true.
I mean, anything's possible.
But, probably not.
You know, by its nature, you shouldn't trust it.
So, this is no insult to the people who did the analysis.
I have no idea if it's accurate.
All I know is that, as a consumer of news, don't assume that's accurate.
That would be the wrong way to analyze it.
Right?
So, and this is the tough part.
I don't know the answer if there was a third shooter or not.
I really don't.
But I know that trusting the analyses you see on it is a bad idea.
So just get that distinction.
Well, we've found now that Crooks, the shooter, was able to fly his own drone over the location.
Now, I hate to say that a story so tragic, and we can't forget that there's, you know, there were real victims in this, and it could have been much worse.
But how did a 20 year old get air superiority?
He had air superiority.
He had air superiority.
Come on!
Anyway, the first question that all of us asked was, wait a minute, the Secret Service doesn't have a drone?
How hard is it to get a drone?
Well, it wasn't that hard.
A 20-year-old did it.
So apparently, now people are saying, why didn't they notice the drone?
That part I understand.
If the drone is high enough?
Yeah, if it's high enough, it's kind of hard to spot.
So that's not too surprising.
Although, It does make you think that they should have some acoustic sensors, don't you think?
Don't you think there should be some kind of acoustic sensors that would pick up a drone buzz just by looking up all the time and say, oh, we hear a drone buzz and then be able to kind of spot it or triangulate it.
So maybe there's some equipment that needs to be invented in the age of drones.
I think they have drone blocking technology, but not drone detection technology.
In other words, the Secret Service probably had a portable device to disable a drone, which you can do by taking out a radio signal, but probably not one to detect one, which would be a little harder, or maybe more rare, not harder.
And then, of course, let's see if you could have predicted this.
There was a young male shooter, Do you think there will be a controversy about whether or not he was on antidepressant meds?
Of course there would be!
Of course there would be!
And there is.
Why?
Well, there are studies that say that antidepressants increase the acting out of violent acts.
Is that true?
Well, it seems to be supported by a number of different studies.
It's not just one.
So, I would guess that there's something to that.
And it could be part of the answer.
Because you ask yourself, how in the world do you get in the frame of mind that you would do such a thing?
And it's hard to know.
Now, the other thing that people are asking is why in the world is he the only 20-year-old who is known to be a computer programmer type and was on the Steam gaming network?
And yet he has no social media, and the only photos we can get of him are one taken by the snipers the day of, and another one when he was like 14 years old.
And everything in between is missing except for that Black Rock video where he just happened to be in the shot.
That's the most suspicious thing I've ever seen in my life.
And I know people are asking, are they hiding the fact that he was trans?
Because if you see his haircut in the day of the event, he's got long hair.
For the first time.
Because he didn't have long hair as a teenager.
Was he transitioning?
Now, I have no clues to that except that he had long hair like a woman by the day of the event.
But people have long hair, so that's not proof of anything.
But why would the government apparently try to protect us from some information about the shooter?
It's very suspicious.
So does that mean he's trans?
No, absolutely not.
Does it mean that it's obvious they're hiding something from us?
It looks obvious.
It looks obvious that there's something about this story they're hiding from us.
So let's check again on the incompetence hypothesis versus the conspiracy hypothesis, all right?
Here's some things we know.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Butler County Emergency Services and the Secret Service have different explanations of what happened.
Do you remember my hypothesis, the Dilbert filter?
I said that when you have three entities, the Secret Service, the local police, and then the local police sniper unit, which was a different local police, it was a nearby jurisdiction, that when you put three people in charge of a thing, your odds of a bureaucratic miscommunication just go through the roof.
Two is a lot.
If you've got two different entities that have to communicate, you're already in trouble.
But if you have two of them that seem like they're the same, but they're not the same, they're both local police, but they're from different places, you're just automatically introducing error into the system.
So you don't have to be, you know, some kind of Dan Bongino expert to know that there was going to be a massive possibility of error as soon as you had three people.
That's all it takes.
Three entities.
So there is now, as I imagined there would be, There are opposite stories of who thought who was supposed to be guarding the building.
Now, did I call that?
Tell me who else predicted that the real problem would come down to the police and the Secret Service disagreeing on who was supposed to be doing what.
And here it is.
It was the most predictable thing about this.
Now, that's based on the Dilbert filter, that it's just bureaucracy and pointy-haired boss and People being lazy and selfish.
Do you remember when I said maybe the snipers, the police snipers, maybe they took a place inside the building because it was hot on the roof?
You remember I said that?
Maybe it was just hot on the roof.
It turns out that's the actual reason.
It was too hot on the roof.
And then they believed that the roof would be covered by the other snipers.
So in other words, the other snipers could see the rooftop, and then the snipers that decided to be in the cooler inside place said, oh, look, we've got this window with a good view of the venue.
You guys got the rooftop.
Now, how hard would it be for somebody to mishear that about who has the rooftop?
Real easy.
And for sure, even if they understood it, they're going to be blaming each other, because that's just how humans work.
All right, so one unit believed that the roof slant would have partially obscured the sniper's view, so that there was something about the roof slant that makes no sense whatsoever, does it?
Doesn't make any sense.
They didn't want the police snipers to be exposed to the heat, because it was over 90 degrees and it was a nine-hour shift.
That's just what I told you.
It was too hot.
The roof was too hot.
So they just didn't get on it.
If you just think of the least conspiratorial thing, like what's the most normal thing that people do?
They try to avoid heat.
Just normal stuff.
They blame other people.
They mishear things.
The most normal things in the world would explain most of this.
Um, so the Secret Service decided not to stage snipers on that roof and left securing it to the locals, exactly what I told you.
The locals thought that the snipers thought that the Secret Service was securing the roof, just like I told you.
They would blame each other.
Um, and then there was the looking around for the guy, but they couldn't find him.
Now, the part that we don't have an answer for is if they knew there was some Unsecure situation.
Why did they let the president go out?
Did the president insist on going out even knowing there was a problem?
Was there something more about what they knew about the guy who was looking suspicious with the rangefinder?
So we got real questions, but it sure looks like incompetence is 80% of the answer.
But we don't know that's the whole answer.
Now, as smart people have been saying, it doesn't need to be that The incompetence was necessarily part of the plan, but it could be that knowing there was incompetence or creating a situation where there might be more incompetence, such as using the non-regular people, such as taking the most experienced people and moving them to cover the NATO summit, moving them to cover Jill Biden's trip, both of which happened.
Those might be just normal bureaucratic decisions that turned out tragic.
But let's talk about the conspiracy hypothesis, which could involve some planned incompetence.
In other words, you could imagine that the plot involved finding a weakness in the security and then striking when there was weakness.
So they might have, you know, the inside, the idea of an insider being involved is still alive.
But let's look at that.
So the conspiracy theory, certainly the fact that we don't see as social media is a question.
There's no clear explanation from the Secret Service of why things went wrong.
And when there was a little bit of an explanation, it was an obvious lie that the slanted roof was the problem.
Now, that the slope was dangerous.
Now given that the head of the Secret Service obviously lied, and we haven't heard a clarification yet, that's sort of a big flag.
So I'd say that those really the unanswered questions are the biggest problem in my mind.
All right.
Now, many of you asked, what about that alleged FBI assistant director who was in the stands behind Trump and seemed mysteriously not shaken up by the incident and simply filmed it?
And people said, my God, she must be in on the plot because she was the only one who didn't look surprised.
I hear that's been debunked.
She is not in fact an assistant director of the FBI.
Is everybody up to date on that?
I just found out this morning.
So it was not true that that was her job.
Now, that doesn't mean she's not part of the conspiracy, right?
But here's why I don't think she is.
You wouldn't be that close to the bullets.
If you were part of the conspiracy, you'd make sure you weren't sitting there.
That's the worst thing to do is sit there.
But let me give you an explanation that makes sense to me.
Why was this one person calmly taking a video?
Well, it could be a sense of duty.
If you had your phone ready, and it was sort of already on video because you probably were, you know, every now and then doing video of the event, wouldn't you know that your angle on this event, which was clearly a world event, would be needed?
You would want as much video from every angle as possible for the benefit of the country.
You want the public to see what happened, You want the Secret Service to be able to see if there's any extra thing that could be gleaned from it.
And probably she had an angle that was not going to be covered by anything else.
If you put me in that situation, I would have filmed.
If you put me in that situation, I would have stayed there and filmed.
Because I would have thought it was so important.
To have that angle, especially since she didn't know if Trump was okay by that time.
I think I would have stayed, and I think I would have just put the camera on it, even though the bullets were flying.
Because I would have felt some level of importance to it that seemed greater than my physical safety at that moment.
Now, I love to say that because it makes me sound brave, but it would be more about the largeness of the moment would make me You know, default to what has to be done versus what I want to be done.
Does that make sense?
When situation really goes off the rails like that, your brain can flip into what you have to do versus what you want to do.
What you want to do is run.
And what I would want to do is run.
But sometimes you do what you have to do.
Because you have to do it.
There doesn't need to be a better reason.
So let's just say she knew what she had to do.
What's wrong with that as an explanation?
Yeah.
Now again, I can't tell you what her motives are or anything like that, but there is a perfectly reasonable explanation that she just saw the moment.
She just felt the moment and did what I'm glad she did, which is get another video of another angle.
All right.
So this global IT outage caused by CrowdStrike, um, Apparently, of course, there are rumors that CrowdStrike is connected to election machines.
I don't know if any of that's true.
But Elon Musk just deleted CrowdStrike from all of his company's systems.
One of the things that I heard about it that I don't know is true is that Trump had once complained that CrowdStrike was owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.
Is that true?
Is it true that CrowdStrike is owned by a Ukrainian oligarch?
How could that possibly be true?
Now it's something that Trump apparently had claimed in prior years when CrowdStrike was part of that, the group that looked at the DNC hack and decided it was Russia.
And people like me said, huh, that's convenient.
So the information that nobody gets to see but you, and we don't quite trust you, are saying that it's Russia, which is very convenient.
So everything about that sounded like bullshit to me.
But I didn't know the part about the Ukrainian oligarch.
So I'm not sure that's true.
So don't assume that I'm saying it's true.
It's just, I'll look for a confirmation of that.
Anyway, Daniel Dale, the fact checker for CNN, you know how I was telling you that When he was mentioning his fact checks on Trump at the big speech, that I could tell that the first several things he mentioned were actually wrong fact checks.
And even I knew.
I mean, just by paying attention to the news, I knew, oh, well, that's not true.
Or, oh, well, you left out the context.
If you put it in the context, it would look different.
Oh, that's not the way they collect that data anymore.
So really, it's a data problem.
Now, that's just stuff I knew.
You know, I'm just mildly well informed on the news.
But imagine what you would know if you were an expert on any of the domains that he talked about.
Well, that happened.
So, Representative Mike Waltz at the convention gave his own speech, and he said that Biden was focused on building electric tanks.
Which is probably not the best, you know, power for a tank.
And Daniel Dale debunked that and said that's not true, that Biden was focusing on tanks.
So Daniel Dale basically makes Mike Waltz look like an idiot by fact-checking him on TV.
But then CNN made the mistake of interviewing Mike Waltz.
And that's where things went south for CNN.
Because Mike Waltz, it turns out, is really good at communicating.
Really good at communicating.
And he decided to use his time on CNN to try to repair his reputation, which you can't do.
I mean, once the cat's out of the bag, it lives on the internet forever, as he pointed out.
But he went through the details of how, if Daniel Dale had not immediately assumed it was untrue, If he'd spent just a minute googling it, he would have found out it's completely true, and Waltz had the receipts, he gave the sources, things you can check, and sure enough, Mike Waltz was completely right, but he got fact-checked.
Now this is a version of the Gell-Mann amnesia, you know, Gell-Mann amnesia I talk about all the time, where if you're an expert in a domain, You look at the news and you go, well, that news is wrong.
That's fake news.
But if you're not an expert, you think it might be true.
Because what do you know?
You're not an expert.
But here's a perfect example.
So Waltz did know a lot about this topic.
And then the guy who fact checked him didn't know and said it was false.
And then the audience didn't know.
And they probably think, well, Daniel Dale probably looked into it.
And just magnify this times 100.
And that's what half of the country is looking at is shit that's just made up.
All right.
Here's another one.
Know the players.
Anderson Cooper had Carl Bernstein Bernstein on Bernstein Bernstein, right?
Carl Bernstein on from the worse than Watergate duo.
So when did they bring him on?
What is the reason that you would ever bring Karl Bernstein onto your show?
Well, you bring him on when you don't have any real news, but you want somebody to say something bad about Trump.
That's number one reason.
And he's the one who goes on, oh, whatever Trump did on Tuesday, that's worse than Watergate.
How about the stuff he did on Thursday?
Thursday, let me check, worse than Watergate.
How about over the weekend?
Did he do anything worse than Watergate?
Oh, let me check.
Over the weekend, yeah, yeah.
That was worse than Watergate.
So he basically has that one speed.
But they also brought him out to dump on Biden.
Because, you know, the big push from Pelosi and the Democrats is to cause enough pain for Biden that he'll quit.
And having Carl Bernstein on is Does anybody know if it's Stein or Steen?
I can't just keep saying his name wrong in public.
It's just too embarrassing.
How in the world am I supposed to know?
Like, my brain doesn't... I have the same problem with the Weinstein brothers, which now I know is Einstein, rhymes with Einstein, so I can get that one right.
Is he also a Stein?
Weinstein?
I'm seeing Steen.
So Steen for Carl.
So Carl Bernstein.
Oh, that sounds right.
Once I say it, it sounds right.
Thank you.
All right.
So I will now correctly say his name and I apologize to Carl.
Yeah.
I never say people's names incorrectly on purpose.
I just, I have trouble with some of these names.
Uh, but anyway, He's the kind of guy who doesn't have anything special to add, but you bring him out just to bolster a message that you were saying anyway.
So he's saying that Biden realizes the current state of his candidacy is likely unsustainable.
Now, do you think that Carl knows what Biden is thinking when he says he realizes that his candidacy is unsustainable?
And do you think that if Biden really In the real world, if he thought his campaign was unsustainable, he would be fighting to stay in.
So do you think Carl is telling us the truth, based on his inside sources, that the guy who knows his campaign is unsustainable is going to do the opposite of what that knowledge would lead you to do?
Is that what's happening?
Doesn't sound likely to me.
To me it sounds like Biden wants to stay in, And everybody's trying to make a story that he's leaving.
Now it seems to me, and other smart people have noted this, that it seems that the Pelosi plan, let's call it that, she seems to be leading it, maybe Obama, but Pelosi seems key to it, is to have enough people say he's leaving so that everybody believes he's leaving, which would make all of his funding dry up, which would make everybody abandon ship, Because you don't want to be the last one on the sinking ship.
So it looks like they're trying to drain of them support with a hoax.
With a hoax.
It's their main tool.
It's the thing they use against Trump.
So it seems to me that the Biden has decided to leave might be a Pelosi hoax.
And she might be doing to fellow Democrat what she's been doing to Trump for years, which is one hoax after another.
So we'll see if it works.
My prediction from the beginning was that Biden would stay in the race until Election Day, at least.
How's my prediction look?
Here's what Mark Halperin says about the Pelosi plan to get rid of Biden.
He says that you have to know that Mark Halperin is a very well-connected political strategist consultant guy.
So when he talks, Generally, you'd assume he knows what he's talking about.
So he would be one of the people you could know that whether he's telling you the truth or not, he knows the truth.
He would be an insider.
So he says that Team Pelosi will keep ratcheting things up until Joe Jill and Hunter cry uncle.
Now there's this guy, Seth Moulton, I don't know who he is, but he says that the president didn't recognize him.
And that's another turtle on another fence post, says Halprin.
And the paradox is, the more Pelosi uses the tactics to humiliate Joe, the more this vain, proud, biggest chip-on-the-shoulder man gets his back up.
He works out—this is Halperin characterizing Biden—he works out, he thinks he still has it, he will not be bullied, but the donors, members, and most of his staff have already made up their minds, and he indicated he had also.
Really?
Here's the problem with getting Biden out of the race.
So this is my take on it, right?
So here are the things I think you would agree would be true.
But when you hear them all together, you decide if he's going to get out of the race.
Number one, if Biden leaves the race now, it makes his first term look absurd.
Because we're going to say, wait a minute, who was in charge in the first term?
Were you already worthless and full of dementia?
So Biden is not running to save his second term.
He's running to save his legacy.
If he quits now, it's an admission that his first term was a joke.
Who could do that?
Who could do that?
Ask yourself if you could do that.
You made it to President of the United States.
If you quit today, because of your mental capacity, is a very clear indication that it was diminished for your full term.
Everybody would know that.
If you admit it, you're saying, I pulled a hoax on the country, I put you all in terrible jeopardy, my first term was absurd, and I'm not even sure who was in charge.
Do you think he could do that?
Do you think anybody could do that?
I don't.
I don't think there's any human being who could Wrap their ego around giving up their entire legacy, the entire family name, all of it, everything he's worked his life to achieve, he has to give it all up to quit.
Because it's not about the second term.
It's about the first term.
And if you get that wrong, you don't understand how hard he's going to dig in.
He's not giving up the second term.
He's giving up his whole legacy if he leaves, because he's got to pretend he was in good shape, at least for the first term.
Now, if he gets into the second term and lasts a year, You know, if they hired him well enough, it looks like he lasted a year.
Then he can say, well, suddenly things took a downturn.
I'd better put Kamala in charge.
And then he has his more graceful exit.
All right, here's some more.
If he leaves the race now, he's going to cripple Democrats, even if there's a new candidate.
So the new candidate, whoever it is, Kamala or somebody else, is going to be so crippled by how long Biden waited, That the blame will be on him whether he loses personally, or he waited too long to get out and cause the other person to lose.
So there are basically two ways to lose, and both of them would be blamed on Biden.
Even if he's replaced, he gets blamed because the replacement came too late.
So he has two ways to lose.
You might as well run for office.
Because he doesn't come out ahead if he quits.
How about Leaving the race now means he loses to Trump.
Do you think he can do that?
Do you think after everything you said about Trump and the personal animus and the ego that he's put into it, do you think he can lose to Trump?
And lose in such a weak way?
Because he'd be leaving in a way that made him physically and mentally weaker than Trump.
These are guys who've been saying in public, I'm going to beat you up behind the bleachers.
They've literally, it's been a dick measuring contest for years.
And you think one of them is going to say, you know what?
As it turns out, I'm physically and mentally weaker than Trump.
So you should maybe just think about him.
I mean, you wouldn't say that second part, but no, there's no way that he can admit he has in fact been physically and mentally weaker than Trump.
Nobody could do that.
It's just undoable mentally.
How about Leaving the Race Now confesses that he controlled the nuclear triad while he was mentally degraded.
If he's mentally degraded enough to leave the race, that means that right now, today, he's in charge of the nuclear triad while he has dementia.
Is he gonna admit that?
If he does, it's the biggest crime in human history.
I mean, it would be beyond... I mean, it would be unimaginably bad behavior.
I mean, I don't even have a word for it.
There's no words to describe how bad that would be.
But he would have to admit that.
He'd have to admit the worst thing you've ever heard from a president.
I can't think of anything worse.
Yeah, I did have dementia, and I was in charge of the military.
No, he can't admit that.
That is unadmittable.
How about, uh, leaving the race puts his family at risk of legal action.
That alone would be enough reason not to leave.
What about the fact that they don't have a backup income?
He's not going to go on the speaking circuit.
He's not going to write a book.
He doesn't have any income.
And his family might require that.
It's going to take a lot of money to keep him alive in his later years if he lasts.
So anyway, if you put all that together, and you say, how much pain would Nancy Pelosi have to give him for him to back out?
So I just described the pain of leaving, and the pain of leaving is bigger than any pain I could even imagine mentally.
You can't even wrap your head around how much that would hurt if you were in his position and you had his ego.
Maybe Pelosi can create enough pain.
Maybe she can just make it a de facto thing by having everybody around him disappear.
That would be enough, I suppose.
But I'm going to go with my original prediction.
My original prediction is they can't get him out of there.
And that what they will do is they will let him run, but out of practicality, they're going to say, hey, everybody, you're really voting for Kamala.
Just understand you're voting for Kamala.
It's fine.
Don't panic.
Biden's at the top of the ticket.
Don't worry about it.
It's really Kamala.
Just vote for Kamala.
2024.
So that's my prediction.
Now that's stupid, but that's where we're heading.
All right, apparently the Gateway Pundit's reporting that the DNC Rules Committee wants to do a virtual roll call to nominate Biden because otherwise there'd be this embarrassing public display.
Man, can Democrats lose harder than they're losing this week?
Have you ever seen such an enormous gap between how one party is doing and how the other party is doing in that same week?
I've never seen anything like this.
I mean, Trump basically got elevated to a legend with possibly divine inspiration, and Biden's, you know, trying to defend his dementia that even his own people see.
That's as far as you can get in distance.
All right.
Well, we, of course, since it's Saturday, we have to talk about what Bill Maher said in his show.
And I know some people don't like hearing about Bill Maher, but he has a good window into what some other people are thinking.
And that's important.
And he does an important service with his show.
I think his show is very important for the public.
You know, even when we like to fight about it and argue with him, what Bill Maher does is very important.
And useful and it's just public service as well as entertainment in my opinion So I have the highest appreciation for what he does But he had on his show Larry Wilmore and Byron Donald's among others and He said that Trump's popularity is a cult and he thinks that the cult of personality around Trump is It is dangerous.
And it's even more dangerous if you think he has this, you know, divine inspiration.
Now, what do you think about that?
Do you think that Trump is dangerous because his followers love him so much and believe that God might be on his side?
Well, I'm not a religious person at all, but I've spent most of my, you know, most of my life around them.
And so I'll give you my interpretation.
When people say that Trump has, you know, the blessing of the divine, just because he, you know, avoided getting killed, I don't think that means he has a free pass.
Does it?
Can somebody who is more of a believer give you a fact check?
I don't think that means he could do what he wants.
I don't think that's even a thing.
If he murdered somebody on Fifth Avenue, I don't think people are going to say, well, it's God's will, because, I mean, obviously God speaks to Trump and he killed the guy on Fifth Avenue, so I guess we're going to have to let it go.
It's God's will.
No, there's no religious people who think that.
Or let me put it in the simplest steps.
I don't think that people think Trump is influencing God.
I think God's in charge.
That would be the view.
And he's doing what makes sense for God.
It might be helping Trump today.
It might be helping somebody else tomorrow.
It might be preventing Trump from doing something tomorrow.
But no, it doesn't mean that if somebody had some touch with what other people believe is a brush with the divine, it doesn't mean he's got a free pass, does it?
Is there anybody here who is religious, who feels that God was involved, Who thinks that therefore Trump has a free pass?
It's just not part of any philosophy that I'm aware of.
Because God is God, and Trump is Trump, and if they intersected for a moment, that doesn't make Trump God.
Nobody believes that.
So I think there's a basic misunderstanding of what religious people are feeling.
That's my guess, but I'm no expert.
But more to the point, let me explain cults.
A cult requires isolation of the members.
And one of the things I should have mentioned, I can't remember if I did, if you're trying to hypnotize, let's say, a shooter into becoming an assassin, regular hypnosis won't get it done.
And nobody's invented a drug that'll turn somebody into an assassin unless anti-depressants are doing it, and then it's accidental.
Um, but what you can do is you can isolate somebody and then you can brainwash them any way you want.
If you isolate somebody, there's no limit to what you can brainwash them.
No limit.
You can turn it, you can make them kill themselves, make them kill other people.
Now here are the examples.
This is well known by the fact that it's not just my opinion.
This would be well understood by everybody who studies this field.
Um, there's something called Stockholm syndrome.
Where if you're captured and kidnapped, you might come to identify with your captors.
But that requires an extended period where you're only exposed to their philosophies and not any outside world.
So that's what happened with Patty Hearst when the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped her.
And then she was spotted helping them rob a bank later.
And she said, yeah, I just sort of got brainwashed into Thinking they made sense after a while.
Now that's a well-established thing.
So before Patty Hearst, it was already called Stockholm Syndrome.
So she didn't, she wasn't aware it was invented.
It was known before that.
And so we understood why she could be co-opted that way.
Now, if you look at Jim Jones and getting all of his cult to commit suicide and, uh, what's that other cult that was going to, uh, go, their souls were going to join the meteor or something.
So, Whenever there's a cult that convinces people to do things that are clearly bad, like suicide or killing, they're kept from the rest of the public.
That's important.
Now, I would argue that Democrats are kept from the rest of the public, meaning that they only see the hoaxes.
Now, the Democrats do not have a cult of personality.
There's no cult of personality around Biden.
Obama was a little bit, but he's out of the picture at the moment.
So I would say neither of them are a cult.
Because one, the conservatives and the people who support Trump see both sides.
Because in this case, both sides are the common narrative that everybody sees.
But then they also see what only Republicans see.
So Republicans are not cut off from the world of knowledge.
They see what they see.
Plus they see what Democrats see, for the most part.
But is it the other way?
Do Democrats see what Republicans see?
Well, here's a good example.
Larry Wilmore was on with Byron Donalds.
Byron Donalds is Republican and sees the entire argument on the other side.
And they were talking about abortion.
Larry Wilmore didn't even know the argument.
Bill Maher had to remind Larry Wilmore that the reason the conservatives are against Abortion is that they believe it's murder.
He didn't seem to know that.
Just wrap your head around that.
He thought it was more about wanting to control women's bodies with big government.
Um What How could it be 2024 and a public figure, Larry Wilmore, doesn't know the first thing about the topic of abortion?
He also thought that the Supreme Court made it illegal.
No, they kicked it to the states where it belonged.
And then the states can do whatever they want.
So Larry Wilmore had no awareness of the basics of it.
So when Byron Donalds was schooling him, and by the way, Byron Donalds is great.
I mean, his future looks pretty strong.
I can see him as being president someday, but he's just so strong on the communication.
So, Byron Donaldson starts schooling him.
And what do you think Larry Wilmore did?
I'll give you the, if you didn't see it yourself, I'll give you the options.
He listened quietly and then said, wow, I guess I was wrong about some of the key things.
I'm going to have to go rethink my opinion.
How many think that?
How many think that he went crazy and started talking over him in a mocking way so that you couldn't hear what Byron Donalds was saying?
Bing!
You guessed correctly.
That's right.
He literally wouldn't let him talk.
Because once he realized that if Byron Donalds did talk, it would be clearly showing that Larry Wilmore was talking about a topic he didn't understand even at a really basic level.
So he just mocked him and talked over him while he talked.
How often have you seen that?
And by the way, does that work both ways?
Because I may be biased on this, but it feels like that's almost entirely a left-leaning strategy.
And here's the reason why.
I think they don't know they've been hoaxed.
Well, I guess that's what makes it a good hoax.
So they're finding out their entire worldview is wrong.
And I think they just can't handle it.
And every time you see something like this, where his entire worldview was wrong, he can only, the only reaction you could do in the moment is make sure people don't hear the other side.
That's what happened.
All right, here's another one.
How many Democrats do you think have seen the compilation videos of all the prominent Democrats saying that the voting machines are insecure?
How many of you have seen it?
How many of you have seen the videos where it's 20 minutes long?
20 minutes of 10 second bites of prominent Democrats from Hillary Clinton, you name it, saying that they don't trust voting machines because they're not as secure.
I'll bet a lot of you have seen it, right?
So you would know that it's not a left versus right issue, that the left very much didn't trust voting machines and nothing changed.
Did it?
Did you hear about any big update that changed why they would trust voting machines?
No.
Nothing really changed.
But suddenly, as soon as Trump says, hey, I don't trust this election, they all said, well, voting machines, I don't know why you're questioning them.
We're going to sue you.
Now, imagine if you were a Democrat who had never seen that, and that's my point.
You would think, oh man, these Republicans, they keep questioning things that shouldn't be questioned.
So, to me, it's obvious where the cult is.
The cult is the group that doesn't have access to all the information.
Now, Republicans can be wrong.
In other words, they can look at all the information and come up with a conspiracy theory that's ridiculous.
Very common.
But they're wrong in a completely different way than the left is.
The right tends to be wrong by, you know, doing their own research and finding some crazy things that they believe, and maybe falling for the documentary effect is the biggest problem.
I would say on the right, when the right is wrong, it's because they fell for a narrative without seeing the alternative.
But that's different from not seeing the news.
That's a little different.
All right.
All right.
One third of Democrats believe that Trump staged his own assassination attempt, according to the Washington Free Bacon.
What?
One third?
How did they imagine that conversation went?
When Trump was planning his own assassination?
Can you see him meeting with the shooter like a few weeks before?
It's like, look, all you have to do is nick my ear right there.
I'll turn my head like right at the last minute.
So you want to squeeze the trigger when my head is this way.
But as soon as you're squeezing it, I'll turn this way.
So it nicks my ear.
And we're going to make this look like it's a much bigger deal, but it's really just a trick.
Well, I don't think they believe that exactly, but you have to be pretty far gone to think it was staged.
I mean, what do they think is staged?
Do they think that it wasn't really the bullet that hit him?
Sometimes they're saying it was the broken glass from the teleprompter.
But is that really different?
It's been debunked.
But if it turned out it was glass from the teleprompter and the bullet was whizzing past his head and it missed him by a foot instead of an inch, or at least the main part of his head by an inch, would that really radically change the story?
No, but it definitely is not a staged event.
I mean, I can say that with some confidence.
All right.
Here's a reframe for you.
I'll let this one sink in.
This one's a thinker.
You ready for this?
If you registered for the political party that wants both candidates to die before the end of summer, you should maybe start asking some questions about your point of view.
Think about it.
The Democrats want Biden to get out of the race, and they wouldn't mind if he died early.
Because they want to win.
And they definitely wish that Trump would maybe die of natural causes.
So one of the parties is hoping that both of the major candidates die before the end of summer.
Sort of.
I mean, they don't say it out loud, but sometimes they do.
At least they say it about Trump.
So if your political party has an unstated preference for both of the candidates dying before the end of summer, You should really recheck your affiliations.
You should ask yourself, huh, am I in the right political party?
Because they seem to, at least subconsciously, want both candidates to be dead before the end of summer.
That doesn't feel like the healthiest situation.
Anyway, AOC says the Democrats want not only Biden to leave, but they want Harris to leave too, and that would be terrible and racist, and so she's calling them out for that.
But I was noting that AOC used to be somewhat persuasively awesome, even if you hated her point of view.
But lately she turned into just sort of silly and ridiculous.
And I noted a big change, and I didn't know what that was about.
Mike Cernovich was noting that she had a handler in the early days, which was well documented, and that the handler left, and that what we see now is the actual AOC, and that she was so empty all the time, But she had a good handler, so she would do some good stunts, and she would get some good quotes in, and she'd reframe things well.
And apparently all that was fake.
I mean, that's the assumption, is that she lost her guardian angel, and then we see what she's really got going for her.
Not much.
Well, the Heartland Institute did a calculation of how much Money U.S.
households lost because of Joe Biden's terrible energy plans.
It says $2,500 per household per year since 2021.
Now, do we believe that analysis?
Well, no.
I guarantee that that's the sort of analysis that you could maybe get in a directional sense.
But no, not super accurate, because you put a lot of assumptions into analysis like that.
But we do see that there seems to be a set of policies that would Somewhat obviously increase your energy costs, so I don't think the directional part of it is wrong You just have you know, is it?
2,500 or 3,500 or 600 that part's harder to determine But yeah, of course the energy costs are higher But even more, there's another study by, it's written up in SciTech Daily, that anxiety over climate change might be costing trillions of dollars in lost productivity.
Trillions.
Now, as bad as it is to pay $2,500 per household when you're already struggling, I mean, if you're in that situation, that's the worst thing, but here's why trillions are lost because of Anxiety over the climate.
So it causes people to act differently.
So you're not only going to get, you know, sick and, you know, your, your mental health will decline.
So that affects productivity.
It affects healthcare, affects everything, but also you won't have babies.
So you make different lifestyle choices.
And if you don't have children, the economy is going to become China.
So one of the biggest reasons that people are not having children is they don't trust that the world is still going to be here for their children.
So they opt out.
That is a trillion dollar problem.
Now this, again, you know, if you're going to say, but Scott, did they accurately calculate that it's two trillion?
Or is it maybe only half a trillion?
Well, that's a good question.
I don't think you can get more accurate than it's really, really, really expensive.
Beyond that, the trillion is just maybe framing it in the biggest possible sense, which I think is probably legitimate.
Because if it causes the population replacement rate to drop below replacement for a long time, we're dead.
And that is a multi-trillion dollar problem for sure.
So yes, I do believe that it's trillions that we're talking about because of fear of climate change that may be overstated.
Because climate models are not real.
They're not science either.
Ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the conclusion in the speed round of all the things happening.
Look at that.
My timing is not too bad.
So it's Saturday and it's going to be a beautiful day in most places.
And you're going to go out and have the greatest day.
And let me tell you, you know, as you know, I've talked about it too much.
I had a real bad day the other day with some food poisoning.
So today's my first day where I'm, you know, truly a hundred percent.
Oh my God, do I feel good?
Oh my God.
There, nothing feels better than not feeling bad.
Boy, once you understand what feeling bad feels like, like really bad, when that's over, oh, oh my goodness.
And the funny thing is you get your appetite back at the same time, and then you just become ravenous.
I think I had 100 calories in like 40 hours or something.
So I was starving, but I just couldn't eat.
But when I could, oh my God, did that feel good.
Felt so good.
The world is about contrast, people.
Every now and then you have to remind yourself how bad it could be so you can enjoy how good it is.
So remember, could be a lot worse.
So enjoy your day.
I'm going to talk privately to the locals, people.
But for everybody on YouTube and X and Rumble, thanks for joining.
