God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, President Trump, PM Netanyahu, President Zelensky, Scott Presler, VP Harris Campaign Funds, Harris Election Advantage, Future-Proofing America, Gen 4 Nuclear Power, James Carville, Harris Tik Tok Popularity, Vinod Khosla, Anti-Vance Couch Hoax, Sea Water Desalination, Water From Air, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure there's never been a better time in your whole life.
But if you'd like to take it up to levels that no human brain with its shiny, tiny status could understand, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of chalice, a stein, a canteen jar, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Oh, divine.
Bye.
Bye.
Well, Jake and Logan Paul said they would offer $12 million if they could get the MAGA hat that Trump wore when he survived the assassination.
Weirdly, that might be a good investment.
You can imagine somebody buying it from them for more at some point.
But if I had that kind of crazy money, I suppose it might be worth it.
But what I really wonder is, who has the bullet?
You know what would really be worth some money?
The bullet that hit Trump's ear.
Who has that bullet?
Don't you think somebody has that?
It was either taken out of the second person that the same bully hit, or somebody probably found it on the ground.
But how much is that thing worth?
I don't know.
Well, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's in town.
I guess he's going to address Congress.
And it's a bipartisan thing.
It's going to be kind of interesting, because apparently Harris is more anti-Israel than Biden.
And we're going to really get to test that theory that some of you have, that AIPAC controls the country.
Because if your belief is correct, and that there's some kind of cabal of Israeli supporters who, Israel supporters who are controlling the country, Then you would expect that they would cause Trump to be elected.
Isn't that way that would work?
Because it seems to me that Israel would not be super excited about a President Harris.
So if she easily slips through and becomes the dominant politician, you'd have to ask yourself if your beliefs about who has power, where are really correct.
And, uh, I do think we're seeing the gears of the machine, and it looks like the gears of the machine have something to do with the intelligence groups and a number of big Democrats you've heard of, Clintons and Obamas.
It does look like that's the power source at the moment.
But you get to test your theory if you had a different theory.
Well, Trump is going to meet with Netanyahu.
Trump also got a letter from Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, and it was a letter saying it was about the assassination attempt, and it was just a very nice letter from Mahmoud Abbas saying that they're glad he survived and, you know, they're basically good wishes.
And Trump similarly responded with his handwritten thank you that got back to the leader.
And here's my question.
Doesn't it feel like Israel wants, you know, the situation to end somehow?
The Palestinians want it to end somehow.
That's something they can all live with.
But I feel like they all want something from the outside to come in for them.
Because, you know, the leaders on both sides are captivated by their own audiences.
Meaning the Israeli leader has to do what the Israelis want, and the Palestinian leader has to do what the Palestinians want, and if they want different things, then you're in a permanent war.
But wouldn't it be great if something that wasn't part of the current system that's putting them in permanent war came from the outside, something that both leaders liked, somebody with some credibility, with some power, who could just Wrap things up.
And I think that some people see Trump as almost having a magical, mythical ability to do that stuff.
And I think he actually does.
I do think he has the ability to do things that almost nobody could do.
And maybe his assassination attempt gave him another level of power.
So I don't think it's crazy that both the leaders are saying, you know what?
We do like you.
That's a big step.
If both leaders say, we like you, can you help us?
I like where that's heading.
But it also means I wouldn't expect Israel to do anything too different between now and the election, because they'll be waiting for Trump, I think.
Meanwhile, you already heard that Trump, after Trump talked to Zelensky, Zelensky and Ukraine started talking about, you know, Wouldn't it be good to get peace?
So now Zelensky is talking peace more than defeating Russia.
That's good.
And now we hear that Ukraine's top diplomat went to Beijing.
And it's being called, it's being characterized as talking to China about how to help end the war.
Now does it look to you like Ukrainians, the Ukrainian leadership got really focused because they know the war is going to end?
And they better figure out how to do it in a way that's best for them, but it's going to end.
So I think that they've taken the assumption that Trump means what he said and he can end it, because he can turn off the money and he can talk to Putin, he can say, all right, you keep this, they'll keep that, let's cut this out.
So that seems productive.
I think talking to China makes sense.
In other news, I don't know if you're following the story of Scott Pressler, who's sort of doing a super job of registering Republicans, which has not been what Republicans are great at.
But apparently he's registered so many people in Pennsylvania where he's focusing his efforts, because that's an important swing state.
He's switched one county.
From mostly blue to more registered Republicans, and he's focusing on another one next.
So he might actually flip two counties from blue to red.
That's a hell of a job.
You see a lot of people doing talk, but rarely do you see something that you can measure and it's real.
That's what Scott Pressler's doing.
So whatever he's doing, maybe we can clone it.
Anyway.
And his organization is hiring full-time staff across Pennsylvania.
So look for his posts if you want to help fund it.
Here's something interesting.
So the Trump campaign is filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission trying to stop Kamala Harris from having full access to all the donated funds that had been donated to the Biden-Harris team.
Now, the argument for her keeping the funds is that her name was on the fund, I guess.
And so as long as she's there, she gets to spend it, etc.
But the Trump argument isn't terrible.
Because here's the thing.
If you were a donor to Biden-Harris, and every political expert in the world agrees with the following statement, Then nobody votes for the vice president.
Is that fair?
Every side, every election, everybody says the same thing.
Nobody votes for the vice president.
You want a vice president who doesn't hurt you, but nobody votes for that person.
Now, if that's true, that's a truism, then it would also be a truism that nobody donated to the vice president.
Meaning that their intentions were not either or, and they knew it when they made the donation.
Then nobody was thinking, or, or.
That's a very separate decision.
If they had been running as a team where, you know, there were some kind of equals or something, then maybe.
But if you're running as a team where one's in charge and the other one is literally considered irrelevant, To the outcome, it's kind of hard to make the argument that people really meant her to have the money.
Now, some of them, of course, would be fine with it.
Then the argument against that argument is that by the time any of these legal actions reach fruition, probably Kamala will have already spent most of the money.
Because between now and Election Day, they're going to race through it.
I think it's a good argument.
It seems to me fraudulent to take money for one thing and then use it on another thing.
And in my opinion, Harris is definitely another thing.
They didn't say, use this money, Democrats, any way you want.
So I think the Trump campaign has a shot.
I don't know if they have enough time to make a difference.
There are a bunch of July polls that show Trump would crush Harris.
So there are 13 national polls, Breitbart's reporting.
And Harris leads in all 13.
I'm sorry, Trump leads Harris in all 13.
But I would rate the predictive quality of that as zero.
Here's my current opinion of where the race stands.
In my opinion, Harris has the advantage with nothing obvious that's going to stop her.
And what I mean by the advantage is this.
I've seen some really bad opinions lately, and it goes like this.
Scott, Scott, Scott, you don't understand.
As soon as the public sees her in action, they're going to, they're going to know where she is and then they're not going to support her.
Or they're going to say she's not likable, and that's why she never won any delegates.
And they're going to say she was the first one out of the race, therefore, you know, everybody's going to see that she's not popular.
Here's the problem.
Nobody cares about any of that in the real world.
This is a brainwashing competition in which the Democrat brainwashing machine geared up, and you saw how awesomely coordinated it is.
Harris is already a superstar on TikTok, which means that, in my opinion, it means that China is backing her.
Great.
I mean, I don't know how else you could interpret that.
Because nobody thinks that TikTok just lets the algorithm do what it wants on anything important.
You know, it probably does on unimportant stuff.
But I just assume that if China has access to putting their hand on the button, and I assume they do, even though TikTok says very clearly they do not, I just assume they do.
And I think that by Election Day, the brainwashing machine will have successfully brainwashed close to 100% of their normal voters.
And there are more of them, I think, still than Republicans.
And if they can get that close, then probably the, let's say the uncertainties of the election system itself, some legal changes, some, some facts that there are a lot of mail-in votes.
You know, if you put it all together with people's suspicion that there's probably a reason our elections are not fully auditable, maybe they're designed for cheating.
That's what it looks like to me.
Do I have any evidence that the elections were stolen?
No.
I just live in a world in which every other major system is obviously demonstrably corrupt.
So for me to believe that this is the one exception is asking me to believe something I would consider absurd.
Now that doesn't mean people are cheating, but to imagine that they can't and wouldn't Is is really naive.
We don't live in a world where people don't take opportunities if they think they can get away with it, right?
All that matters is people think they can get away with it, and then you can guarantee it happens.
And I'm pretty sure there are some people who think they can get away with it.
So if people are not acting like people always act in every other situation since the beginning of history.
Maybe.
But I think betting against it would be the better bet.
So, do not fall asleep.
Do not believe that Trump's higher quality, better policies, or anything like that will make a difference.
Don't think that if she fails in a debate, that anybody on her team will know it.
Even if they watch.
Even if they watch her lose a debate terribly, the news will say, my God, she won that debate.
She just destroyed Trump.
And then everybody who thought they saw the opposite will say, really?
Yeah, I didn't really think she did that well, but I see everybody on CNN and MSNBC says she killed it.
So yeah, maybe she did.
Maybe she did kill it.
So many people think so.
So no, they will erase the opinions of their entire base and rewrite them.
And you're watching it happen in real time.
And of course, there'll be some new hoaxes about Trump, etc.
So, it's very unpredictable.
So, here's where I think it is.
I think that in order for Trump to win, he would need his A++ game.
Plus, plus, plus.
I think we've seen his A++ game, you know, especially this circuit.
Certainly, the way he handled the assassination attempt.
That's A+.
You know, that's not A. That's A+.
A-plus won't get it done.
He's going to need plus, plus, plus.
I think he has it.
I think that's within his toolbox.
My observation is that Trump has always been at 80%.
It's just that his 80% is better than almost everybody's 100% when it comes to persuasion.
But he's got more.
And he's got great advisors.
He's got experience.
And he wants to win.
So, can he reach the A++++ level?
He can, but we can't guarantee it.
So, he has the ability to win, but he's on a losing vector at the moment.
In other words, something's gonna have to be different, or I don't like his odds, honestly.
But, let me give you some... I'm gonna give some free advice.
Although, advice is... Let me take back that word.
I think there's something creepy about people like me giving advice to people like Trump, because he's better, right?
Whatever he's been doing has been working.
If I'd been giving him advice since day one, I don't know if he would have done as well as he's done.
So you have to have a little bit of humility.
About the quality of your advice.
And, of course, humility is the hardest thing for me, so I'm trying really hard to get there.
But, so I won't make this advice.
Let me say that this is an example.
An example for you, the audience, on what A++++ would look like.
You ready?
Here's a word I would love to see Trump use.
We need to future-proof the country.
Do you feel that?
Can you feel that physically?
We need to future-proof the country.
Because we're heading into the most uncertain times we've ever headed into.
We've got the AI, we've got the debt problem, we've got the robots coming.
We got all kinds of stuff that we've never seen before.
And here's an example of what would future-proof the country.
We should Look at whatever China did with its fourth generation power plant, the nuclear power plant.
In the fourth generation, you could actually just turn off the power, and instead of melting down like the old ones did, it just stops running.
So you could actually build a nuclear power plant now.
It's been proven.
China just built one and they just tested it by turning it off and it just turned off Just like it was designed to do so We we also have a number of fourth-generation Technologies in the works Bill Gates has a company that does that I think there's several more but you can imagine the Trump saying We've got a future proof the country by going wild on energy.
We have to go wild on drilling it and But we have to go even wilder on solar and nuclear.
And he should say, Kamala Harris doesn't understand AI.
Because she doesn't.
And say, she doesn't understand that if you limit it, you haven't future-proofed the country.
Because we won't be able to handle AI.
It'll drive our costs to the roof.
So consumers will be paying more.
And China and Russia and whoever else will get ahead of us in AI.
So he's got to be better on AI, which means fewer restrictions probably.
He's got to be better on energy and say we've got to future-proof the country.
We don't know what's coming, but we better future-proof it.
I would love to see somebody float the idea of someday transferring the burden of taxes to robots.
That's right, to robots.
Because robots will be the workers.
And if we need to have some, you know, universal basic income because robots have all the jobs, that money's got to come from somebody.
So I think you should at least float the idea that someday robots should be taxed instead of people.
You don't need a specific for that.
You could just give people an idea that income tax might go away.
If everybody has a robot, tax the robot.
Robot will be doing your job for you and getting paid for it.
You know, maybe only the robots that are getting paid, not necessarily your household robot, but you can imagine worker robots getting taxed, that sort of thing.
All right.
You could say we've got to lower expenses in the future and give some ideas of how to do that.
You know, just the basic expense of living.
You could look at the population decline and say we've got to figure out how to fix the population decline and have some ideas for that.
Trump's already talking about building new cities.
That's future-proofing.
We need to fix our election integrity.
That's future-proofing.
We need to make... Here's my idea.
I think we might need to make America a tourist destination.
Here's why.
In the age of AI and robots, It could be that there's nothing else that matters, except where you're going to use your leisure time.
We're very quickly going to get to the point where selling widgets isn't a business, because my robot can make a widget on the 3D printer.
Your robot can make one.
It's not really a business.
But putting a human being in a different situation that is recreational will always be a business.
Probably virtual reality is never going to replace that.
So you could say we've got to turn America into the bike path, walking path, vacation destination, easy to get from one city to the next, maybe even build some things to visit that didn't exist until now.
So, making America a tourist destination to the world makes it safer, I think.
And also, because people don't like America, because they visit it.
And somehow we have to fix the debt, so he's got to come up with a plan for that.
But more importantly, whatever is under the umbrella, I think somebody has to future-proof the country.
And I'll ask you in the comments, when you hear that phrase, future-proof, and you can easily imagine what kind of things go under it, that is way stronger than saying, I'm going to do what I did last time I was president.
Even if you like those things, it's way stronger to say you're future-proof.
How about you say, I'm going to make a deal with Putin so that in the future there are no wars.
That's future-proofing.
Right?
How about, I'm gonna be friends with North Korea, so even if they make some new weapons, they're not gonna point them at us.
That's future-proofing.
So, every time that Trump says, I'm gonna make America great again, do you know what I think?
That's the wrong play.
If we make America great again, it reminds me of, you know, like, being ready for the past.
If you say you're gonna future-proof America, you're saying everything's changing, I know it's changing and here's what I'm going to do for those changes because that's the scary part.
The future is scary.
The past is gone.
So say I'm going to be like the past.
We're going to be making America great again.
The again is just I've never liked again.
Again is the past is influencing the present.
I want the future to influence the present.
I don't want to past-proof the country, I want to future-proof it.
So you can see how much stronger that is, right?
And it immediately takes everything out of that, you know, weird racial dictator kind of frame.
James Carville has weighed in on Kamala Harris, and he said this, he said, she looks like she, quote, tries too hard.
Quote, sometimes the VP has a tendency to try too hard.
And he was talking to Katie Couric, and she said, you can see the wheels turning in her head.
And Carville says, if I was in her head, I'd say reverse the wheels.
That's something people can improve on.
I don't think they could change, but they can improve on it.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
Doesn't that sound like they're both calling her stupid?
Is that what you hear?
Because when I hear somebody says they're trying too hard and you can see the wheels turning in her head, that feels very much like she's not quick-witted.
I feel like he's trying to find a way to say the less you talk the better.
How about we'll just give you some phrases to say in each situation.
Now you won't have to think.
We're going to replace your thinking, which is a problem, with just saying what we tell you to say.
So if the topic is climate change, just say, Trump's going to destroy the world.
Don't worry about the details.
Just go right to the message.
So I feel like this is very transparently saying we're running the dumbest person we've ever run.
We better have her think less in public and just say what we tell her to say.
That's sure what it looks like to me.
There is, the new hoax is that, if you want to call it that, it's technically true, that Kamala Harris did not fail as the Borders are.
Do you know why?
She was never the Borders are, people!
That's the hoax.
No, no, no.
It was her job to work with the Central American countries to decrease the reason to cross the border, and that would be their solution to the border security.
But she wasn't the border czar.
She was just in charge of making sure the border worked well.
But not a czar!
Not a czar, people!
Why do you think she's a czar?
Were you making up that?
So I guess they're gonna try to say, well, I mean, it's not like she had any authority over the border or anything.
But let's ask what she did.
So if it's not true that she's the Borders are, but she was working on the source of the problem, how would she do?
What are those new policies that are keeping people in those other countries, because those other countries are doing so well?
I haven't heard of a thing.
I haven't even heard of a plan.
I haven't heard of a proposition, a proposal.
Nothing.
Well, since I've started talking about how it seems to me it's obvious that Kamala Harris is drunk in public, several new videos have been brought to my attention, thank you Owen, that very clearly show her inebriated.
Now, I think I'm way beyond the point where I'm saying, do you see it?
Because if you watch these specific videos, well, you definitely see it.
But then you watch the other videos where it's very clear that she's not inebriated.
Completely different personality.
So you don't know which one you're getting.
Do you get the serious one?
Which totally could be a present.
When she's in serious mode and she knows her topic, she can play off like a very capable person.
But I did see a pattern of when she appears to be drunk in public.
Now I want you to see if you can identify the pattern.
It's when she's talking to kids.
It seemed to me that whenever she knew that she was going to go to lunch first and then have to talk to a bunch of children, that she would show up drunk because it didn't really matter that much.
And it didn't.
But when she, you know, let's say showed up for a congressional hearing or something like that, of course she wouldn't be drunk.
And then she would act like her capable self.
So look for that, uh, look for that pattern.
If you find a video where she was, you know, her day involved going to talk to children, just look how drunk she looks.
I think she's calling her shots, which would suggest, um, you know, maybe it's more recreational if she can call when she doesn't, when she doesn't.
All right.
Well, um, watching the media turn her into a star is amazing.
And the fact that she's popular on TikTok does suggest that China might be supporting her.
And you may have heard that the Secret Service asked Trump to stop doing outdoor events, stop doing rallies.
You know, Trump's number one campaign technique, the number one thing, because you can't ignore it, It makes massive crowds and it makes him look like he's the stronger candidate because he can get a massive crowd.
So surprisingly, the Secret Service said, you know, we maybe you shouldn't do that because we can't totally protect you.
And the reports are that he's agreed.
The reporting is that he agreed to cancel his outdoor rallies.
Now.
What are they going to do?
Well, I've got an idea.
I recommend a dance-off, because it turns out that Kamala Harris is getting a lot of credit on TikTok for her dance moves, which are in almost all of her memes.
And I have to be honest, she does have some rhythm.
Can't take that away from her.
Yeah, her dance moves suggest she has some rhythm.
Watching Trump dance has been a meme forever, and it's nevertheless entertaining.
So watching Trump do his little dance, which basically is not... I don't think he uses his feet at all.
He just sort of sways back and forth with his arms and his hips.
I want to see a dance-off.
I don't even want to see a debate.
Because, you know, we don't care what they say in the debate.
Let's see a dance-off.
Well, over in the GOP, Speaker Johnson and some of the House Republican leaders are telling their other Republicans to stop focusing so much on Harris's race and gender and, you know, the DEI situation.
To which I say, probably a good strategy for the leadership of the GOP.
That's our job.
Yeah, that's not their job.
Their job is to be more bipartisan, you know, when they can and support their person in the normal way because they don't need any heat on them.
But the public and the social media people and the people who have been so canceled that they can't get any more hurt, like me.
We can say it.
But the key is that I'm very much against all the sexual connotations, because I don't think it works.
It's not really changing anybody's minds.
It just makes the person saying it look small.
And I don't think that's helpful.
And it's not funny.
You know, maybe at some point it was funny because it was shocking and stuff, but not really.
Not so funny.
So I wouldn't do that, but I would say that if you're going to attack her on the DEI stuff, you should point out that Biden said she was picked because of her race and her gender.
I mean, he said it before he picked her.
So you don't have to wonder if those things were the operative things.
He said so, and then he did it right in front of you.
But the main argument is the one of the system.
So the argument is not that she's bad because she's a certain color or gender.
That would be stupid and terrible.
The argument is that the system of DEI, if it limits you to, you have to pick a certain kind of person and the pool of available applicants is limited, over time you get the worst outcomes.
Even if there are plenty of highly qualified people of all kinds, which is true.
There are plenty of, but not plenty enough.
There are plenty if you're just counting up the number of them, but not nearly plenty enough if you're looking at the current demand, because everybody wants the same kind of diversity at the same time.
So no, the system on paper guarantees that you get the least qualified candidates over time, and that has nothing to do with anybody's genes, or their gender, or anything else.
It's just math.
All right.
As I'm watching the Kamala Harris excitement tick up, it seems to me that every reason they give for supporting her is a fake because.
Now the fake because is the reason that you give, not the reason you have.
So your internal reason, I believe, is that people are supporting her because of her race and her gender.
I think that's 85% of it.
And I don't think people are hiding it too much.
If you look at, outside of the political class, if you look at social media, there are lots of social media people who are saying, yep, I like the black one.
Yes, it's time for a woman president.
She's a woman and she's black.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, sign me up.
So, just watching the fakeness of their support is sort of nauseating.
But it also is informative.
So you can see that people really use just the most, you know, basic reasons for deciding.
I think it's not a coincidence that the taller candidate is usually won.
I don't think that's a big coincidence.
We make decisions on things like height and hair and gender and color all the time.
And then we rationalize it because all the politics.
As if we even know their policies.
So here are some of the dumb reasons that people are using to say you shouldn't vote for Trump.
He's going to steal your democracy.
Trump wants to be a dictator.
Dumb.
There's the pretending he supports Project 2025 in its entirety, which is a hoax.
Not his plan.
He has a plan that's different.
And some people are saying that he has different values.
So his character is bad.
Compared to what?
The lying drunk?
Kamala Harris did nothing on the border.
And lied about the capability of Biden for years.
We know she's a liar of the highest level.
She lied about the most important thing in the country, that her boss couldn't operate.
And, you know, you could go further.
But to imagine that one of the candidates has family values the way you'd like them to be?
Is remarkably dumb.
And then, of course, there's the January 6th insurrection hoax.
And, you know, the the the hoax that the elections can be known to be unrigged.
The elections might be unrigged.
But there's not a way to know it.
So it's a hoax that anybody can know the election was any election was exactly what it should have been.
And I do realize that 100% of Democrats think that's crazy because they haven't looked into it.
You wouldn't have to look into it too long to figure out that nobody can tell who got voted.
It's intentional.
Because all you have to know is that making it so that everybody does know is easy to do.
You just use paper and have, you know, somebody check other people's work.
That's it.
So given that we have a system that's obviously designed to be the opposite of auditable, I think that has to mean something.
And of course, climate change we can disagree about, but I think at this point it's increasingly obvious that the projections have been BS.
So here's an example of a woman, Emily A.
On X, she says, she explains why she's voting for her.
She says, sweetie, responding to somebody else, I'm not voting for her, meaning Harris, because she's a woman.
I'm voting for her because she wants me to have as many rights as a man.
What?
Kamala Harris wants her to have as many rights as a man.
As Zuby pointed out on X, Could you maybe list those rights you think you don't have?
What exactly right does a man have in America that a woman doesn't?
Can you think of one?
Who even is still locked in that belief?
It's like she missed the last hundred years or something.
Oh well.
And then one of my mysteries is a billionaire Tech venture capitalist guy named Vinod Khosla.
K-H-O-S-L-A.
Khosla?
I hope that's the right pronunciation.
But he's got his own little list here of why all the not-MAGA folks should come together for Kamala Harris to beat Trump.
It's to save our democracy, he puts that first.
Now, do you think that a billionaire venture capitalist Who's famous for making smart decisions.
Do you think he believes that there's really democracy is at risk from Trump?
Is that an actual opinion that a smart person in the United States who watches the news could have?
So I'm actually puzzled by his reaction, right?
He says reject bad values.
What are the bad values?
Make America Successful?
Does he really think that only one of the candidates has told some lies?
Does he think that only one of the candidates has had an interesting sexual past?
Who does he think has the good values?
Which one was hiding the fact that Biden was a basket case for a year?
And then of course he brings up the Project 2025, and I say to myself, does he not know that's fake news?
Because he might not.
But wouldn't that be embarrassing?
If he didn't know that was fake news by now?
And then he says, the dictatorship that Trump loves.
Okay, I thought everybody knew that he made a joke about being dictator for a day.
There's not the slightest chance that he has dictatorial ambitions in America, like that could happen.
There's not the slightest chance of that.
Does he really believe that stuff?
Anyway, so my mystery is this.
Does he have his own personal reasons which are strong, or at least they're personal, and then he's just making up a bunch of BS because he thinks that the people he's talking to are idiots?
Or does he really believe these things?
Is it possible that you could be this successful in business and this brainwashed at the same time?
It seems unlikely, but I guess it's not impossible.
So some of these billionaires are really mysteries, because the smartest people have all largely ended up on the same side at this point, you know, pro-Trump, but the The billionaires who still resist, their reasons for resisting are getting increasingly absurd.
They're not even based on any observable anything.
They're purely imaginary structures in their head that got put there by the media.
But do the billionaires really get that easily hypnotized?
Or is it just in their advantage, for some reason that maybe we don't know, that they have to act that way?
It's kind of fascinating to me just trying to figure out what's up with V-Nod, if he's uninformed or just playing some kind of a game.
Anyway.
And he calls some of the MAGA people assholes, and he says the test for whether they're MAGA assholes is whether they believe in election denialism.
Now, anybody who uses the term denialism is an asshole.
You're either just an asshole or you're a stupid asshole.
Or you're a stupid and uninformed asshole.
Because like I said, he doesn't have any way to know what election results were.
Neither do any of us.
We don't live in a system that could make you feel comfortable in the outcome.
And he's probably not been aware of any of the challenges and problems and obvious things that people have found with the system.
So, I don't know.
It's quite a mystery to me.
Anyway, so now I told you the Secret Service got Trump to stop his rallies.
So let's look at their, let's look at their record.
So they're meaning the Democrats.
So far, the Democrats have defamed Trump with a whole range of hoaxes, from the Russia collusion to the, you know, fine people hoax, drinking bleach hoax, now the Project 2025 hoax.
So they're running hoax after hoax.
They impeached him twice on BS.
May or may not have rigged an election.
There's no court proof of that, but we live in the real world, so... And certainly they made some legal changes which guaranteed they would win because of the pandemic.
They've tried to break him financially, largely using lawfare, unrestricted lawfare, and now there's been an assassination attempt which Given the timing of it and other factors, makes us think that maybe the Democrats were directly or indirectly in on it.
And now they just told him he can't do the number one thing that works for him, which is have rallies.
If you're not picking up the pattern yet, and of course, the reason they can do all that is that they painted him as Hitler in the media.
And once you've brainwashed the people into thinking that you're stopping Hitler, There's no limit to what people will be willing to do.
We're watching it in real time.
They are willing to do anything because they've been actually hypnotized into thinking that Trump is Hillary.
So, anyway, so now they're going after J.D.
Vance, of course, because he's the VP pick, and he's got some things to defend from past statements.
I guess he made a case on Fox News, before he was nominated, I don't know how long ago, that people like AOC and Harrison Buttigieg didn't have their own kids, and they were making decisions, and people who don't have that much skin in the game, have kids, won't make the same decisions.
So he suggested that if you're not a family person, you would not have the right perspective and buy-in to be a politician.
Now, I disagree with that, but it's a fair argument.
It's a fair argument.
If nobody had a family, then I'd be worried.
But most of Congress will be like it always has, people with families.
There'll be plenty of people to, you know, carry that argument forward.
But anyway, I think I think if Republicans could at least acknowledge that the family unit isn't the only way to solve problems, they might come out ahead.
But I don't think that's going to happen.
But my favorite J.D.
Vance story is that a hoaxer on X posted a hoax that said there was a specific passage in J.D.
Vance's book In which he confessed, and again, this didn't happen, and it's not in the book.
This is a really good hoax.
But the hoax was that there's a certain page, which nobody's going to read, unless they've already read the book, that suggested that he once, as a youth, turned a, what would you call it, one of those elastic gloves inside out, and poked it into a crack in a couch cushion and had sex with it.
So, if you've noticed online all of the hilarious memes about sexy looking couches and JD Vance looking at them with lust, it took me a while to figure out what that was all about.
And I actually believed the hoax for a while.
I hadn't seen the original hoax, but I thought, oh my goodness, Did that Hillbilly Elegy book, you know, talk about some private masturbatory thing?
And I thought, you know, maybe he admitted something that happened when he was 12 years old, and now they're making fun of it.
But apparently he never said it, and in the real world that never happened.
But it's really funny.
I can't let go of the fact that whoever came up with this hoax, nicely done.
Nicely done.
I don't think it'll change who anybody votes for, but this is a really funny hoax.
If you're going to do a hoax, and it's this funny, and it gets this much traffic, I just got to give it up for you.
That's a hell of a good hoax.
We can at least appreciate the intelligence that went into doing that.
It was really clever.
I have to just say, I was so impressed.
Well, there's a new study that says if you want to live a long life, you got to prioritize your friends, which of course, you know, loneliness will kill you.
And in other news, now there's a downloadable GPT-4 class AI model that you can download on your own device.
It's Lama.
And that's the Zuckerberg meta version of AI that's going to be sort of available.
I guess it's a more open one.
So now you could have your own full, monstrous AI.
You can't put it on your computer, your regular computer.
That wouldn't have enough power.
But if you had a server, you know, a very serious, beefy server, as they say, you could run your own AI locally.
So that's kind of exciting.
All right.
And here's two studies that maybe sound too nerdy, but could make a big difference in the world.
So researchers have figured out how to use 3D printers to make solar steam generators for desalinization.
And what I mean by that is that if you want to use the sun to evaporate, let's say, water that has too much salt in it, the evaporation will be salt free.
You know, the salt will stay in the ground.
And then you can use that evaporation.
But to use that technique, you needed the water to evaporate on a surface.
But the amount of surface space that your device had would limit how much you could evaporate.
And so they use 3D printing to make surfaces that don't take up much space, but have way more surface space.
In other words, they're spiky.
So there's all kinds of surface, even though it might be one square foot, it'd be like, you know, maybe 16 square feet of surface.
I'm just making that up, but that's the idea.
And so that one little change apparently brings seawater desalinization into a whole different level of potential economics, which is a big deal.
The availability of water, it's hard to imagine anything bigger than that.
At the same time, there's another study that also uses a physical substance and a little bitty motor to make water from the air the same way.
So instead of evaporating it from seawater, there's another one that can just suck water out of the air, even in the driest places.
So you could be sitting in the desert, turn on your little tabletop device, and you'd have a glass of water.
It just sucks it out of the air.
So these are, I think, both in the category of fundamentally could change a whole lot about the world.
You know, if you could farm anywhere without the need for water, you know, there's just all kinds of ways this could change everything.
So, ladies and gentlemen, Has there been any news since I started?
Did anything happen?
We didn't talk about Cheadle resigning, but the director of the Secret Service is resigning, right?
Or already has?
Now, does it seem to you that the obvious thing that's going to happen with this investigation about the assassination is that once Cheadle is gone, everything else you'd want to find out about it is going to turn into, well, it's an ongoing investigation?
And the investigation will be ongoing for five years, and then they'll conclude with something ridiculous.
And the news will just shrug, because Trump will be out of office, everybody lost interest, and it's a confusing story, and they'll make some claims that are hard to check, and then we'll all say, well, all right, I guess they looked into it.
Now, did I say that Benny, Benny, is it Thompson or Johnson?
I can't remember.
The same guy who was the head of the impeachment of Trump, January 6th committee.
He might be in charge of getting to the bottom of what happened with the assassination attempt.
Which would be just spitting in the face of every Republican.
It's like, we're not going to really even pretend we're trying to get to the real bottom of this, but we'll put somebody in charge who hates Trump.
How do you like that?
All right, it's Johnson.
Somebody says Thompson and somebody says Johnson.
Well, apparently we disagree what his last name is.
Um What's up with gold bar bob Well, I guess Gold Bar Bob is retired, right?
Or he quit.
So that makes sense.
Now, is today the day that Biden is supposed to speak?
Are we going to hear... Today's the day, right?
Biden should be speaking later.
All right.
Well, we'll all be watching for that.
It's Thompson, Benny Thompson.
Tonight at, what time is he speaking?
At 8 p.m.
I assume the 8 p.m.
is Eastern Time.
So in the Man Cave tonight, for subscribers, I'll probably be watching that with you.
What's tonight, Wednesday?
Yeah, probably.
So I'll watch that with you.
All right.
Bob's still a senator until August 20th.
Okay, Bob Menendez.
He'll resign in September.
I'm seeing in the comments.
Cheadle was part of the team that evacuated Cheney in 9-11.
Well, that's just why she got promoted.
I mean, she has experience.
Yeah, I don't think that tells us anything.
Talk about the Yellowstone eruption.
How many of you saw the video, went viral, of some tourists in Yellowstone and there was a, I guess it was a geyser?
That erupted in a more spectacular fashion than it normally erupts.
And it looked like basically a portal from hell had been opened.
That was pretty scary looking.
All right.
So I think that's about all that's happening.
So I'm going to end it here.
I'm going to say thanks for joining for YouTube and Rumble and the X people.
I'm going to talk to the Locals people privately, my beloved subscribers.
Maybe even have an extra sip of coffee with them.
And we'll see you tomorrow morning, same place, same time.
Don't miss it!
Oh, one more thing.
If you didn't notice the Dilbert Reborn comic, which you can only see if you subscribe here on X or if you subscribe to Locals, Dilbert's company has to do a congressional hearing because their software brought down the internet.
So, they have to send somebody to the congressional hearing and they need to pick somebody who doesn't know anything about the topic.
So that when Congress asks them questions, they can act like they don't know anything, and Congress will just have nothing.
So that's what's coming up in the Dilbert Reborn comic, and I'm going to say bye to everybody else except Locals!
